Jump to content

Talk:Special Relationship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Good article, but resembles personal journalism

Hmm...interesting and hugely important article; very well written. The nature and political importance of the US-UK 'Special Relationship', especially in the context of recent World events, is certainly worthy of substantial and accurate coverage in Wiki. However, I've thought a bit about this and have concluded that this particular treatment often resembles a piece of personal journalism rather than an encylopedia entry. No references are provided in support of subjective statements. I've removed some of the more egregious assertions, but a radical re-think is needed IMHO to separate fact from subjective/personal commentary.

AntsWiki 02:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well obviously I don't entirely agree with you since I wrote a fair percentage of this article (all compliments, however, gratefully accepted, ta). The stuff about publicity seemed more appropriate at the start of the war but really the British contingent in Iraq is so small relative to the American deployment that it does seem like something of a beard, which is one of the reasons so many people in Britain are against it. It sometimes feels like our troops are in harm's way in Iraq just so the president can go on television and talk about the coalition of the willing.
That aside (oops, there I go again) if you would care to cite some more examples of my subjectivity I'd be delighted fix them. Or probably to argue about it a bit more and then fix them. But that's half the fun. Or indeed to suggest better ways of organising the page or whatever. I'm very keen for this article to be as good as it can be. I was quite miffed (though also rather busy) when it was cited for cleanup and I want to improve it.
--Mr impossible 12:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article is a lot better than when I last looked. Thanks!
The subject matter is difficult and contentious and so much more to add.
I heard an interesting BBC Radio 4 programme recently which described Nuclear Weapons Development. It seems that the Brits conned/hoodwinked the USA into believing that the UK had developed a thermo-nuclear device. But what they did was explode the largest A-bomb ever. The USA thought it was an H-Bomb and told the Brits the secrets.
--Dumbo1 02:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hallo! All I have time to do at the moment is to draw attention to the Wiki ethos of NPOV - an injunction of which I was unaware till only the other day. It makes perfect sense in a specific Wiki context and so I was glad to discover it because it lends weight to my earlier objections apropos skewed treatment. Certainly, your article is worthy of much more time on the part of people like me who would like to collaborate with you. For a start, unattributed statements in the article such as the now deleted: "That the United States does sometimes need Britain - albeit principally for the purposes of publicity..." is a purely subjective, possibly personal (even offensive) opinion. Similarly, "The relationship is supposedly based on cultural and historical ties..." Again: "Britain will continue to cleave to US policy even to the detriment of its own short term political interests in order to reinforce this central tenet of British foreign policy in the longer term". If you are quoting a newspaper or commentator, a citation should be produced, otherwise what you state is merely a POV, which might be OK if you happen to be a known expert, with credentials, but for all the reader knows (and remember, Wikipedia is supposed to provide FACTS) you could be a London taxi driver! Haha! Maybe a solution would be to insert quotations and authorities, from ALL points of view in order to provide balance, to leave the reader to make their own minds up, instead of steering them towards a particular conclusion? Am I making any sense?

I'll be back :)

AntsWiki 00:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Might I add my own suggestion to improve the article? A few salient points on economic flow, bi-lateral treaties and various other geo-political-economic observations (shared materiel, shared operational jurisdictions etc.) might shed some objective light on the realpolitiks. Obviously I'm couching my suggestion in vague terms but I'll root around for the sort of facts I believe will provide hard data for the article. I think the article is a good one, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.177.225 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Special relationship vs. Anglo-American relations

There is a need for this page, but there is also a need for a page on Anglo-American relations. Some of what is in this page should be moved over. The "Special Relationship" is a political and media phenomena which is referred to in Britain. There is also the real more economic, social, military and cultural links that I would have thought belonged in Anglo-American relations.

--Dumbo1 22:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and so I started the separate page Anglo-American relations a couple months ago. Some of the content in this article should be moved there. The "special relationship" is not synonymous with Anglo-American relations. The "special relationship" is that part of Anglo-American relations which is cordial and warm; the term "special relationship" emphasizes the positive aspects of relations between the two countries. —Lowellian (talk) 15:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The term "Special relationship", in international affairs, pretty much always means the Anglo-American relationship. On the same vein, however, I'm unsure the US relationship w/ Israel can be put on nearly the same level; That relationship has always been far, far, far more distant, cold, and stand-offiish. --Penta 1 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
Also agree with you that "special relationship" is almost invariably used to describe the Anglo-American relationship. I'm confused by your comment's relevance to the earlier comments and why it's under this heading. The comments above do not make the claim that the "special relationship" is used to describe the Israeli-US relationship. The point that I was trying to make, and that I think Dumbo1 was also trying to make, is that "special relationship" describes one aspect—the positive, friendly one—of Anglo-American relations, and that some of the information in this article is more appropriate for the Anglo-American relations article. —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 23:16 (UTC)
This is purely political. If anyone thinks America and Britain have the closest relationship in the world, they must be mad. England has a closer relationship even with Australia! and America with Canada. America and Britain fear each other, not love each other. Wallie 12:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well it is an article about diplomatic relations so it is going to be political. I think the point , as described above, is that this is a term used by diplomats from both countries. Whether it is the "closest relationship in the world" is fairly irrelevant as it is useful for both countries to describe their relationship thus. I don't know that they fear each other either, I think the relationship is probably better defined as complete incomprehension of the other's motives. On a slightly different note, please don't use England interchangeably with Britain as you'll irk a lot of Scots, Welsh and N. Irish that way! Leithp 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Special relationship" is a term which has only been applied to Anglo-American relations since World War II, reflecting the extremely close military and intelligence ties between the two countries, so there is a distinction. In some ways, this relationship has been extended to the other former Dominions (Canada, New Zealand, Australia). RayAYang (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral sentence?

What's with this:

"Britain will continue to cleave to US policy even to the detriment of its own short term political interests in order to reinforce this central tenet of British foreign policy in the longer term."

Whoever wrote that may be correct, but that certainly seems like an opinion, rather than a fact. Is that a proper sentence for this article?

I'm quite new to this editing articles thing, so I figured I should ask.

