Talk:Special Relationship

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special Relationship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: British / European / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

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

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Special Relationship received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ba'ath Party#Post-Saddam|de-Ba'athification policy]] The anchor (#Post-Saddam) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Picture[edit]

President Biden and Prime Minister Johnson reaffirmed the 'Special Relationship' whilst President Biden was visiting for the 2021 G7 summit in Cornwall. The current photo of former President Trump & PM Johnson should be replaced with a more up to date photo of Biden and Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the current leaders of the two countries in question is far more relevant for the lead than a 70-year old picture from a larger group photo (rather than a bilateral gathering) and where Stalin has been conveniently cut out (bordering on historical revisionism reminiscent of censorship of images in the Soviet Union), especially as the "special relationship" is nowadays mainly something that is peddled by the British far right, and those who (controversially) advocate close ties between the UK and the Trump administration. When the term/idea has received coverage in third party sources recently, it has mainly been in the context of the UK's relations with Trump.

Numerous scholars over the last decades have considered or discussed whether the "special relationship" is a myth, and discussed how it was used by British nationalists to exaggerate the UK's standing in world affairs. Few people outside the UK (even in the US) recognise such a concept. --Tataral (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions that some people think the Special Relationship doesn't exist. But it also mentions a number of reasons to conclude otherwise. Each country is the other's largest overseas investor. The US doesn't supply a nuclear delivery system (Trident) to any other country but the UK and does not share nuclear-weapons technology with any other country either. The UK is the main overseas partner of the US in Five Eyes and ECHELON, an intelligence-sharing arrangement that dates back to Bletchley Park in wartime. The CIA and FBI co-operate more closely with British police and counter-intelligence in terrorism matters than they do with the agencies of any other country. The UK hosts the only US strategic bomber base in Europe and the Obama government had to cancel contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran simply because the UK said it would be illegal and that US aircraft could therefore not use Fairford, Akrotiri or Diego Garcia, without which the operation couldn't go ahead. The defensive systems of the F-22 fighter are British. The USAF allowed RAF exchange pilots to fly the F-117 when it was still classified; they allowed RAF pilots to fly the F-22 when not even US Navy exchange pilots were cleared to do this. The UK is the principal overseas partner in the F-35 programme. USMC F-35B pilots have just been learning the British-developed Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth, which has proved a popular visitor to US ports and will carry USMC as well as British aircraft on her first operational cruise. The US and British military generally practise interoperability to a high degree. US law is largely based on British 'common law'. London has a bigger American population than Des Moines, Iowa. British and American universities often have close ties. The UK is the biggest overseas English-language market for US films, TV shows and books. One could go on. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Back Control

And might not one go on to say that: while the article highlights the fiction put out by the right-wing, do not many people consider that the UK/US Relationship is one-sided and far from "Special"? That the US might supply a nuclear delivery system, does it not charges the UK billions for them? If the CIA and FBI co-operate that closely with British police, then why do such agencies help US citizens get away with murder? If the US really wanted to use its' strategic bombers to bomb Moscow, what could the UK Govt do to stop them? Also, does not the point that the "British and American universities often have close ties" and the UK "is the biggest overseas English-language market for US films, TV shows and books" indicate that the UK needs to Take Back Control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.79 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

I reverted the edits done to the introduction by an anonymous editor. -[[User:Inowen|Inowen]] ([[User talk:Inowen|NLFTE]]) (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Funeral Snub[edit]

I think we should discuss here before we any additional details about the Churchill funeral snub. We know that LBJ was sick and barred for attending by doctors and subsequently criticized. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield slammed the criticism. For now, let's just say that Johnson was sick and sent Dean Rusk rather than Hubert Humphrey and got criticized for not sending Humphrey. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill and Roosevelt[edit]

January 30 is a date that's shared between both FDR and Churchill. January 30 was the day in 1882 that FDR was born in Hyde Park, NY and on that day in 1965, the state funeral for Churchill took place. Can we add this as the lasting legacy to the friendship between the two. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivia that would add nothing substantive to the article. Drdpw (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not add any details about it. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. A polemic against cats.[edit]

This topic raises concerns about the predation of cats against birds. Yes it is a concern. But his overall tone is against cats. He seems to despise them, not explicitly but implicitly. The undertone is a call to hate cats and exterminate them.

"cats do more harm to the environment than good."

"Cats are invasive species"

"Cats are disease carriers" Molby86 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, had Trumps car run over Number Ten's cat, what might that have done to the "New Special Relationship"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.79 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Public Opinion[edit]

The article is weighted in favour of UK opinion on the subject. It needs more recent data on American public opinion. In my experience, Americans in general rarely think about the UK, far less about any "special relationship". If such a thing exists at all, it is probably with Ireland. 109.154.51.224 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is less about special relationship and more about Uk Usa relations.[edit]

I dont understand why or what is the reason behind this when you already have another page for that? There have been many many special relationships in history other than just those two. Just a reflection of how Anglo-centered wikipedia is. 115.240.194.54 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]