text:
Zilpha Drew Smith

Zilpha Drew Smith (1852 – 1926) was an American social worker. She was a leading figure in the charity organization movement and in the professionalization of social work, in Boston and across the nation.

Smith was born on January 25, 1852, in Pembroke, Massachusetts, to Silvanus and Judith Winsor Smith. Her parents were involved in numerous social causes including abolitionism, education, temperance, and women's suffrage, She graduated from the Boston Girls' High and Normal School in 1868. Her first employment was as a telegraph operator. She subsequently revised the Probate Court index for Suffolk County. She volunteered, alongside her mother, in relief efforts to care for victims of the Great Boston Fire of 1872; the experience led her towards a career in social work.

Smith joined the Associated Charities of Boston as Head of the Office Staff in 1879 and became its General Secretary in 1886. At that organization, she applied new theories about "charity organization." The charity organization movement aimed to coordinate private agencies in order to use their resources efficiently to ameliorate urban poverty. Under her administrative leadership, the Associated Charities of Boston successfully brought together the majority of the private charitable and relief organizations in the city. Smith developed a centralized office to coordinate unpaid and paid workers. She emphasized record-keeping and shared information. Smith created a system for volunteer "friendly visitors" to assist the needy, as well as a method for applicants to request aid. Smith believed in the value of personal relationships between privileged volunteers and impoverished clients, especially as a means of imparting middle-class values to the poorer classes, At the same time, she encouraged volunteers and paid workers to learn from one another, particularly through district-based committees. Smith championed supervision and training classes in social work. Though she increased central oversight, the district retained considerable authority within her innovative administrative structure.

Smith's influence extended far beyond Boston. Other cities emulated the Associated Charities model she established. In 1888, she and Charles W. Birtwell (of the Boston Children's Aid Society) founded a group for Bostonians interested in social service, bringing together both volunteers and professionals for discussion. The Monday Evening Club was the first such group in the U.S. and a forerunner of social workers' professional associations. Smith often spoke at the National Conference of Charities and Correction, beginning with their gathering in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1884. In 1892, she gave an address on "The Education of the Friendly Visitor," in which she reflected on the relationships between volunteers and professionals, as well as between social workers and clients. Smith said:"We are apt in beginning to be so occupied with our own attitude toward the poor people that we forget to ask ourselves what their attitude toward us may be. . . . . We do personal work among the poor, we say; but do we make the poor people feel that it is personal to them? We can make it so by really giving ourselves, not merely our thought and care in their affairs, but telling them from the first something of our own. 'Tell them about yourself and your family,' is good advice to a visitor. If some one is sick, the mother or sister will be interested to hear about your friends who have recovered from the same disease. All your affairs will be quite as interesting to them as theirs to you, and any confidence you can give will inspire confidence in return."In 1900, Smith lectured at the New York School of Philanthropy. She also produced several books. One production, from 1901, studied 234 wives deserted by their husbands, from research conducted by the Associated Charities of Boston.

Smith had a lifelong collaborative relationship with another social work pioneer, Mary Richmond. At first Richmond looked to Smith for mentorship but over time they came to see one another as colleagues and eventually close friends. Richmond applied Smith's charitable organization approach in her own city of Baltimore, Maryland.

From 1904 to 1918, she was the Associate Director of the new Boston School of Social Work maintained by Simmons College and Harvard University, overseeing the expansion of its curriculum and the use of case records in social work education.

Zilpha Drew Smith died in Boston in 1926 and was buried in the Mayflower Cemetery, Duxbury, Massachusetts.

title: Zilpha Drew Smith


text:
List of parliamentary constituencies in Suffolk

The county of Suffolk, England is divided into 8 parliamentary constituencies (1 borough constituency and 7 county constituencies). Seven constituencies lie wholely within Suffolk while Waveney Valley straddles the county border between Suffolk and Norfolk.

2024
Following the abandonment of the Sixth Periodic Review (the 2018 review), the Boundary Commission for England formally launched the 2023 Review on 5 January 2021. Initial proposals were published on 8 June 2021 and, following two periods of public consultation, revised proposals were published on 8 November 2022. The final proposals were published on 28 June 2023.

The commission proposed that Suffolk be combined with Norfolk as a sub-region of the Eastern Region, with the creation of the cross-county boundary constituency of Waveney Valley. The seat of Waveney reverted to its former name of Lowestoft, and Bury St Edmunds was renamed Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.

The following constituencies were proposed:

Containing electoral wards from Babergh

 * South Suffolk

Containing electoral wards from East Suffolk

 * Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (part)
 * Lowestoft
 * Suffolk Coastal
 * Waveney Valley (parts also in Mid Suffolk and South Norfolk)

Containing electoral wards from Ipswich

 * Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (part)

 * Ipswich

Containing electoral wards from Mid Suffolk

 * Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (part)

 * Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (part)
 * Waveney Valley (parts also in East Suffolk and South Norfolk)

Containing electoral wards from West Suffolk

 * Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (part)
 * West Suffolk

2010
In the Fifth Review the Boundary Commission for England recommended that Suffolk retained its current constituencies, with changes only to reflect revisions to local authority ward boundaries and to reduce the electoral disparity between constituencies. The largest of these changes resulted in the effective transfer of one Borough of Ipswich ward from Central Suffolk and North Ipswich to the constituency of Ipswich.

Results history
Primary data source: House of Commons research briefing - General election results from 1918 to 2019

2024
The number of votes cast for each political party who fielded candidates in constituencies comprising Suffolk in the 2024 general election were as follows:

2019
The number of votes cast for each political party who fielded candidates in constituencies comprising Suffolk in the 2019 general election were as follows:

Percentage votes
1Includes National Liberal Party from 1931 - 1966

2As the Brexit Party in 2019

31918-1979 - Liberal; 1983 & 1987 - SDP-Liberal Alliance

* Included in Other

Seats
1Includes National Liberal Party up to 1966

21950-1979 - Liberal; 1983 & 1987 - SDP-Liberal Alliance

Historical representation by party
A cell marked → (with a different colour background to the preceding cell) indicates that the previous MP continued to sit under a new party name.

1983 to present
1parts also in Norfolk

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morbidity

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Morbidity
A halfway-finished policy proposal (marked as a stub even) that attempts to impose some kind of censorship on photos on Wikipedia. Which would be instruction creep, and note that WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 14:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia images are not censored to protect people's feelings. Whether an image is suitable for an article should be decided by community concensus or - in extreme cases - a vote. Mgm|(talk) 14:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other attempts to do the same thing actually managed to hang on long enough to get shot down.  This one seems to simply have been forgotten.  No reason to keep it around. --Carnildo 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ashibaka (tock) 15:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Detele, Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Paul Menard

John Paul Christian Menard (born August 21, 1980) is an American semi-retired professional stock car racing driver who last competed part-time in the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, driving the No. 66 Toyota Tundra for ThorSport Racing.

Menard competed full-time in the NASCAR Cup Series from 2007 to 2019, driving for Dale Earnhardt Inc., Yates Racing, Richard Petty Motorsports, Richard Childress Racing, and Wood Brothers Racing. He retired from full-time competition after the 2019 season. He has also competed in the NASCAR Xfinity Series in the past, including running part-time with Andy Petree Racing in 2003 and 2004, full-time with DEI in 2005 and 2006, and full-time with Roush Fenway Racing in 2010. He has won 1 Cup Series race (the 2011 Brickyard 400), 3 Xfinity Series races, and 1 ARCA Menards Series race.

He is the son of entrepreneur John Menard Jr., the founder of the Menards chain of home improvement stores.

Early career
Menard's racing career began at the age of eight when he won the Briggs Junior Karting Class Championship in his native Eau Claire, Wisconsin. He later won the Briggs Medium Class Champion before working his way up to higher level racing. He began ice racing at the age of 15 and won 10 International Ice Racing Association events in his career. He continues to compete in IIRA events in and around Wisconsin. In the summers he raced legends cars on short tracks in Wisconsin. He borrowed Bryan Reffner's Late Model for a week winning his heat race and placing around fourth in the feature. He decided to build his own late model and raced the car three to four times per week. In an interview with Motorsports Minute, Menard said he chose stock cars over Indy Cars because there was no feeder series for Indy Car in his native Wisconsin.

In 2000, he began racing a limited schedule in the NASCAR Re/Max Challenge Series, finishing 13th in points. During his rookie season in 2001, he earned a pole and victory at Road America in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin, finishing ninth in points. The 2002 season saw Menard compete in ReMax Challenge (two poles, seventh in points), SCCA Trans-Am (one front-row start, four top-10 finishes), Grand Am Cup (victories at Fontana and Phoenix) and the NASCAR Southwest Tour. He capped his season in the latter series with a last-lap pass of veteran Ken Schrader for the Phoenix victory.

