Talk:United Kingdom–United States relations

message: ===Official Language===
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)
thread_title: Country comparisons

message: 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)
thread_title: Official Language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[United Kingdom-United States relations]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: NON-existent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250  (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "their philosophical white supremacy underpinnings are similar" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1812 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oregon? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Newspapers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The country comparison section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
thread_title: U.S. non-support of the French in Indochina?

message: 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)
thread_title: Special Relationship

message: 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)
thread_title: State Visits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable Authorities? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have now changed it to say Paul Gallico.  Yaris678 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noel Gallagher quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Congestion charge diuspute, £5.29m 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: War Plan Red was a real plan. (81.132.49.53 (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No war plan is real until the fighting starts. (81.132.49.53 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  War Attempt with UK 

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the article:
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: 
 
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)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph from War of 1812 section 

message: 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: 
From Sino-American relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:United Kingdom–United States relations]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi protected edit request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Kingdom–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conquest of Canada was a tactic designed to give the Americans a strong bargaining position. 

message: Johnson.Xia (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Death of Harry Dunn should be mentioned 

message: I have also been working on about situation regarding Huawei. 159753 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huawei & 5G 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Violation of Neutrality? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion