Talk:United Kingdom–United States relations

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

The United States does not have an "official language" just about every other government in the known world has a Ministry of Culture or some government department or agency that is tasked with defining their particular culture and language. The United States on the other hand does not have Secretary of Culture and there is no US Law to my knowledge that specifically states that the official language of the US is "English." This should either be removed or renamed since it may lead to some confusion. In the US the only State to my knowledge that has official language is Hawaii, and US territories like Puerto Rico's official language is Spanish, and shall we not forget Native Americans in their reservation(s) speak their own language(s) southern states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, California where people are bilingual and speak Spanish or how in some cities in Texas people speak German or in North Dakota where they also speak German. According the CIA World Fact Book over ten percent of the US population speaks Spanish. --F15 sanitizing eagle (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed this from the article for further discussion here.

German-Britons and German-Americans generally accepted what was beyond their control, to willingly join up in the next war against Austrian Germany under the Nazi Party. There are however remaining today from this, minor remnants of Neo-Nazi outbursts amongst a small minority of Germanic citizens. Most of the hostility has bm een taken on by other peoples, who have adopted the Nazi cause for themselves in an unrelated fashion from the imperialist antagonisms that ruled both world wars. A socioethnic solution to loyal German frustrations in being largely stigmatised and seen as foreign, had to be deduced. The ideal was a combination of German and Irish relationships to recreate and supplement the WASP Anglo-Saxon/Celtic fusion so successful in both the UK/US ascendencies, which has today resulted in much of the population in America now having a dual heritage of German/Irish. This was also intended to solve some tensions in Northern Ireland, since Irish Americans were funding the Irish Republican Army.

Where is the evidence of a widespread socio-economic eugenics project combining Germans and Irishmen? Am I miss reading this section? Rmhermen 16:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

That was the Anglosphere's idea of racial superiority in those days. Of course, it's not felt much these days unless by witnessing neo-nazi groups talk. It's bad press for the Anglo-Americans, who fought Nazis over world power. ScapegoatVandal 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...And must you stalk my edits so closely? What interests you to do this? ScapegoatVandal 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the war on terror stuff is quite right. It is saying that government support for X is the same as the citizens' support for X. Blair and Bush are allies - Blair is a very strong atlanticist. The war in iraq was (and still is) extremely controversial in the UK. Secretlondon 16:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed the following para because it's rubbish:-

Anglo-American relations were definitively shared in the antebellum sinking of the RMS Titanic, which served to steer support in reversal of an earlier United States isolationism. German Americans were originally confirmed in loyalty to the Anglo-American cause as a result of the Germanic British Royal Family and their service in the American Civil War, but became suspected traitors in defection for Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany once the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha changed into the House of Windsor. Irish Americans were seen as frequently drunken troublemakers and their coordination with relatives during the Easter Rising caused a return to Anti-Catholicism with the initially successful introduction of Prohibition.

Firstly I think they mean the Lusitania rather than the Titanic, secondly I don't understand what the British Royal family changing their surname has to do with the loyaly or otherwise of German-Americans and thirdly WTF has prohibition got to do with it? Jooler 01:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish Americans were seen as frequently drunken troublemakers and their coordination with relatives during the Easter Rising caused a return to Anti-Catholicism with the initially successful introduction of Prohibition.

This is one of the most hillarious statements I have read this week. I'm pretty sure the Americans let the Fenian Brotherhood attack Canada via Buffalo. So years later when there is a rebellion in Ireland, there would be a return to Anti-Catholicism in the US?? Hahaha really funny! (But seriously... isn't the user that put up that para a vandal? Superdude99 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to increase the number of links to other more specific Wikipedia articles in the diplomatic history section. I've also removed the references to the influence of the 'Auld Alliance' on the war of 1812, and the influence of the 'Forty-Eighters' on the British attitude to the Civil War. Anecdota

The sentence

Despite this close wartime co-operation, the US also took the opportunity during and after the war to break the remaining economic power of the British Empire - see Economic history of the United Kingdom

has been removed because the linked-to article does not support the assertion being made. The idea seems to be that ending lend-lease when the war was over and getting the British to agree that the pound would be convertible are 'break(ing) the remaining economic power of the British Empire', which is questionable, to say the least.