In 2003, Menard joined Andy Petree Racing to compete in NASCAR Cup Series, Busch, and Truck Series events while still competing in ARCA. In his first ARCA start at Salem Speedway, he qualified second and finished fourth. Later that year, he started on the pole at Winchester, Indiana, and then scored his first ARCA victory at Talladega Superspeedway. He also had top finishes of ninth in the Busch race at Indianapolis Raceway Park and eighth in the Truck race at the Kansas Speedway.

Dale Earnhardt, Inc. (2004–2008)
In 2004, Menard began the NASCAR Busch Series season driving the No. 33 Chevrolet. Midway through the season, he moved to Dale Earnhardt, Inc. in the No. 11 Chevy. 10 races later, Menard won his first career pole position at Kansas Speedway and finished 23rd in points despite no top-tens and missing seven races. With Dan Stillman as crew chief beginning in 2005, they started out by leading 57 laps at Daytona. Winning the Bud Pole Award at Talladega also had them running up front until getting caught up in a wreck. He got his first top-10 and top-five by placing fifth at the Kentucky Speedway. From there, the team went from 20th to the top-10 in points before finishing in sixth place overall, for the season.

In 2006, driving the No. 15 car part-time for DEI, Menard scored his first top-10 finish in the NASCAR Nextel Cup Series by coming in seventh place at the Golden Corral 500 at Atlanta Motor Speedway. Menard also won his first Busch Series race on June 24 at his home track of the Milwaukee Mile by holding off a late race charge and bump from Cup regular Kevin Harvick. Harvick eventually caused a multi-car wreck attempting to bump him out of the way. Menard finished off 2006 with a sixth-place finish in the standings, tying his best finish in the standings last year (2005). He scored 16 top-10 finishes and 7 top-5 finishes in the Busch Series.

In 2007, Menard ran his first full-time Cup season. He failed to qualify for six races that season, but after DEI's merger with Ginn Racing, the owner's points were transferred from Sterling Marlin's No. 14 car to Menard, who was then locked into the rest of the races. His best finish of 2007 was in the Citizens Bank 400 where he finished 12th. In the Busch Series, he picked up 5 top-5 finishes. After the fall race at Charlotte, in which Menard and Tony Stewart made contact on pit road, a feud between the drivers ensued; Stewart had driven for John Menard in the Indy Racing League's early years.

In 2008, Menard won his first Sprint Cup Series pole at Daytona International Speedway in early July and remained in the top 35 in owner's points for the entire season. At Talladega in the fall, Menard had the best run of his career leading laps and coming home with a strong second-place finish. He also was up front for a good part of the day in the other. He finished up the season with $3,559,130 in earnings and finished 26th in points standings, a career high.

Yates Racing/Richard Petty Motorsports (2009–2010)
For the 2009 season, Menard moved over to the No. 98 Ford Fusion operated by Yates Racing. Menard showed limited improvement in 2009, running in the top 10 many times, only to later have problems. For example, he crashed at Las Vegas Motor Speedway while running very well, and was involved in a wreck with only 40 laps to go, while running 7th. These issues lead to the team being in danger of falling out of the top 35 in points standings for much of the year. Menard's best finishes included two 13th-place finishes in the Aarons 499 at Talladega Superspeedway as well as the Samsung 500 at Texas Motor Speedway, and a 15th-place finish in the Southern 500. At the second Dover race, Menard started 10th and ran in the top 10 for most of the day, only to find his car tighten up near the end of the race and come home 19th. At the end of the 2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, Menard was the only driver to not score a top 10 finish who ran all of the races. Menard ended up finishing 31st in the final point standings.

For the 2010 season, his No. 98 team moved over to Richard Petty Motorsports, due to its merger with Yates Racing. In his first start with RPM he finished 13th in the 2010 Daytona 500. He then went on to have Top 20s at Las Vegas and Fontana. The following race at Atlanta Motor Speedway Menard posted his second highest career Cup series finish with a fifth place showing followed by a few more top 20s. After that, he fell from the Top 12 in points. At Charlotte, he finished eighth after running in the top 10 all race long. Menard also posted another top 10 in the circuit's 19th race at Chicagoland Speedway. At Dover International Speedway in September he ended up with a 7th-place finish. The following week he started from the second position at Kansas. While most publications rated him around 30th in the 2010 preseason, he finished 23rd in points.