-- Orporg

It is an opinion expressed as a fact, and not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy; however, it may be rewritten with a citation, as in "so-and-so makes such-and-such a claim". Feel free to make the change yourself; Wikipedia is a cooperative process! —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

UK or C'wealth?

(It can be very confusing to rename a section as old as the former section that i am turning into a subsection of this one. Or to leave it addressable only by so vague a title as "?". Hence both titles will work, via use of this conversion-to-subsection.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

?

What is it exactly - the relationship between the US and UK, or the relationship between the US and British Commonwealth countries. US/Canada and US/Australia have been described as "special relationship"s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2005

Since the states is unpopular, no-one wants to admit being very close allies with them (At least not often), it's bad for public relations. So generally leaders will use terms that mean the same thing, but sound slightly better. The English-speaking nations seem to prefer the term 'Special Relationship". It's not really a Commonwealth thing, just that most of the English-Speaking nations close to the US happen to be Commonwealth, thus the illusion. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Warm personal relations"

The bottom Bush / Blair bit says:

"Warm personal relations aparrently followed".

Well, they did, but this phrasing has a nudge and a wink to it. The Bill Clinton use of the word 'relations' is clearly brought to mind. There is a "conspiracy" theory that there is a full blown homosexual relationship between the two. Should this document allude quite so directly to this?

Glaring omission

It seems odd that there is no mention of the blair/clinton relationship. Not only are the two often said (rightly or not) to have enjoyed a genuine friendship, but they had obvious common ground in terms of their approach to both the substance and presentation of 'third-way' centre-left politics. Blair learnt many lessons from the 1994 campaign, and clinton was openly and actively supportive of labour in the run-up to Blair's 1997 victory.

I am unsure why a link to a band that happens to share the name of this page is on it - should it really be there? I must confess to never having heard of the band, but that is hardly a case for it not being otherwise notable. It's out of place in what is essentially a politcal page. If no objections, I'll remove that link.LeeG 02:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Acch. Just noticed the bit in in the intro, have reverted page to previous edit to remove it.LeeG 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) The first link is dead. I'm a new user, don't know what to do. Remove? John13mcdonald (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Political cartoon

This political 'cartoon' is in the current issue of Private Eye, and I think demonstrates a sceptical view of the "special relationship" that is common among the British public. Might it be fair use to use it in this article, or could we perhaps ask for permission from Private Eye? Robin Johnson (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have to work very hard on fair use rationale on that one. Also, being from Private Eye, is it supposed to be funny? It's not. Mark83 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

UK and France/Germany?!

As a UK resident I've never before considered my country as having a special relationship with Germany and France. In fact very often the complete opposite. In fact throughout the 80's and 90's the UK's relationship with those nations was anything *but* special - we vetoed dozens of EU laws and bills, opposed stacks of Franco-German initiatives, and remain one of the most Euro-skeptic nations in the EU. The UK government's relationship with the US government far outweighs any pro-Franco-German considerations. I think that line should thus be scrapped.Iamlondon 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments, but which line are you refering to?
Xdamrtalk 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition removed

"The Uk is a key ally of the US because of its military and economic strengths,i t currently spends more per head on the military than any other country, the 2nd highest spending with the 28th highest number of soldiers. This further shows the UK's focus on quality not quantity, however a blair speech on the 12th jan 2007 revealed an increase in expenditure which will obviously bring the two countries closer and closer together.[1][2]"

Explanation

  • "The Uk is a key ally of the US because of its military and economic strengths" - repitition
  • "it currently spends more per head on the military than any other country, the 2nd highest spending with the 28th highest number of soldiers. " - My back of an envelope calculations say US per capita defence spending is 1.56 billion per million citizens. UK is 1.06 billion.
  • "This further shows the UK's focus on quality not quantity, however a blair speech on the 12th jan 2007 revealed an increase in expenditure which will obviously bring the two countries closer and closer together" - Editorialising Mark83 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


"In July 2006, the economy of the United Kingdom was the fifth largest national economy in the world (measured by GDP). The economy of the United States was the largest national economy in the world. The US was the biggest single investor in the UK, and vice-versa (figures for 2004). This economic strength, together with Britain's influence as one of the "big three" in the European Union, has altered the relative US/UK balance somewhat. On the other hand, British commentators have implied that British support of American policy is rarely reciprocated when it is not directly in America's best interests, leaving Britain diplomatically isolated - for example during the Suez Crisis and at the July 2005 G8 summit under the Presidency of the UK, where Prime Minister Tony Blair signally failed to persuade President George W. Bush to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol - the US citing "harm to the United States' economy" as their principal objection." I have taken this out because the second point is already dealt with more briefly later in the article, and the first point seems obscure and whatever it means is probably not in the right place (if it's about the extent of trade links as part of the special relationship then this probably needs a full subsection, while if it's about the balance of economic power between the two countries changing then that needs to be better explained and probably put later on too). Deipnosophista (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did the Special Relationship start before this?

In discussion with colleagues recently, it was mentioned that the 'Special Relationship' could possibly be traced to before Churchill's comments to the Jay Treaty which led to the Quasi-War where the Royal Navy and the United States Navy are shown to have helped each other out somewhat, sharing a system of signals by which to recognize each other's warships at sea. Also I have been told that the term Special Relationship, referring to US-UK relations can found on the tour of USS_Constitution in Boston. I am no historian - but are these claims founded at all? Just interested, that's all... --Chiefmoamba 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, but seeing as the US and UK went to war with one another after the period you're discussion (1790s) and that the British in fact burned Washington, I'd say the "Special Relationship" started later. Once could argue that a stillborn SR was stirring during the Federalist period, however.

--

I think you may be thinking of the "Most Favored Nation" status that the US enjoyed with the British Empire following the American Revolution and the original falling-out with France. As for the War of 1812, the British did burn Washington but only after American forces burned York (it was retaliatory, not an original affront to the US). The somewhat close relationship between the two nations, it would seem, picked up where it left off in the decades following the war, fostered perhapse by Britain's lingering paternalistic view of itself relative the US. There may be some merit in considering a much older origin to the so-called "special relationship" in cultural, political and economic veins for the purposes of this article. --JTM

Special Relationship: a wounded beast?