I am seeing this article for the first time, but what do you mean this sentence is questionable? It's perfectly historically accurate; both in what the effect was, and what the intended effect was, which we know from statements by Roosevelt, Dulles, Truman and others that emerged decades later. 67.170.93.244 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

the phrase in the culture section that reads "British tastes are often more cerebral and refined than American" is completely not NPOV.--Billiot 08:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that, but come to Britain for a week and see it for yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.165.252 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, like the refined tastes that made Benny Hill so popular? What about all those soccer freaks who go on a rampage if their team loses? Yes, British tastes are definitely more cerebral. 108.69.161.248 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Assert, assert, assert. The USA is more powerful, richer, bigger and influential than the UK. Can't we just leave Britain alone now? The Revolutionary War is over. Besides, they are better than us on a couple of points, surely? SAS is superior to Delta Force, and they don't have a death penalty or 'no loitering' signs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.165.252 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but but unlike in Britain (or anywhere in the EU), one can criticize other groups and religions in the US without having to fear arrest, and Brits have to pay taxes to the Anglican Church, the OFFICIAL state religion, EVEN if they're not Anglican! Plus, Brits also have to help support a bunch of parasites that call themselves the Royal Family. Now, I'm not for hate speech, but to arrest ppl for having an opinion (even a vile one) is a bit ludicrous (especially in regards to religion which, after all, is just an ideology). And the SAS better than the Delta Force? Not so sure about that anymore, but even if true, WHO CARES? I'll take free speech and not having to pay taxes to some church anyday over a country without "no loitering" signs (I'm an American and hardly ever see those) and that thinks life imprisonment is more humanitarian than execution (I'd take execution any day over spending the remaining decades of my life in a small cell). Also, what's up with all those ugly row houses and misaligned teeth?108.69.161.248 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reference to the comment regarding "lack of free speech" in the UK. I am unaware of these claims and would like to see a reference. Also, it would be nice not to insult the UK's buildings. I for one think that row houses (terraces), are a perfectly logical solution to living in a small country and I think they can be beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.206.68 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This title is linguistically artifical - there is no reson to do this as Anglo-American relations is the generally used and accepted term! 68.215.98.162 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then why dont we merge United Kingdom-United States relations into this article? (Electrobe (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

I would agree because I was actually redirected to this page when in fact I was looking for the information present in the United Kingdom-United States relations article. I see no reason at all why these should be two different articles. This page also doesn't seem to merit being considered a "full" article, it would appear to be more of a summary of the relationship rather than a more in-depth (and personally preferable) article. Rajrajmarley (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm...............what. The British were electing non white, ethnic minorities in the 1800s, so i think this should be edited, infact deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.217.221 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but not many of them. The Eugenics movement started in the US and the UK, not the Third Reich. You may also want to note that in the 1800's, the British built the biggest colonial empire in world history. They didn't do this by respecting the rights of brown-skinned peoples, so you may want to revise your view that Britain in the 1800's accepted non white, ethnic minorities as de facto white people, because that's a hell of a stretch.108.69.161.248 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with race? Do you think if Australian aboriginals were white the British would've turned back and gone home? Non-white people were virtually existant in Britain in 1800 which is why they weren't elected. 82.5.217.254 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NON-existent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed lots of stuff is opinionated and not sourced, but the 1812 article came to my attention. It is NOT neutral, and is un-informed. The following I know from the History Channel The main reason for the declaration of was forcing American merchants into Royal Navy service. Impressment was reduced at the time of the declaration of war, but communication back then meant it took days to get messages from Europe to North America. Seeing as the U.S. lacked the naval capacity to attack Britain (the U.S. had to raise an army from practically nil, too), they sent militia troops up to Canada to fight what was then a territory of Britain, and due to marching through forests in the harsh winter, frost bite, disease etc severely weakened the troops, and Canada managed to repel the attack. After Napoleon was defeated, experienced British troops came and attacked D.C. After a weak delaying action, the British burned down every government structure in D.C. accept for the post office, than A hurricane drove the British out. Since the cause of the war was not an issue anymore, this allowed peace negotiations to proceed well. When the peace treaty was made, the U.S. OBLITERATED British troops at the Battle of New Orleans due to communications of the time.

The way it is now, is not factual or neutral. 65.27.139.162 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should have at least minimal references to the early 19th century situation in Oregon, which it currently lacks. The two major watershed topics are 1) the joint Oregon occupation treaty of 1818, and 2) the bluff and bluster tactics of President Polk in the 1840's that nearly precipitated another war with Great Britain over the control of Oregon (54-40 or fight). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.173.164 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed reference to several newspapers containing condensed copies of the New York Times, as this is only true of The Observer, as shown by the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the heading for this section needs a year of reference in the title. My guess is that the statistics relate to about the year 2000. I will look in my 'Economist Magazine' data and check. If the stats indicate a 'then' year around 2000, I propose to insert it unless somebody has an objection (please let me know if you have). Also: is the ethnicity data really relevant? thanks Bruce bruce (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I question the relevance of the whole section. If it's to somehow show points of commonality between the two countries, then the only thing that really stands out is the English language. The ethnic terminology used in the two countries is also different ('Asian' has a much broader meaning in the UK, for example) so you really can't draw comparisons there. People of mixed ethnic descent are only called 'multiracial' in the States, the British term is 'Mixed Race', so god knows what that word is doing on the British side of the table. Indisciplined (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No to merger. "The Special Relationship" is a decidedly, positive and recent aspect of the relationship. It does not deal with the antagonistic part of the relationship, if a merger is decided, the merge should be from the "The Special Relationship" article to this one. KTo288 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As this article mentions, it didn't begin to come into effect until around WWII. And considering the length of the largely referenced Special Relationship (U.S.-UK) article, I don't think that should be merged or shortened into this one. Since this is the only discussion of the proposed merger, I'm removing the notices. Gotyear (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement that the U.S. did not support French re-colonization post WWII. Neil Sheehan in A Bright Shining Lie describes the subject at some length. There wasn't U.S. ground troops or air support but U.S. logistically helped the French out, as well as diplomatically by rebuffing Ho Chi Minh's attempts at recognition by America. Also, dittoes on the above comment about Oregon. Definitely an important subject for treatment by this article. Krazychris81 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a comment in this article which says "not to be confused with the Special Relationship". I always though that there existed a mathematical equality: ("United Kingdom – United States relations" = "the Special Relationship"}. Will someone please explain this to someone who is confused. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Special Relationship" only began during the war years of the 1940's under the administrations of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Before the Special Relationship, the US and UK were not allies, but more or less friends in name only, with diplomatic relations which began in 1791 when UK Ambassador George Hammond was sent to the USA to represent the UK.

United Kingdom-United States relations is an article which touches on the "wider" relations between both nations (1776 to present day). The Special Relationship is an article which is devoted to a period of UK-USA relations which began during World War II to the present. --70.101.193.168 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article is missing a very important section regarding State and Official Visits between the United Kingdom and the United States. Further research, dates, and information should be gathered and then incorporated into this article.

Royal State and Official Visits to the United States

1860: Prince Edward, Prince of Wales hosted by President Buchanan (Official 3 day visit to the USA) 1939: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth hosted by President Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt 1951: Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip hosted by President Truman and First Lady Truman (Official Visit) 1957: Queen Elizabeth II and Pricne Philip hosted by President Eisenhower and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower (Jamestown Settlement 350th anniversary) 1976: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip hosted by President Ford and First Lady Betty Ford (U.S. Bicentennial annoversary) 1983: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip hosted by President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan (Official Visit to California, not a State Visit) 1985: Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Princess Diana hosted by President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan (Official Visit) 1991: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip hosted by President George H.W. Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush (State Visit, addressed Congress) 2005: Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall hosted by President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush (Official Visit) 2007: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip hosted by President George W. Bush and First Ladt Laura Bush (Jamestown Settlement 400th anniversary)