In early 2010, Menard drove in the No. 90 Daytona Prototype for Spirit of Daytona Racing in the Rolex 24 hours at Daytona International Speedway. In 2010 he came close to winning the Nationwide Series race at Road America in his hometown of Wisconsin. Menard was running 7th when he was spun out on the final lap by road course specialist Tony Ave. It appeared that Menard was to blame, but footage captured by a fan showed that Owen Kelly was at fault.

Richard Childress Racing (2011–2017)
Menard moved to Richard Childress Racing in 2011, driving the No. 27. On July 31, 2011, Menard won his first and only Sprint Cup race in his 167th start, in the Brickyard 400 at the prestigious Indianapolis Motor Speedway. He did so by making his last pit stop with 36 laps to go. He led late, but with 9 laps to go, he was passed by Jamie McMurray. With four to go, he regained the lead and held off Jeff Gordon, the winner of the inaugural Brickyard 400 in the final laps, having enough fuel to do so. He is the first member of the Menard family to win at Indianapolis, in any event, held at the track. He also joins Trevor Bayne, Regan Smith, David Ragan, and Marcos Ambrose as first-time winners in the 2011 season.

In September 2011 at Richmond, Menard and RCR became the center of controversy when Menard spun in the waning laps. It was believed that his accident was intentional, intended to assist his teammate Kevin Harvick who later won the race against Jeff Gordon who would have won if the caution did not come out.

In 2012, Menard did not perform well. He crashed during the Aaron's 499 at Talladega and went winless for 2012. In 2013, he slightly improved when he was briefly in Chase for the Sprint Cup contention. A blown engine early in the Coke Zero 400 caused him to be knocked out of the Chase with a few races left before the Chase began. In the season-ending Ford EcoBoost 400, Menard's tire exploded upon stopping in his pit box; Menard stated, "About a lap later, they told me I was on fire. I lost my brakes, and the damned wheel blew right off." In 2014 Menard scored 13 top tens (a career high) and held a chase spot for most of the regular season but two consecutive 18th place finishes at Atlanta and Richmond (final race of the regular season) dropped him out of contention.

Menard won the Nationwide race at Michigan for his first NNS win since 2006 in June 2014. He won after Joey Logano blew a tire with 4 laps to go.

In the 2015 Sprint Unlimited at Daytona, Menard won the pole for the race by drawing. He led the first 7 laps until he was involved in a big wreck, finishing 21st. The race was later won by Matt Kenseth. Menard later finished in the top 5 in Auto Club and in Talladega and got 5 top 10s and 22 top 15s. He made the Chase for the first time in his career mostly because he had only one DNF (a blown engine in Texas), grabbing the final spot by 17 points over Aric Almirola. He was eliminated in the first round, but with Matt Kenseth's two-race suspension, Menard passed him and finished in a career-best of 14th in the standings. Also in August 2015, Menard took the checkers at Road America, holding off Blake Koch and Ryan Blaney for his third Xfinity Series win. Aside from the 2011 Brickyard 400, the win was Menard's biggest of his career, as Menard had grown up a few miles from the track.

In the 2016 Sprint Unlimited, Menard finished in a career best 3rd place, after surviving several big ones.

To start of 2017, Menard survived wrecks in the Daytona 500 and brought home a 5th place finish after a few cars ran out of gas. The next week at Atlanta, he finished 25th. Menard scored his 2nd top 10 of the year in the GEICO 500 at Talladega, finishing 9th. In the Coke Zero 400, Menard ran up front late and came home 3rd, barely behind Ricky Stenhouse Jr. and Clint Bowyer. Menard survived most of the carnage in the Brickyard 400 but crashed in a late big one.

Wood Brothers Racing (2018–2019)
On July 26, 2017, Menard was announced as the replacement for Ryan Blaney in the No. 21 Wood Brothers Racing Ford starting in 2018.

On June 30, 2018, almost 10 years to the day, Menard got his second ever NASCAR Cup Series Pole Award at Chicagoland Speedway for the Overton's 400.

On July 12, 2019, Menard announced he had a contract for the 2020 season, indicating that he plans to stay with Wood Brothers. On September 10, 2019, Menard announced his retirement from full-time racing after the 2019 season.