The author of the page says: "This interweaving of the combined US and UK military forces (as well as shared intelligence detailed below) is an indication that the 'special relationship' is likely to continue for some time."

With a certain qualification, I disagree.

In the past, and beginning with the End of Empire following the Suez fiasco, Britain realized it could not 'go it alone' without the aid of the US. Since then, the UK has sought a partnership to influence US policy decisions. In effect, Britain became the London Bridge between Europe and the US. Kendall Myers was correct when he said, "London Bridge is falling down."

While I believe that the special relationship is likely to continue, perhaps it's best to add that it probably won't continue as it has in the past. For all of his successes, most notably peace in Northern Ireland, Blair's legacy will be mixed with a negative hue given the perception that he was a 'poodle' to the Bush administration. Future UK leaders will be loath to have the same shadow fall over them. I think what is more likely is that the UK will cast its own foreign policy much the way France pursued a more independent foreign policy in the wake of Suez (pulling out of NATO and pursuing nuclear weapons). I think historical, cultural ties will be of importance between the US and the UK, but to a lesser degree.

Suez and Iraq, then, will be bookends of the Special Relationship: Suez was the end of the beginning and Iraq is the beginning of the end.

I think it is up to American leaders to see the value in having a bridge to Europe, especially how that US and European policy (human rights, foreign policy, defense, etc.) are so very different. The Special Relationship may not be over but it is surely a wounded beast.

-- SAISer

That's very interesting. However this space is for discussing changes to the article and as is this information is not admissable. You would need at least one respected author etc. to quote for such a bold statement. Mark83 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, don't you think it's a little strange that the passage "Although the United States maintains a very close economic and military relationship with Canada (see NAFTA and NORAD), as well as with other countries such as Mexico, Japan, Israel and Australia, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapon technology sharing and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and UK is unparalleled." comes from a published article with a title that implies that the "special relationship" is weakening in the 21st century? No offense to the wikipedia article writer, but that's cherry-picking quotations since the thesis of the cited article isn't addressed. Let me put it this way: you can't cite that there is a close relationship, but ignore the writer's point that the relationship is weakening and then later say in your own entry that the relationship is going to continue for some time. So you see, it isn't the user SAISer (or whoever started this discussion) who needs to produce evidence to back-up his assertion (resource #1 already agrees with his thesis it would seem), it is the person who is asserting that the close relationship is likely to continue. 137.238.172.73 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.238.172.73 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I don't follow your logic. The quotation is accurate - it doesn't matter what the article goes on to say, it says that the US/UK relationship in those areas is unparalled. That is a fact. I don't agree that that's "cherry picking" the article - the author would appear scitsoprenic if he argued the US/UK relations was unparalleled and then went on to say it wasn't! As for the thesis of the article - it goes on to talk about the defence relationship and says that US/UK capabilites are diverging (technology gaps etc) and that the UK would be better off abandoning its nuclear detterent and ploughing the huge sums saved back into conventional forces to make it a better ally of the US. However here's the central point of my argument - the article says US/UK relationship in those areas is unparalled and backs that assertion up very well in my opinion. As for the rest of the article not being represented - that is neither Wikipedia's duty nor is it appopriate - the rest of the article is an argument (a very sensible one in my opinion) but still just an argument. Further the sentence in question (that uses the citation) does not argue the relationship is likely to continue, hence there is no contradiction as you suggest. Mark83 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
We must not be on the same page here. First of all, I never doubted the accuracy of the quotion, and yes -- it most certainly does matter what the article "goes on to say" (read: what the conclusion of the article is). No offense or anything, but its naive and shows glib to suggest otherwise. I don't think you're seeing the glaring inconsistency that I'm addressing in regards to so-called cherry picking. Towards the end of the History and Overview section, the article author writes that, "This interweaving of the combined US and UK military forces (as well as shared intelligence detailed below) is an indication that the 'special relationship' is likely to continue for some time." How can you not see a problem with this when citation #1's abstract states (and I directly quote) that, "The paper concludes that changing US strategic priorities and further reductions in Britain's military capabilities are likely to erode the perceived value of the Anglo-American defence partnership on both sides of the Atlantic. " I guess you didn't read the "history and overview section" since you didn't see the contradiction...? Do you understand now? It isn't a matter of personal logic, its a matter of simple, clean-cut reality.
If you write an essay in a literature class saying: "David Bevington says that, 'Shakespeare was the greatest English writer', and this means that writing for theater is the highest art" and your works cited page takes the Bevington quote from an article entitled "Shakespeare was an absolute wonder in an otherwise drab, vulgar Elizabethan theatre crowd", you are definately not properly conducting your research.
So again, I ask, why is it permissible for the statement that the special relationship is likely to continue for some time without any sort of citation despite the fact that citation source #1 completely (and academically) debunks that glib notion? 137.238.172.73 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. My argument has been that it is perfectly acceptable to say "the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapon technology sharing and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and UK is unparalleled.[1]" and use James Wither's article. My point being that even though he does conclude that the relationship is in danger in the future, he is clearly making the point that the relationship was, is and will be in the near term, unparalleled. I did not realise (read: I missed your point) you had a problem with the history and overview section. Of course something like that should be cited. Having contradictory cited articles can be good - provides a wider spectrum of opinions. However having an uncited statement which is contradicted by another citation in the article is unacceptable. Sorry about my mistake which has forced you to take up more of your time than necessary! Mark83 10:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's okay -- I'm sorry too, I acted like a dick about it (I was up all night studying) 137.238.172.73 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry for! Like I said, missed your point (which was pretty clear). Mark83 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just added an apposite quote to the Present Status section from the present British Foreign Secretary to the effect that the relationship with the US is Britain's 'most important bilateral relationship'. PolScribe 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Visit By Queen

Perhaps someone should add a section on the recent visit to the U.S. by the Queen.

Gordon Brown

Should someone perhaps mention Gordon Brown under current status.

