Talk:Special Relationship (disambiguation)

Requested move 22 February 2017

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.