ThorSport Racing (2021)
On May 17, 2021, Truck Series team ThorSport Racing announced that Menard would return to NASCAR and compete in a fifth part-time truck for the team, the No. 66, in the series' new race at Circuit of the Americas. It is his first NASCAR start in his semi-retirement, and his first Truck Series start since 2007 when he competed in the spring Martinsville race in the No. 51 for Billy Ballew Motorsports.

Personal life
A native of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Menard is the son of Menards founder John Menard Jr. He attended the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, majoring in business. He currently resides in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area with his wife Jennifer. The couple had their first child, a daughter, on March 18, 2014. The family later welcomed another child, a son, in November 2017. Menard is a Roman Catholic and a fan of power metal music. Paul Menard doesn't have any social media and he chooses to stay away from it because "it is nothing good and there's so much more to life than looking at other people's lives behind a screen."

NASCAR
(key) ( Bold – Pole position awarded by qualifying time. Italics – Pole position earned by points standings or practice time. * – Most laps led. )

ARCA Re/Max Series
(key) ( Bold – Pole position awarded by qualifying time. Italics – Pole position earned by points standings or practice time. * – Most laps led. )

$$ Season still in progress $1$ Ineligible for series points

title: Paul Menard


text:
Talk:United Kingdom–United States relations

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)

German-Irish?
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)

NPOV
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)

United Kingdom-United States relations
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)

"their philosophical white supremacy underpinnings are similar"
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)

1812
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)

Oregon?
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)

Newspapers
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)

The country comparison section
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)

Merger
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)

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

Special Relationship
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)

State Visits
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)

War of 1812
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)

Questionable Authorities?
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)

Noel Gallagher quote
This quote seems very unlikely:

No one can be as calculatedly rude as the British, which amazes Americans, who do not understand studied insult and can only offer abuse as a substitute.

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)

Merge discussion
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)

Congestion charge diuspute, £5.29m
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)

War Attempt with UK
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)

Removed paragraph from War of 1812 section
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)

Orphaned references in United Kingdom–United States relations
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)

Semi protected edit request
Anglo American relations are important to both countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.4.146 (talk)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one 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 ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

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

Death of Harry Dunn should be mentioned
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)

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

Violation of Neutrality?
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * His Majesty King Charles III reception for Heads of State and overseas visitors (52367172621).jpg


text: User talk:82.44.225.205

title: User talk:82.44.225.205


text:
Talk:Area rule

Comments
If there is a finer example of how collabrative editing can turn a somewhat geeky article into one of the best on the topic I've seen, I can't think of it. The images added have really improved the content a lot.

Maury 14:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is very well-written, but renaming it "Whitcomb area rule" was asinine. It makes the page harder to find and to link to. ArgentLA 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the images in general, but there are rather a lot - the 747 especially is a dubious inclusion in my view, since AFAIK, the top deck design has little to do with area rule, and more to do with other aspects of the practical design. If this were not the case, then every airliner would have a similar shape, whether or not the bulge was actually useful for passenger accommodation. And the A380 as an even newer two-deck design doesn't employ area rule in this manner. I think the 747 should go. Other photographs should be removed if they only duplicate the same point already made - the B-1 is superfluous in my view. Too many images on a page make it slow to dlownload on dial-up, and tend to distract from teh text. Illustrations and photographs should only be added to enhance an article, not take it over. Graham 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Uhh, the 747 is a textbook example of the area rule. The aircraft was originally designed as a strategic transport competing against what became the C-5 Galaxy. Both aircraft were sized specifically to contain a 2-by-2 stack of standard shipping containers. In the case of an accident, these would come out the front of the aircraft and nothing would stop them, so in order to protect the pilots the cockpit was located above the cargo area. Lockheed chose to enclose the entire area as a second deck, leading to it's egg-shaped cross-section, while Boeing instead used the "pod". While developing the -400, testing demonstrated that extending the pod rearward would reduce drag due to the area rule. Maury (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Uhh ... this is a horribly written text. "The area rule says that two airplanes with the same longitudinal cross-sectional area distribution have the same wave drag, independent of how the area is distributed laterally" ...  I don't care who's textbook that's in - it's dumb and it's poorly written.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

converted thumb to text. --Arnero 10:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Otto Frenzl
I've asked User:Stahlkocher1 (on his talk page) to provide some sources for his recent edits, as I can't find anything about Otto Frenzl on google. Does anyone else know anything about this man ? Megapixie 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See ongoing discussion on my talk page Megapixie 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