Public Opinion

I think the recent additions under Public Opinion are poor: both are far too long, and the IRA one refers to events in the 1980s when US policy was different (2001 had something to do with this, no doubt). I propose to shorten them considerably. Deipnosophista 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I have now done so Deipnosophista 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am totally new to this, but whoever contributed the following paragraph is obviously (a) a US citizen (b) a Bush supporter and (c) a moron. Please disregard whatever he or she says in the future. Majority opinion in the UK is that the USA in general, and George Bush in particular, are international pariahs, if not fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.200.224 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think this section of the article is to strongly biased towards the seemingly European viewpoint. To me it seems to be railing on the United States gov. and stating over and over again how the United States is oppressing the policies of the UK. It should be completely removed or an American viewpoint should be added with emphasis on the opinion part, so it doesn't seem like Americans are stepping all over smaller countries. I happen to know that not all people from the UK have such bad views about the US, and this should included somewhere in the article, maybe a more positive and unbiased article would better explain this sort of "special relationship" that the US hopes to maintain with the UK. Alevins5 --65.28.137.156 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the weasel words classification here is a misunderstanding and have removed it: all the statements in this section are sourced, and do not qualify for that description. I also disagree with Alevins5's views above: one of the most important issues about the so-called Special Relationship is that perceptions and descriptions of it are so different: to put it very crudely, as I see it the term is used widely by UK politicians to lay claim to influence over the US government and by the UK media following them, and little by US politicians and media (many of whom do not see a special relationship at all), while events which seem to undermine the claim to a special relationship have a strong impact on elements of UK public opinion since they seem to show that politicians' claims to its specialness are dishonest. It is not therefore POV to explain this: in fact it is the conflict between the points of view which is the main subject of the article. I therefore suggest that the dispute tag should also be removed. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article today and was surprised at the slant in this section. Although Deipnosophista explains appropriately that it is not POV to explain that UK public opinion has shifted, the section itself is not yet NPOV. Sourcing and including public opinion polls, especially those at the bottom of the article, is wholly appropriate and important. However, listing individual incidents is both arbitrary and unnecessarily weights the article. Further, the beginning of the section and many of those incidents listed are full of original research. While I agree that all of the facts are well-sourced, in many instances, the author of this section takes those facts and makes fairly strong conclusions about them that the sources themselves do not make. As Wikipedia NPOV guidelines state, this is original research as it is not letting the facts speak for themselves. As it is, I removed a few of the most obvious "original research" statements that had been unsourced. I also tagged the section for original research until I have additional time to evaluate each source individually see if they truly due make such conclusions. Please do not remove this tag. I promise that I am not one to simply tag and leave the article. I will be back to finish what I started. --Jdcaust (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Jdcaust. —MirlenTalk 12:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unparalleled?

"However, according to British author James Wither, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapon technology sharing and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and UK is unparalleled."

Unparalleled even by US-Israeli sharing? AThousandYoung 02:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American sharing goes way beyond that of US-Israel in almost every way. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a rhetorical statement from a singular source, a British author. Nevertheless, it is referenced as such and while it perhaps is inaccurate as a statement, it is indeed properly cited. Agruably the United States has much closer military relationships and intergration with numerous other allies, Israel, Australia, other NATO members such as Canada (NORAD / NATO / OAS), with a near intergrated miltary for example. Overall, the submission is now very good and the "creator" has seemed to tone down the subjectivity. What is most interesting to me is the debate. The term "special relationship" was properly defined (and gratefully clarified and added to the intro here) in Churhill's original context as a special relationship between Anglo nations. While the term has evolved in a fascinating way in the UK, it hasnt elsewhere. It seems generally important to the British national identity, while it is often taken out of context to refer to the bilateral relationship with the US, it is seldom referenced by non-British media.

Interesting submission though I think it should stay as is under the heading "Anglo American Relations - the Relationship between the UK and the US." Objectively, this is where it belongs as the term "special relationship" neither historically or presently describes a single bilateral relationship. As noted, itis primarly used by British nationals to define a particular world view which perhaps is no more (or less) unique than the bilateral relations between any two friendly countries. As it now stands, good work by the author. As for placement, it is now under the appropriate heading.

Move back to Special relationship?

"Special relationship" is a common term in the UK press, to the extent that it's not POV. The article seems to have been renamed unilaterally - unless there's a sensible discussion somewhere that I've missed, I think it should be moved back. Robin Johnson (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the term (as the article itself says, it dates back to Churchill) is a venerable one and the only sensible title for the article. I suspect that the person who renamed the article is American: that really only reinforces the point! Deipnosophista (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole point of the article is to discuss the nature of the 'special relationship' and unpack it as term: where it originated, whether or not it exists and what might be said to constitute it. Moving the content on makes absolutely no sense. I would fix it myself but I've no idea how. Could someone switch it back please? --Mr impossible (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some help from an administrator here, please? It looks as if the unilateral move to this title has no support, but it is not possible for a non-admin to move it back again. Deipnosophista (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American relations vs. Special relationship

If it's about Anlgo-American relations merge it there, if it's about the history of the phrase move it back to "Special relationship". In it's current title it doesn't seem to mean anything. Kevlar67 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should merge this article with UK-US Relations. Xinbenlv (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Canada's special realtionship

Plenty of media and academics also refer to Canada-US relations as "special" so it's not unique to Britain. Plus I think France and Germany's relationship with each other has been described as "special". Canada:

Here's another gem from the 1950s

Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, for example said that while "the special nature of our relationship to the United Kingdom and the United States complicates our responsibilities..." H.H. Herstien, L.J. Hughes, R.C. Kirbyson. Challenge & Survival: The History of Canada (Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall, 1970). p 411 Kevlar67 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Special relationship

I went ahead and made a new page at Special relationship because this was taking too damn long. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the info on the origin of the phrase abd Churchill's speech be moved there.Kevlar67 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bilateral/Multilateral

I'd like to suggest that the statement in the "History and overview" section of this article claiming that Winston Churchill was not referring to a bilateral "special relationship" in his 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech is incorrect, or at least misleading.