Presidential State, Informal, and Official Visits to the United Kingdom

1918: President Wilson and First Lady Edith Wilson hosted by King George V and Queen Mary (Official Visit) 1959: President Eisenhower hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Official Visit, received by the Queen at Balmoral in Scotland and P.M. MacMillan at Chequers) 1961: President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Dined at Buckingham Palace, private visit) 1969: President Nixon was hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (received and had lunch at Buckingham Palace) 1970: President Nixon and First Lady Pat Nixon hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Received at Chequers by The Queen and P.M. Wilson) 1982: President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Official Visit and stay at Windsor Castle, addressed Parliament) 1984: Presidenr Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also a Working visit to see P.M. Thatcher for Economic Summit) 1988: President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also a working visit to see P.M. Thatcher) 1989: President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also a working visit to see P.M. Thatcher) 1990: President George H.W. Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also to attend NATO summit) 1988: President George H.W. Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also to attend Economic Summit) 1994: President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted by Queen Elizabeth II (Also a working visit for Heads of Government meeting and dinner) 1995: President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Addressed Parliament, also met with P.M. Major) 2000: President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Received at Buckingham Palace by the Queen, working visit) 2001: President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Received at Buckingham Palace, working visit) 2003: President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (State Visit) 2008: President Goerge W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Received at Windsor Castle for tea, working visit with P.M. Brown) 2009: President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (Recevied at Buckingham Palace, working visit for G20 Summit in London)

source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/trvl/pres/dest/ry/12777.htm

--70.101.193.168 (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix the rather biased account of the War of 1812, but my edits were reverted without explanation. Hence I'm bringing the matter to the talk page for discussion.

It's my position that the account of the 1812 war in this article is so jingoistic and pro-American in its treatment that it needs to be fixed or removed entirely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it jingoistic? Are you denying that fact that the United Kingdom is to blame for the War of 1812 by denying the Americans to trade with the French, impressment of American sailors, and supporting Native Americans in their conquest against American expansionism? These are historical facts and not just a one-sided point of view. And what would you say about the Americans defeating the Royal Navy and taking possession of the Great Lakes? If it is any consolation, I am Canadian. And I have to side on the Americans with this one. Not only did the British repel a total American invasion of Canada, the Americans themselves repelled a total British invasion of the U.S. --74.47.111.177 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing about the war of 1812, every one was repelant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the section in this article on the War of 1812 and compared it to the Origins of the War of 1812 article. The first two paragraphs here seem to cast a more favourable light on the American position and depict the British Empire as the villains. I am not an expert on the subject, but the Origins article suggests things were a little less clear cut.

For example this article makes the clear statement "Thus, the War of 1812 was instigated by causes made by the British and it was further initiated by the United States under James Madison as a means to protect American trading rights and freedom of the seas for neutral countries." before even mentioning the British perspective. British fear of American expansion into Canada is only hinted at in the last sentence of the second paragraph and the British trade concessions and justification for boarding American ships isn't mentioned at all.

As I said, I am not an expert on the subject, so it may be the Origins article which is unbalanced.I will leave it to editors more familiar with the subject matter to consider any revisions. Road Wizard (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradford Perkins who is said to be the creator of a term describing US UK relations 1900-1914 turns out to be an architect. Moreover, to call the coming close of these two countries as the Grand Rapp as has been done in the article is a bit of an exaggeration. US was doing this kind of closeness with all sorts of countries during this period.upendra 11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) upendra 11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendrabaxi2004 (talk • contribs)

You appear to be referring to the current Bradford Perkins article about an architect. It is unlikely that the Bradford Perkins writing architectural publications in 2008 is the same Bradford Perkins who wrote a political publication in 1955. Road Wizard (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only two nations which the US had notably bad and frosty relations with in the mid 19th-century were Great Britain and Spain. The Great Rapprochement is a specific term which is exclusively linked to UK-US diplomatic and political relations. --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This quote seems very unlikely:

This is not how Noel Gallagher talks. The reference given attributes it to him, but I would suggest that the reference is wrong. This site and this site both attribute the quote to Paul Gallico, which sounds more likely. Yaris678 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed it to say Paul Gallico. Yaris678 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the content of the article Special Relationship is duplicated here and the two subjects overlap. I think the difference between the two is subtle and much of the unique content of Special Relationship would fit very well on this page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The "Special Relationship" is an abstract concept related to U.S./UK relations, whereas this article concerns the relationship in its totality, in my mind Special Relationship is a natural break-out article from this one and focuses much more on the Churchillian emphasis given to it and on personal realtionships between various leaders of the two countries. There is frequently some overlapping between articles, this is unavoiable. For example, we have an article on the character James Bond, as well as separate ones on the James Bond novels and the James Bond film series. There is also the issue of praticality, both articles are already very long (Special Relationship has over 250 references) and merging would result in an unwieldy combined article. However I do agree that there is some duplication of content and that it should be minimised, and would be happy to see more cross-referencing between the two articles, and for the Special Relationship article to have some of the content that duplicates this article cut out.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I also respectfully disagree. Your rationale for merging the pages are that they "overlap". Having read the content of both pages there is very minimal, and I state minimal overlapping topics that are inevitable but are no where near enough to be considered too similar to merge. You will see that the United Kingdom – United States relations page gives a chronological history of relations, shared cultures, langauges etc. between both nations. Whereas the Special Relationship refers the close political bond both countries share. Therefore there I see no reason why these two pages should be merged. Besides, both pages are very good, well-sourced pages that rightfully deserve there own page, it is clear that a lot of hours have been invested in creating these detailed pages and that should be respected too.Stevo1000 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on the grounds that the term is NOT limited to just this relationship. Sure if might be the most notable, but RS' also show other such relationships. Special relationship (international relations)Lihaas (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. In addition to the reasons stated above I feel that both pages have their own unique value. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is not uniquely limited to the two. Perhaps as accomodation then, another section at the bottom for other uses as such (sourced to RS of course, not mere listings)Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary usage for "special relationship" in international relations is to describe an aspect of US-UK relations. There may be other "special relationships", such as those in US-Canada relations, UK-Canada relations, or US-Israel relations, and the like. But unless you can find comparable coverage and discussion of these secondary usages of the term, it's probably better just to keep those to sections of US-Canada relations and US-Israel relations. Lachrie (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do not merge – As has been mentioned above: the special relationship is something that exists in its own right. In reply to Lihaas' comments: in all the English speaking world, the special relationship is understood as the subject of this article. There may be other "special relationships" that borrow the terminology; but this is an English language encyclopaedia. It would be silly to make changes based on the understanding on non-native English speakers. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also against the idea of a merger. The Special Relationship is just one aspect of UK-US relations, and there's obviously already more than enough material to justify the separate article. Lachrie (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can't even consider a merger because both of the articles are far too big. Simply impractical. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't support a merge but it's not really worth getting into. Swarm ^X 06:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this be added as a dispute?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13565326 Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

According to The Sun newspaper it says America planned to go to war with Britain in 1930, secret plans reveal. it also says It plotted to kill our troops in Canada and wipe out key targets with bombing raids and chemical weapons. Plan Red intended to destroy empire trade routes. But it was axed when WW2 began, a Channel 5 show said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.1.125 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sure British generals had plans to attack us. All military systems make plans for every type of contingency (this is how to keep generals in the war colleges busy and give them experience). A "plan" is not proof of an imminent scheme. On the other hand, if it did happen, millions of ppl in British colonies around the world could've been freed from the yoke of the biggest colonial empire in world history (i.e., the British Empire). Not a bad result.99.120.58.20 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, the Canadians had a war plan to attack the U.S. in 1930. These "war plans" in those days were exercises by middle level army officers that focused mostly on logistics--how to support xx soldiers yy miles away for zz days, given rates of casualties and consumption of ammunition. Rjensen (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"millions of ppl in British colonies around the world could've been freed from the yoke of the biggest colonial empire in world history (i.e., the British Empire)." And come under the US sphere of influence, right? Is that really any better than being a part of the British Empire? An Empire than many countries arguably faired better under than they ever have under self-rule. But you know... If you want to carry on with the whole 'beacon of freedom' delusion that you have going, be my guest... Carry on. Zestos (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