assuming the german wikipedia correct, frenzl was the original creator or the area rule.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Frenzl&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DOtto%2BFrenzl%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Dietrich Küchemann
I thing Küchemann in overestimated in the area-rule matter. The german war scientist had good connections, and so they werewell informed about real news. Küchemann and most other did now about the Junkers patent. There were severall designs working with the areal rule, even at BMW design office (sic!). So everybody knows whats going on. Most of them are late 1944 shure that there will be no Endsieg. But research was still going on. However: If Whitcomb really meet Busemann, it is most likely that Busemann plain told him about the area rule. And probably some other things. -- Stahlkocher 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Dietrich Küchemann moved to the RAE Farnborough at the end of WW II and worked with Handley Page and was subsequently involved on the Concorde supersonic airliner project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Research went on
I found someone with approach to the inner sight of german 1945 aircraft industrie. I thought (no document found yet) that, beside Junkers, just Messerschmidt, Arado and Heinkel (probably one or two more) had knowledge about the Frenzl patent. This means that it was not spread to much. Furthermore he suggested that the afford to get a area ruled airframe was to large if you stay subsonic. This is probably the reason while Baade did not use it in russia on his developments. The next thing is that the HP Victor most likely has an area ruled airframe, making this aircraft probably the first flying thing with this awareness. Maury told my about british researches working on area ruled bodies, but did not name them till now. I hope he will tell me soon. -- Stahlkocher 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Shouldn't this be Whitcomb area rule? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Why? Whitcomb rediscover only the Fenzel area rule.--HDP (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernoulli?
I have just removed the unscientific "due to Bernoulli" statement. I suspect this is a version of the transit time fallacy popularized by incorrect explanations of airfoil lift. Acceleration of a fluid is not "due to Bernoulli." Applying Bernuolli's law to a supersonic flow situation is naïve. Such assertions should not be made without supporting references.

Don't put this nonsense back in without some justification.

Johnny (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You're correct, but when you use all those "3 dollar words" - no one is going to believe you. Speak English next time, and maybe you'll convince someone that you understand the subject matter.  "Transit time fallacy"?  Do you speak like that at work?  No.  Not even if you work at Boeing or Lockmart.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible error in terminology
I think the term "incompressible fluid" in the following sentence should actually be "compressible fluid"

He talked about the difference in the behavior of airflow at speeds approaching supersonic, where it no longer behaved as an incompressible fluid.

207.30.62.198 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree Teknikal224 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The article begins by saying "The Whitcomb area rule, also called the transonic area rule ..." In a number of places the article incorrectly referred to the "supersonic area rule" so I have changed each one to transonic area rule or another more appropriate expression. See my diff.
 * The sentence challenged above now says Busemann talked about the difference in the behavior of airflow as speeds approached the critical Mach number, where the air no longer behaved as an incompressible fluid. I think this version of the sentence is now correct. Dolphin  ( t ) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Description section: "The area rule says that two airplanes with the same longitudinal cross-sectional area distribution have the same wave drag..." A longitudinal cross-section would be a section cut in some plane parallel to the nose to tail axis. Is "a transverse cross-section" what is meant? Is the word "distribution" used correctly or should that word be omitted and the sentence read "...cross-sectional area have the same wave drag..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.234.61 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed wing aircraft
Isn't the transonic operating range only an important operating range for SOME fixed wing aircraft? Namely high speed types such as jets? The introduction makes it sound as if it was important for all fixed wing aircraft, and I doubt it is a big consideration in Cessnas and such..45Colt 08:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange thoughts on Area Rule
Such "theoretical" shapes have been found by limited experiment to actually fly. Note that there are total fuselage "holes". A thorough understanding of this subject would incorporate such "anomalies".

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9cddcb52914d.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Get a room...
"If there is a finer example of how collabrative editing can turn a somewhat geeky article into one of the best on the topic I've seen..." Maury 14:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"This article is very well-written..." ArgentLA 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys are the perfect example of why fan-boys should not post anything in public -- too much gushing on each other's faces.

And "The resulting shock waves formed at these points of sonic flow can greatly reduce power..." [snip rest of crap]. Really? What power? Engine power? Preposterous beyond belief and a wildly inaccurate article. But, hey that's what Wikipedia wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.210 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Place all questions about speed improvement here
Several members have reverted this page because they do not understand the topic or its effects and do not believe the claims that it doubles speed.