It would have been entirely natural for british imperialists of the day such as Churchill to refer to their home nation using phrases such as "the British Commonwealth and Empire", since in those days it was an empire and not just a small group of islands off the coast of mainland Europe as it is today. It is quite clear what Churchill actually meant by the phrase from the rest of the speech, such as in the sentence immediately following his first use of the term "special relationship" where he refers to "mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society". Later on he also refers to the possessions "of either country all over the world". He is indeed referring to a bilateral relationship between the British Empire and Commonwealth (as a single entity) and the US.

So while it is true that he does not explicitly refer to a US-UK relationship, I believe it is incorrect to claim that he was not referring to a bilateral relationship. He just wouldn't have singled out the "UK" in those days because his "country" consisted of more than just the UK.

Edfud (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This remark is evidently correct. Deipnosophista (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Criminal law

I removed the following paragraph:

In a number of cases value differences also appeared to have led to verdicts by U.S. courts that were regarded as miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom. One example was of an Aberdonian who after a "good night out" in a U.S. city became lost and knocked on a door to ask the way; the householder shot him dead through the door and was later acquitted of any crime.[citation needed] Another was of Chantal McCorkle, a Briton imprisoned for over 24 years in 1998[1] following minor involvement in a trading fraud.

The problems with this paragraph were:

  1. "a number of" are weasel words, which are discouraged. The two cases here are anecdotal only and even if both are true would not warrant mention in a Wikipedia article covering the relationship between 2 nations.
  2. The statement about the Aberdonian is completely uncited and has been marked as such since May 2008.
  3. The article on Chantal McCorkle does not support the conclusions given. The article does not claim that the charges were minor. The article does not cite differences in the US/UK legal system or belief system. The article does say some rights activists were unhappy with the sentence because she repaid the monies. That does not rise to the level of being noteworthy in this article on international relations.

Johntex\talk 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

I think the phrase "Special Relationship" when used in this specific sense is often capitalized, but not always. The text of the article uses lower case, but its title uses capitals. It should be consistent, and Wikipedia style is to prefer lower case, so I suggest retitling the article. --70.48.229.77 (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP stype is to use capitals for proper nouns, which this is, being the name of a specific relationship. Mauls (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hijacked

The bottom half of this article has definitely been hijacked by British snobs trying to make it appear than America has betrayed the special relationship. Maybe the Brits should look in the mirror to see who did the backstabbing. Betraying America and the commonwealth by loosing yourself in the EU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 02:46 & :47, 26 January 2009

I dont think so. You are free to add (as is wikipedias way) any information that would balance the section, but it is mostly based on fact. If you look at the US recently they have been rebuking their traditional allies. Even Israel seems to be losing out: America-and-Israel-the-end-of-a-special-relationship . As someone with military links, the statement hiliary Clintion said about the Falklands did allot of damage on this side of the Atlantic.

However your point on the EU is very well founded. But the vast majority of people in the UK do not want to be as involved as we are - or more involved in the EU and it is a travesty that the Labour government promised a referendum on the matter, but changed there mind any ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.141.103 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's Nothing Special About It

The term "special relationship" is exclusively used by the British and never referred to as by Americans.

I am sure that Britain has other "special relationships" with other countries besides the U.S. and I reflect as an American that the U.S. has "special relationships" with other countries besides Britain. It could even be validly argued that America shares a "special relationship" with Israel as well as Canada. Born and raised in the USA, I feel no connection to Britain whatsoever. I never have. Besides politics and close cooperation in military issues, I do not see anything "special" about this relationship at all.

Hence, the title of this page is favored towards a British point-of-view and negligently biased against an American point-of-view. It needs to be properly balanced to the extent of renaming this page "Anglo-American relations." --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stick it up your arse. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a quotation from Obama today that refutes that contention, parts of which might be added to the article: "Well, first of all, the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me; it's important to the American people. And it is sustained by a common language, a common culture. Our legal system is directly inherited from the English system. Our system of government reflects many of these same values. So -- and, by the way, that's also where my mother's side of my family came from. So I think this notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided. You know, Great Britain is one of our closest, strongest allies. And there is a link, a bond there that will not break. And I think that's true not only on the economic front, but also on issues of common security." Obama Meets With British Prime Minister Brown, Washington Post (March 3, 2009). Lachrie (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue still remains. The American press does not use the term "special relationship." The United States has other quote on quote "special relationships" with Israel and Canada.

Likewise, the President of the United States is not representative of the American people. Just last week he claimed that America invented the automobile in his State of the Union Address!

Politically, the United States and Great Britain have nothing in common. They have a Queen, we have a President. They have a Parliament, we have a Congress. They have a Constitutional monarchy, we have a Constitutional republic.

Culturally, we are world's apart. The United States is not a Eurocentric nation. It is too diverse to be considered as such. Is it really fair to say that immigrants living in the U.S. who came from Latin America and Asia uphold this "special relationship" which has no relevance to their lives?

You claim that we share a common language. Are you even aware that Almost 25% of the population of the United States speaks Spanish? And are you even aware that by the year 2050, Hispanics will be the majority race and whites will be the minority?

This entire Wiki page is biased towards the American point-of-view. The "special relationship" exists for the Brits and only for the Brits. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting Obama, who was elected by the American people, so presumably his view of the special relationship is more representative than your own private Anglophobia. It's easy to find references to the special relationship in the US media. Anyway, almost ten percent of the UK population was born overseas, mainly from Asia. The UK depends on world trade and is scarcely more Eurocentric than the US. If anything, its outlook is traditionally even more global. England was a republic before America. The UK is a crowned republic now. Since 1688 the monarch has been elected by Parliament. The US constitution and American laws were adapted from the British. The US president's powers as an elected monarch were modelled on the king's. There are only 35 million Spanish speakers in the United States, closer to ten percent of the population. By contrast, almost everybody speaks English. So you're wrong on all counts, and as Wikipedia is not your personal soap box, I think you should drop it. Lachrie (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You can go fuck yourself. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How very English! Lachrie (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with yoganate! It seems that some Brits somehow feel like they have to "own" some kind of connection with the US. In fact, weren't the US born in opposition to the British Empire? The constitution and the like are more of a French influence than anything else. In fact, for Americans, Europe was until not too long ago synonymous with Paris. France is a Republic, so are the US, France has a President, so does the US, France is presidentialist, so is the US, France has a constitution , so does the US (note that the UK doesn't have a written constitution).And the list goes on.
The US Constitution is written in English, the first language of the vast majority of Americans throughout history. The UK may not have a written constitution (very dangerous things anyway) but it has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 which inspired the creation of the American Bill of Rights 100 years later. For over 200 years what is now called the United States was part of the British Empire. So the political, cultural and historical link is very strong. Even if it wasn't, there is a very close and special relationship currently in existence. Hillary Clinton, February 2009: "It's often said that the United States and Great Britain have long enjoyed a special relationship. It is certainly special in my mind, and one that has proven very productive." Barack Obama, March 2009: "The relationship is not only special and strong but will only get stronger as time goes on." --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Philip Stevens. When you quote Clinton and Obama, don't forget they are politicians and so used to say whatever they want to say in order to please... Some could argue they say that because they need more british soldiers in Afghanistan quickly whereas the others countries involved over there already answered all "Whatever, dude!". Another thing that always amazes me is how often politicians from the both sides talk about this so-called special relationship... It's all like they sill need to convince us that it's for real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.237.188 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not the relationship is "special", the term has been used habitually by British statesman for many years and so is worthy of coverage as such. In fact it was probably only really special for a few years in the Second World War and was then not termed as such. The article ought to say a little more about Suez and Bush/Major. LymeRegis (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was  Done. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Special Relationship (United States-United Kingdom) → Special Relationship — In English, the phrase 'Special Relationship' is by far most frequently used to mean the US-UK partnership. I suggest putting a dab link at the top of this page for Special relationship (disambiguation). — Philip Stevens (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support In diplomacy the ambiguity is low and the current circumlocution is achingly pedantic for a cornerstone of international relations. All the other usages are either not notable or are merely imitative of the dominant one. Lachrie (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, if you look at pages that link to Special relationship, most if not all are about the British-American relationship. It is far from 'high ambiguity' how many times do people refer to the Special relationship in the media or elsewhere and mean Sino–Sudanese relations? Hera1187 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirects

Some of the redirects to this page recently seem to have been messed up by somebody. For instance, Special relationship, special relationship and Special Relationship (United States-United Kingdom) all now redirect to United Kingdom – United States relations instead of this page, which is obviously a mistake. Can this be fixed by somebody who knows how? Maybe the page should also be moved to Special relationship to comply with capitalisation norms. 59.101.146.142 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasal words and NPOV

This page is heavily biased, both in devoting nearly its entire length to problems in the so-called "special relationship" and in covering all of those from a purely UK point of view. The article also tends to take an anti-US tone. Presidents "snap" at prime ministers, prime ministers "thunder" at presidents. The US "invades" Grenada, "bombs" Iraq, and wages "war" in Vietnam while the UK "enforces" in Iraq, "defends" Malaya from "Communist insurgents", "amasses" a "task force" in the Falklands, and "conducts operations" in Suez.

Numerous euphemisms are used for the UK's wars, while Americans are portrayed as belligerent even in diplomacy (America and Germany "gang up" and "ambush" the UK and France). America infuriates the UK by giving a visa ("to agitate") to the leader of Sinn Fein, who is "listed as a terrorist" (no problem with me there), while the UK infuriates the US by its "compassionate grounds" release of the "convicted bomber" of Pan Am 103. The 1994 IRA cease fire was presented only in the context that Bill Clinton "claimed" that it "vindicated" inviting Adams to the White House. This is so one-sided it borders on satire. I think the UK has some legitimate complaints at some of its treatment by the US, but this article comes off as humorous in its tendentious wording. Geogene (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In spite of what I have posted immediately following, I agree whole-heartedly...Jersey John (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of this seems purely factual to me. E.g. the convicted bomber of Pan Am 103 was convicted for bombing, and was released on compassionate grounds (rather than, say, on appeal or other grounds). If the US didn't 'invade' Grenada, what did it do to it? If you drop bombs on a country, isn't that 'bombing' it? Wasn't the Vietnam War a 'war'? If however you think there are euphemisms used for corresponding actions by the UK, then by all means change them. (But, for example, I don't think you could accuse the UK of 'invading' the Falklands, as it was UK territory; and the 'task force' was the official term used universally at the time.) 93.96.236.8 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but...

I like this article, insofar as I don't see anything glaringly "wrong" with it. However I must say that simply by wording alone, let alone certain subtext and things implied, it seems as if no American editor has touched this article at all (or no editing by an American editor survives...?). That seems a little odd to me about an article that is of equal import to both sides of the pond. Jersey John (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that no American editors cared enough to touch this article, until now. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it, though? Some people in a position to know believe the Special Relationship is in fact a figment of the UK's imagination that is hardly ever referred to in the US (except when trotted out by the US President of the day when the Prime Minister comes to visit). I've added a recentish quote from Michael Heseltine to this effect. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What?! Please have the heart to let the British keep up the appearances. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Barf...

This article serious tests my gag reflex, with the one-sided British fawning, blushing, obsequiousness, etc. It's hard to believe that this is the "special relationship" as opposed to the "special" relationship, with latter used in "John has a special relationship with Britannia, the neighborhood prostitute."

