Talk:Special Relationship (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 22 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special relationship (disambiguation) → Special relationship – I don't believe there is a primary topic for the term without the capitalisation. --Nevé –selbert 23:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per books In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @In ictu oculi: The term is capitalised in Google Books in nearly every instance, having checked the first three pages.--Nevé –selbert 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try later pages, page 6 for example. The term is almost always used in relation to UK-US and almost always not capitalised. There is no use outside international relations context and it isn't a proper noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support (or move "special relationship (international relations)") to avoid systematic bias, no matter how many sources. "Special Relationship" can stay as referring to the US-UK affiliation. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources referring to UK-US affiliation (sentence case/lowercase only):

US sources: [1][2][3]

UK sources: [4](maybe?)[5][6](maybe?)

Other intl. sources: book from France, book from Ireland

Other sources: book about US-Thai military relations, book about US-Israel relations (another by Noam Chomsky), some manuscript(?) about US-China relations, book about Germany-US relations that also mentions the UK-US affiliation and German-Russian relations, book about Argentine-UK relations, book about humans and dogs (not kidding, really), book about faith(?)

I narrowed down and categorized the sources. George Ho (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with IIO. The term predominantly refers to the US-UK relationship; it is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with those above. Pandeist (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are numerous results spanning several pages related to the rather common phrase, completely unrelated to Anglo-American relations.--Nevé –selbert 17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.