The F-102 was NOT designed with the area rule from the outset, and could only hit Mach 1.1 even with the more powerful J57 on the F-102B. It had to be redesigned into the F-106 also equipped with the J57. The fully area ruled F-106 had twice the top speed of the F-102B with the same engine. They are essentially the same aircraft but the F-106 made full use of the area rule and the F-102 was interim and did not make full use.

The F4D Skyray had the same J57 engine but was completely unable to go supersonic at all because it was not area ruled. The F-106 with proper area ruling was MORE than twice as fast.

For another example, in a non area ruled aircraft the J65 was not supersonic at all. Not a single non area ruled aircraft powered by it was supersonic. But in the area ruled F-104 it was capable of Mach 1.6. Just shy of double the speed.

So yes, it absolutely does double the speed. In some cases its MORE than double the speed.

So please stop vandalizing the page because you do not have knowledge of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02C:A55E:C01F:9C97:54B9:5E0D (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Knowledge of the subject is not a prerequisite for editing. We don't care about an editors expertise or lack thereof. All that is needed is to provide a reliable source for the information. If you are truly the expert you claim to be, then you should have access to such a source. (You're not just making this up out of thin air, are you?) If no source is provided, the info simply gets reverted. Zaereth (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 * The F-106 used the J75, not the J57. A third more thrust.
 * You're also throwing around claims like "twice as fast", but doing so without quoting numbers. And they'd need to be detailed numbers, i.e. are you talking knots vs. Mach and even if you're comparing at the same altitudes, what altitude was that? And just which version of the aircraft and when, because there's also development within the class.
 * But mostly, you're adding stuff that's unsourced. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Also WP:BURDEN.  Because no-one seems to believe your claims, your claims are so exceptional that they need robust sourcing to stand up, and most of all claiming that they both used the same engine (when you evidently can't even decide which engine that was  ) is trying to compare apples and oranges.
 * Oh, and there's also the issue of "doubling" transonic speed meaning a jump up to Mach 1.5 – 2+, which is way off the beam.
 * The YF-102 went to the YF-102A by adopting area ruling. Its speed went from just below Mach 1.2. There were also engine improvements. I don't have better numbers than that to hand. This is significant. It illustrates "the sound barrier" and how hard it was to get fractionally past it. But 20-25% faster isn't "doubling".
 * Let's call the F-106 the F-102B for a moment. Which will annoy the rivet counters, but hey, it's close enough for jazz. That's an aircraft with a doubling of speed over the YF-102, and it has also adopted area ruling. But it also has a whole different engine in there, with a bunch more thrust. And that's why it's also (nearly) twice as fast as the area-ruled F-102A was. It's faster because it gained a honking great engine, and a bunch of other stuff, not merely from beng area-ruled. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Now this makes much more sense. The area rule doesn't cause the aircraft to go any faster; It simply reduces the incredible increase in drag that happens once you hit the sound barrier. It was literally like running into a wall, because the airflow suddenly goes from compressible to incompressible. Quite literally it can't get out of the way fast enough and is compressed into nearly a liquid state. You can see this quite clearly in the photo to the right. I actually took this to a ballistics-expert friend of mine to find out why the mach cone (the shockwave or the so-called Prandtl-Glauert singularity) was not at the end of the bullet where it should be. You can see in the photo the layer of incompressible flow around the bullet as it plows through the air, and the oblique shockwaves that form at the tip. This flow actually extends past the bullet, surrounding a plug of extremely compressed, hot gases that follows the bullet out of the barrel, and it's at the end of this plug that the mach cone forms. (Both flows suddenly become compressible again.) In the photo, which must be just inched from exiting the barrel, the bullet is just breaking the speed of sound, the hot gases are still expanding, and the bullet is still accelerating. The area rule allowed planes to break through this barrier, to slice through the incompressible flow, and allowed the engine to reach its full potential, whatever that may be. I think it would be disingenuous to say it produces a certain, finite increase in speed for all engines in all conditions.Zaereth (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Area rule


text:
Catalan Wikipedia

The Catalan Wikipedia (Viquipèdia en català) is the Catalan-language edition of the Wikipedia free online encyclopedia. It was created on 16 March 2001, just a few minutes after the first non-English Wikipedia, the German edition. With more than 0 articles, it is currently the -largest Wikipedia as measured by the number of articles, and the fifth-largest Wikipedia in a Romance language. In April 2016, the project had 582 active editors who made at least five edits in that month.

