User talk:Novwin

Special relationship
Hi. If you want to introduce information regarding close US/Canadian relationship, fine. But do not remove cited material regarding the US/UK relationship simply because it is contrary to your opinion. Such actions could be interpreted as disruption. Mark83 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. I hope I didnt do that. I shall be more careful as I do not want to disrupt a very good site. I am still learning how to cite /insert foot notes for references and I try to tread carefully. My opinion is neither formed, nor relevant. I am essentially indifferent andnot overly concerned about the US / UK or the Canadian relationship in particular. I am only interested merely in the origins and use of this interesting yet subjective term. I reside in the U.S. and I think the term is seldom if ever referenced. Its use in the UK is intriguing and is indeed often misunderstood elsewhere. Hopefully the 1945, 1946 references regarding its origins will help. All the best. Cheers


 * Hi, thanks for your comments. I still feel that your are anti-"Special Relationship" as a term. That would be out of line unless I admit it is my opinion that there is a certain "special" element of the UK/US relationship and further accept that both of us are leaving our POV behind to improve the article. Sure I added the reference regarding "unparalled" - but I have not removed, nor have I any problem with the reference you added today voicing a contrary view. That just makes a better article - two cited articles voicing different opinions, allowing a reader to decide. I have a few more specific comments to make, however:
 * I removed the http://muse.jhu.edu/login i=/journals/washington_quarterly/v024/24.2rachman.html link - you cannot link to a non-accessible site. The only thing you can do here is provide the full reference - Author, article title, journal title, issue, volume, page. A url would be good, but is inacessible to most. You may think that your reference is sub-standard if not a url - that is not the case and not your problem. As long as you provide the very basics (author/journal/date) you have provided adequate references.
 * "65% of Americans cannot find the UK on a map" - Thanks for the citation. My problem with this is that it is too simplistic. Let me use an anology - many military strategists would argue that the ultimate guarantee of American security is its nuclear firepower and the least vulnerable of the triad is the Ohio class SSBNs. I (a UK citizen) can tell you they were built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat division and carry Lockheed Martin-built Trident missiles. How many US citizens know that? 5-10%?? Maybe I'm being too specific; how about asking the average American to name the Secretary of State? I would bet it would be less than the 65% who can point out the UK or France! Even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments Mark83 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)