War Plan Red was a real plan. (81.132.49.53 (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

It was a War department exercise: what are the first 25 steps needed if a war breaks out? --the issue is really planning to START a war--which is not something the War Department made a plan for ....that was the business of Congress & the President. Rjensen (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No war plan is real until the fighting starts. (81.132.49.53 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

Once again 81.132.49.53, you appear to be inserting your own WP:POV without quoting any sources, as you have do so later this day. Please check WP:OR and WP:POV before attempting to edit the article again. You have already passed 3RR, which could see you blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

The impressment controversy had in fact been largely resolved shortly after war had been declared, when the U.S. government, by enacting the Impressment Bill (1812), began to insist that applicants for U.S. citizenship must reside continuously in the United States for a minimum of five years, thereby inhibiting the reception of deserters and removing the source of British complaint, and therefore largely solving, with a stroke of Madison's pen, the problem the United States had ostensibly gone to war over.

Why did I remove it? It makes a false claim and the three references do not support the claim. The first reference is to Donald Hickey's book. The reference to page 11 in Hickey's book actually has nothing on the Impressment Bill and the reference to page 110 contradicts the claim in the paragraph. Hickey states on page 110:

Republican leaders recognized the importance of impressment, and the administration had already offered to bar all British tars from American ships if Great Britain would give up the practice. Although Britain had rejected this proposal, the administration was anxious to publize it in order to shore up its position at home and abroad.

The U.S. passed the bill in February 1813 but never enforced it since Britain had already rejected it. The reference to James Zimmerman's book is to events in the 1790s and not to this "Impressemnt Bill." The third reference is not to a secondary work but to a newspaper from the period. Dwalrus (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Reference named "en.wikipedia.org":

• From Michael Jackson: "List of awards received by Michael Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2012-06-11.
• From Sino-American relations: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/Economy_of_india

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Anglo American relations are important to both countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.4.146 (talk)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Stickee (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom–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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310184941/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/first100days/2009/03/06/obamas-blockbuster-gift-brown-dvds/100days/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/06/obamas-blockbuster-gift-brown-dvds/100days/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom–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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111119144917/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-state=dt&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G2000_B04003&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-currentselections=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-state=dt&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G2000_B04003&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-currentselections=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T001&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111124190312/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_DP2&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format= to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_DP2&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120624052931/http://americas.sas.ac.uk:80/digital-resources-for-researchers/atlantic-archive-uk-us-relations-in-an-age-of-global-war-1939-1945/ to http://americas.sas.ac.uk/digital-resources-for-researchers/atlantic-archive-uk-us-relations-in-an-age-of-global-war-1939-1945/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120531020548/http://london.usembassy.gov:80/index.html to http://london.usembassy.gov/index.html

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: 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) 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom–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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070719002546/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6526.asp to http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6526.asp

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) 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Conquest of Canada was a tactic designed to give the Americans a strong bargaining position"

Was is Canada?

The Independent says: «The United States did invade the colonies that later became Canada and were» https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-justin-trudeau-canada-white-house-burn-down-1812-war-a8387111.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.34 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this needs clarification. I changed it to "the northern colonies that later became Canada". I left later references to "Canada" alone since the article now clarifies what we mean. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Johnson.Xia (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, but I don't know how to write that up about the situation about Harry Dunn 159753 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also been working on about situation regarding Huawei. 159753 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The article contains many editorializing phrases and seems to consistently support closer UK-US relations. Also, it seems to frequently endorse goals that were shared by the UK and the US. Does this merit a NPOV tag? ~ SaturnFogg

Can you please put your signature at the end of your messages. You can do this by simply typing ~~~~ . 159753 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• His Majesty King Charles III reception for Heads of State and overseas visitors (52367172621).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)