Creation
On 16 March 2001, Jimmy Wales announced that he wanted to create Wikipedias in other languages and mentioned that there was interest in creating a Catalan version. The first tests were made on the deutsche.wikipedia.com, and a few minutes later, the Catalan Wikipedia was created in the catalan.wikipedia.com domain.

The first edit on a non-English Wikipedia was at 21:07 UTC, 16 March 2001, made to the Catalan main page. The first contribution in a non-English article dates from March 17 at 01:41 UTC in the article Àbac. Despite being created after the German Wikipedia, for about two months it was the only non-English Wikipedia that contained articles.

After some time, the domain changed to ca.wikipedia.com and later to ca.wikipedia.org. About 2003 its community started to use the name "Viquipèdia" when talking about this edition of Wikipedia. Nowadays, this word is used in Catalan language to refer to the whole Wikipedia. About 2005, the domain www.viquipedia.net was registered and it redirects to ca.wikipedia.org. In 2007, www.viquipedia.cat was also registered and redirected.

The first registered user was probably AstroNomer, presumably used only to make some registration tests, but the first registered user to make lasting contributions was Cdani, the same user cited in Jimbo Wales' message.

In 2005 the Catalan Wikipedia community debated on which name(s) of the Catalan language to present in the main page and other policy pages, either català, "Catalan", valencià, "Valencian", or a combination of both català-valencià and català o valencià. Although there was not a consensus on any of the proposals, users agreed that in articles relevant to the Valencian Community, the name "Valencian" was to be used; on all other articles "Catalan" is preferred. The main page avoids making reference to a particular nomenclature, by simply stating aquesta versió, "this version".

title: Catalan Wikipedia


text: User talk:84.9.149.39

title: User talk:84.9.149.39


text:
Talk:Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama)

bishop voy m bullen was named gereral over seer for the church of god of huntsville ala,proceeding the death of homer tomlinson. after the death of bishop bullen, danny patrick was named general over seer for the chuch of god [ huntsville alabama] and it was moved to [scottsvillle ky.] under the leadership of [danny patrick]with he pastoring the church there in scottsville ky. it is called the east willow st church of god in scottsville ky. it is said to have 200 members there at that church. bishop ted carr of oklahoma was field sec. for the church for many years. now he has chartered a new movement which is called [the church of god in divine order] located in sand springs oklahoma. bishop voy m bullen was general over seer for the church of god huntsville alabama in which the general assemblys were held in chaffee mo. with bishop dale mckennzie as hosting at the church in which he pastors there also. in 1995 the 89th annual general assembly was held on augs 7th though out augs 10th with voy bullen as general overseer. minutes can be obtained from scottsville alabama.

Could someone explain the differences between the Scottsville, KY Church of God and the Santa Fe, TX Church of God http://www.thechurchofgodusa.org ? At different times editors appear to have claimed each of these as the successor to the Huntsville, AL Church of God. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scottsville, KY headquaters came directly from the Huntsville, AL association after Bishop Bullen. I'm not familar with the TX association but at my last knowledge, the Scottsville, KY / Huntsville, AL association had no churches in Texas at all. Could be that the TX branch was upset at the appointment of Bishop Patrick and left at the same time. I know there were a few small churches that pulled out including Ted Carr.

I was raised in this group ( it should be noted I left ten years ago now, but still have friends assosiated with them) and to my knowlege there were never any churches in Tx at all. They could be an offshoot of Carr's assosiation in Sand Springs,Ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.19.92 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-06-06

title: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-06-06


text:
João de Santarém

João de Santarém (15th century) was a Portuguese explorer who discovered São Tomé (in December 21, 1471), Annobón (in January 1472) and Príncipe (January 17, 1472), and hence became the first known european to reach the southern hemisphere. Together with Pero Escobar, he also encountered the town of Sassandra in the Ivory Coast in 1471 and 1472, explored the African land from Ghana up to the Niger Delta. From 1484 he was captain of Alcatrazes (around Santiago or Brava) in Cape Verde.

In January 1471, João de Santarém and Pero de Escobar discovered "the traffic of gold at the place we now call Mina" (present-day Elmina).

title: João de Santarém