Barf... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster2010 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mytbuster2010, but you seem to be seriously pov-pushing. If you want to make extensive changes which you must know are going to be contentious it's probably a good idea to discuss them on the talk page first. 61.68.168.121 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, unilaterally undoing dozens of previous edits without discussing it would seem the wrong way of going about it. My disapproval of the article is not so much that it can be viewed as fawning but its extensive use of official PR releases which are usually not taken too seriously. Browsing through wiki articles on various other bilateral relations, you will find that these diplomatic press releases are not widely cited, or if cited at all. What I am saying is that this article, as it stood prior to my edits, lacked the usual third-party, objective sources that articles of this type are normally expected to have. To remedy this, I have added just these sources, while assiduously avoiding PR releases from the Foggy Bottom or 10 Downing. I think I am being quite reasonable here. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Mytbuster2010. The number of your incremental edits makes no difference. You weren't just pruning a few press releases, you were flooding the article with your own tendentious commentary, turning it into an argumentative essay, polemical rather than encyclopedic in tone. WP:SOAP 61.68.168.121 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid your declaring that my edits are POV-pushing does not make them so. If you had cared to examine my edits, you would have found out that I barely touched the press releases. My edits were, in their overwhelming majority, composed of material from respected sources, which include but are not limited to the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the BBC, various former diplomats, commentators from both sides of the Atlantic, esteemed political scientists, historians specializing in the trans-Atlantic relations, testimonies before the Chilcot Inquiry, and frank assessment of former Prime Ministers in their memoirs. In fact, I have assiduously avoided any POV-pushing by my fastidious citations, direct quotes, and paraphrasing. Frankly, I find your wholesale rejection of ALL my edits bizarre, not unlike someone cavalierly denying the fact that earth revolves around the sun, despite being faced with centuries-worth of scientific evidence. If I may offer a suggestion: list your objections and make cogent arguments for why my edits were objectionable as opposed to making what amounts to empty declarations on my perceived lack of objectivity. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You having a laugh? First you vandalized the page and now you're cherrypicking factoids to turn it into some ridiculous anti-Brit rant. If you can't be objective why bother? Take it to arbitration. 122.105.208.45 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to your insinuation that I am anti-British. I am NOT. My edits are in no way anti-anyone or anti-anything. The views expressed in my edits are those of scholars, diplomats, pundits, commentators, prime ministers, prominent government officials, and historians, all of whom expressed their opinions through credible venues or had those opinions recorded by credible sources, which again include but are not limited to the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the BBC, the Time Magazine, CBS, etc. If you regard my edits are anti-British, then perhaps you should vent your outrage at those who uttered the opinions which I had so faithfully furnished in my edits.Mythbuster2010 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Monkey around. But if you haven't been reverted before, I'll just revert you again tomorrow, until you stop wrecking wiki, or take it to arbitration. 122.105.208.45 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you don't understand what vandalism is, and I quote Wikipedia policy here, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." I have done precise none of the above. Please don't accuse me of "cherrypicking" Wikipedia policies, see them for yourself: www.wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. Seeing that you don't even have a proper user account on wikipedia, I suggest that you sign up and read the user policies. As for the arbitration, since you are not a user, I hesitate to have your IP range blocked, since you could be at a public place, and the block might inconvenience those who share the same IP as you. But if you insist on being inconsiderate, I'd be obliged. As for the accusation of my cherry-picking, I have done no such thing. Quite the contrary, I have considerably expanded the pool of relevant sources and opinions, so much so that this article now includes the VIEWS OF THE AMERICANS. You've heard of the Americans, right? You know, they are the other party in the special relationship, which by definition must include at least two parties for it to qualify as a relationship. No? Again, I must appeal to you, in accordance with Wikipedia policies, to list your specific objections so that we may have a civilized discussion to settle on edits agreeable to both of us. Now, your obstinate refusal to do so leads me to believe that you are either a teenager who takes every official 10 Downing press release for the truth and the whole truth, or more likely, a British expat retiree in his/her 70s' living in Australia who still holds every Churchillian word to be the truth and the whole truth. So which is it?Mythbuster2010 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You claim: "I strongly object to your insinuation that I am anti-British. I am NOT. My edits are in no way anti-anyone or anti-anything. The views expressed in my edits are those of scholars..." You mean like this? [3] This is called vandalism. Your latest efforts reflect this bias and are the work of a POV warrior: poorly-written, poorly-sourced (your references are web links pointing to journalists and YouTube videos) nonsense which has no place here. Lachrie (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
They are not vandalism. For "unrequitted love", see [4] and [5]. As for "poodle", I quote ""The perception that the British government was a subservient 'poodle' to the U.S. administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas," the report said. "This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the U.K.", which can found here [6]. It may have been liberal to list these terms, but they are quite usually associated with the special relationship, are they not? Now, what links have I provided that you object? Was it the ones from the Guardian or the Times? Or the Washington Post? I know, all garbage tabloids. About that youtube video, it was QUESTION TIME on BBC, which I did not actually provide. It was the courtesy of another contributor. Again, if you object to my edits, you should at least LIST A FEW OF THE SPECIFIC POINTS you find objectionable. I have NOT seen you done that.Mythbuster2010 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem begins with your determination to argue a POV. You are hostile to the concept discussed in the article, and you are trying to force the reader to agree with you by suppressing positive material and replacing it with negative material. It is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and your editorializing is unacceptable. The views of both supporters and detractors must be fairly represented to preserve authorial neutrality. Lachrie (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So you have no specific examples with which to back up your accusation? Then am I to assume that your failure to list and discuss them is proof that the integrity of my edits is beyond reproach? Come on, give me something specific to work with here. It shouldn't be that difficult if there is cogent reasoning behind your accusation. By providing edits that shed light onto how the Americans regard this special relationship, I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. You see, this article, prior to my edits, was regarded as incomplete in its representation, and in fact, the tag on top the article explicitly states, "the examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." I agree with the assessment, and I did something to remedy the shortcoming, which was very simply that the old version was based mostly on British sources. As I have pointed out before, this article is about a relationship, which by definition is composed of a minimum of two parties, and the old version covered mostly the perspectives of one, those of the British, and was heavily reliant on diplomatic press releases that are, as usual, heavy on style and low on substance. Therefore, almost by definition, the version you prefer is an example of a Soapbox article, specifically of the propaganda/advocacy kind. So pardon me if I find it galling that you have accused me of getting on the soapbox and pushing my POV. Now, I have helpfully started a new discussion thread below so that you may feel free to belatedly discuss your specific objections to the CONTENT of my edit. Let's get to it, shall we? Mythbuster2010 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The existing article has its problems, particularly towards the end where there's a loss of historical perspective as it lapses into trivial contemporaneity, which is why the notice has been left in place at the top. But your own poor efforts made it infinitely worse. What you were attempting to do was to create an avalanche of tendentious edits, bordering on a practical joke, and then to throw the burden of proof onto a single other editor (me) to refute all of it at length. There is little point splitting hairs over individual edits when the cumulative effect of your opinionated editorializing produced a shrill, argumentative essay which was so ridiculousy biased and slanted from first to last that it can reasonably be dismissed in toto. Rather than basing it on serious analysis from the international relations literature, you tried to pack it with selective quotations and journalistic commentary from hyperbolic opinion pieces to produce an impression of the subject which was entirely negative, and verging on satire, presenting as fact what is only uninformed opinion, and extreme opinion drawn from the political fringes at that. It's clear enough from your earlier vandalism and the derisive tone in edit summaries, on the talk page and in the article itself that you maintained since that you have an agenda, an axe to grind against the subject. Such a sorry display of naked prejudice is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Lachrie (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss any major changes you want to make on the talk page first, to let other editors have an opportunity to scrutinise the specifics of potentially contentious alterations to the article text before they go in. That will help us to maintain balance and avoid another edit war. Lachrie (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lachrie; Mythbuster's editing, if not done in bad faith, still comes across as disruptive and I strongly encourage them to discuss specific problems as opposed to creating a landslide of edits. We work by consensus, here. Swarm X 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, Mythbuster is a sockpuppet of User:By78 who was known for his prejudicial editing style and racism. I won't bore you with the intricacies but looking at his contributions will evince you that he doesn't believe in WP:AGF and is just a big twat who wants to waste everyone's time.
Thank god. Swarm X 13:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lachrie's Specific Objections to Mythbuster2010's edits of the Special Relationship...

  • Objection 1
 Edit in question:
 Why Lachrie thinks it's wrong:
 Sources to back up the objection:
  • Objection 2
 Edit in question:
 Why Lachrie thinks it's wrong:
 Sources to back up the objection:
  • Objection 3
 Edit in question:
 Why Lachrie thinks it's wrong:
 Sources to back up the objection:
  • Objection 4
 Edit in question:
 Why Lachrie thinks it's wrong:
 Sources to back up the objection:
  • Objection 5
 Edit in question:
 Why Lachrie thinks it's wrong:
 Sources to back up the objection:

... ... ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster2010 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Response above. Lachrie (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Youtube used as a reference

Presently citation 181 is a youtube link, which per does not meet WP:RS. This should be removed, and the associated content should be flagged with a fact tag. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The whole paragraph could be removed entirely. Heseltine retired from frontline politics in 2001 so the notability of a extemporaneous remark made on a television chat show in 2009 is doubtful anyway. His hostility towards the special relationship was more notable in relation to the 1986 Westland affair; if there are no serious objections, perhaps something could be included on these lines:
"In 1986, in what became known as the Westland affair, British defence secretary Michael Heseltine, a critic of the special relationship and a supporter of European integration, resigned over his concern that a takeover of Britain's last helicopter manufacturer by a US firm instead of a European consortium would harm the British defence industry. (John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations in the Cold War and After (Basingstoke, Hants: Macmillan, 2001), pp. 97-99.)" Lachrie (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Disgraceful

Myth may have been a sockpuppet of a user with a checkered editing past, but he was RIGHT about this page, and he argued his point with numerous citations and logical reasoning. But due to the irrational militancy of some of the UK users here at Wiki, he was trounced upon. For convenience, the reason given was his sockpuppeting and edits made on his other name, but it is blatantly clear that this conveniently only became an issue when he dared mess with a cause celebre' of the militants involved in this article. He was as fair as fair could be concerning this article, showing no bias towards the US nor the UK. That offended the powerful BritClique here at Wikipedia and he payed the price, despite the reason given. Jersey John (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Merkel's "very special relationship"

In a speech to both houses of the Congress of the USA on November 3rd, 2009, Merkel mentioned a "very special relationship between Europe and America" (look here). It seems to me that there is more than one special relationship the article has to deal with.--Tfjt (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement - no reference

'The head of the CIA station in London attends each weekly meeting of the British Joint Intelligence Committee.[29]'

The link is broken - looks like it never referred to anything. Also can't find any sources to support this sentence. I think it has been made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.177.58 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing Key Component of Special Relationship

There is missing from this article, a key largest component of the US Uk special relationship from 1984 to present or past 30+ years. CINCG sr 24.44.215.132 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel there should be an edit at the start

In the list of wars fought together, "Falklands War" is included but America's support of that war is relatively ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.135.232 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has never been a "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom. The Suez Crisis proved that more than six decades ago. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

That statement is total nonsense. Just check what most Presidents of the United States and Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom have said on numerous occasions, up to the present day. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's no different than what has been said by US presidents to French and Israeli leaders. There is no "special relationship" with the UK, as Eisenhower proved in 1956. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
Can I please suggest that you stop soapboxing with your own personal point of view and read the recent statements of the last two Presidents of the US. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

World War I

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The US never joined the Entente Powers in World War I and only entered the conflict as an Associate Power. Therefore it is a stretch to say the US and UK were close allies then. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

Instead of soapboxing your personal views, yet again, can I please suggest that you quote reliable references/sources for your comments and also stop edit warring. Wikipedia requires sourcing for changes, not individual points of view. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The US also forced Britain and France to end the war in 1918 by threatening to sign a separate peace treaty with Germany. Woodrow Wilson was widely accused of having betrayed the UK. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
Then supply the correct and reliable sources, instead of posting unsourced comments. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Special Relationship. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed

I propose splitting the section Personal relationships into its own article. This section, which is currently undergoing and expansion, already is 86,000 bytes. Compare that to 50,000 bytes for the rest of the article. This topic, which is related but a subject of its own, overwhelms the rest of the article in size. I feel it its notability is strong enough to warrant its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this would, more or less, reposition the existing article as being a page more about the term "special relation" itself, as well as its immediate ramifications. The specifics of relationships between individual PMs and POTUSs would be split-off into its own separate, but related, article.SecretName101 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Special Relationship. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ BBC NEWS | England | Berkshire | New hope for jailed British woman
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Relationship/Archive_1&oldid=1167198682"