This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 16 August 2019. The result of
the discussion was speedy keep.
A fact from Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a
WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland. There is clear consensus that a plural title is an improvement, with the form suggested by BarrelProof getting the widest support. There is also some support for a broader treatment of Greenland-US relations, but no consensus that this entails an immediate move. (
non-admin closure)
Colin M (
talk) 01:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support This should be plural, as you say. I can't think of a better title quickly myself. I wouldn't go with "History of the United States' interest in Greenland" because it's much more specific than "interest". I'm fine with either "purchase" or "acquire". ›
Morteetalk 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support BarrelProof's version. BarrelProof makes a very good point and I think his "Proposals for..." is an improvement on "Proposals by...". ›
Morteetalk 22:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. As stated, the current title makes it seem as though it's talking about a single specific proposal.
Fernsong (
talk) 18:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, since it covers multiple proposals.
bd2412T 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
*Support Seems like a good idea.
Chetsford (
talk) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to a somewhat different title: The concern with the current title is valid. However, a purchasing proposal "by the United States" would be a purchasing proposal issued by the United States as the proposing entity. Much of what is discussed in the article are proposals and suggestions by individual people or expressions of general or strategic interest, not proposals for purchase emanating from the United States as the proposing entity. Perhaps "
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland" would be better. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 00:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think it's a somewhat meaningless distinction: the people who have made such proposals are U.S. government representatives, thus
synecdoches of the United States Government. Of course, the U.S. as a landmass or collection of states technically cannot propose anything, nor go to war, make laws, etc (the people of the U.S. do), but in common parlance, it's not improper to say so.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 23:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
One difference is the 1910 proposal, which was an ambassador floating ideas in the administration. If we're discussing proposals "for", then that belongs in the article. If "by", not. The 2019 case seems grey to me: some things Donald Trump does can reasonably be described as "the United States" doing it, but not others. I don't think it's clear whether "the United States" proposed to buy Greenland in this case. Unless there's a reason why "by" is actually better wording than "for", I prefer the "for" version to remove that potential ambiguity. ›
Morteetalk 01:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as more indicative of content. However, I'd suggest a broader change as an alternative. Currently there is a
Denmark-United States relations article, and a redirect,
Greenland - United States relations. It might be prudent to rename the 'proposals to purchase' article to
Greenland - United States relations and expand it accordingly; there is already information in the 'proposals' article which goes beyond the proposals, in particular the strategic importance information and the activities during World War II before US entry. Content from
Denmark-United States relations could be moved into the new article, and a brief statement made in the Greenland section with cross-reference to the
Greenland - United States relations article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think
Greenland - United States relations can be made a redirect to this article now. That said, I suspect that in the long run the topics will justify having two separate articles.
Ylee (
talk) 15:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems like a good idea.
Chetsford (
talk) 16:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree: that would present the false picture that the only relations worth mentioning are of the U.S. (or high ranking people therein) wanting to acquire the island. Taking a step back from the most recent daily news, if anything this article of rather obscure, trivial info should be redirected to Greenland-U.S. relations, where all significant relations can be given due coverage.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
What are the other significant aspects to Greenland-US relations?
Chetsford (
talk) 05:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Reply to
Chetsford: USA has major security-related interests in Greenland. Hypothetically these could be served by USA purchasing Greenland, or conquering Greenland, but in reality, they have for decades primarily been served by USA renting land in Greenland for military bases, and by USA and Denmark maintaining a close alliance.--
Nø (
talk) 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Those appear to be addressed in the current article.
Chetsford (
talk) 15:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
To some extent, yes, but they are not at all about proposals for USA to purchase Greenland, so another title would be more appropriate. Anyway, the wider title
Greenland–United States relations (that I think would be better) would suggest we also included trade relations, and other things.--
Nø (
talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Are there trade relations of any significance? According to this
[1], Greenland only exports fish and last year exported less than $23MM of it (potentially much less) to the U.S. It imports less than $12MM from the U.S. And I'm still not sure to what the nebulous "other things" or "all significant relations" refers. American interest in acquiring the island seems to be the only significant aspect of its relationship with Greenland.
Chetsford (
talk) 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I guess you are right that trade is insignificant. The lease of
Thule Air Base is not.--
Nø (
talk) 10:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Alternative: I think it is obvious that "proposal" should be plural (i.e., Partial support), and I think BarrelProof's suggestion "Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland" is a further (slight) improvement. However, I think the existence of this article, created two weeks ago (for obvious reasons), is a bit of an oddity. Far more importantly we should have a
Greenland–United States relations article. (What we have is a redirect from
Greenland - United States relations to
Denmark–United States relations, but it has been proposed to redirect here instead.) In such an article, the present material would make up a good part (unless it was made a "main article" link in a section). (Also, we should have a broader article on the scramble for the Arctic by USA, China and Russia, but I suppose that is or should be covered in
Geopolitics of the Arctic.)
So, what I am suggesting is really a move to
Greenland–United States relations instead, but it would require someone sufficiently knowledgeable to put a substantial amount of effort into expanding the article to deserve that name. I think the move could come first, though, hoping for someone to put in the effort later.--
Nø (
talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I think this holds the most promise in the long run, allowing for balanced coverage not-dominated by flash-in-the-pan news reports. And no, Yahoo News throwing a few sentences to the 1940s doesn't equal critical coverage: lets see how actual historians and political scientists have framed the issues and determined balance (this means using books and journals, not the first free article on Google).
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Trump's tweets are not the basis for Wikipedia articles. In 100 years, we will want to remember the history of the USA's acquisitions, and acquisition attempts, but this specific proposal is not worth a stand-alone article. The specific Greenland/USA page is worth an article though.
72.141.106.240 (
talk) 18:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support: The current title is misleading as to the status of the current "proposal". ----
Ehrenkater (
talk) 22:04, 1 September 2019 (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.
Map should include Puerto Rico
This is relatively minor, but if Greenland were purchased by the US, it would (presumably) become a territory given its small population. As such, the map should probably also have Puerto Rico colored red. Thanks.
Jacoby531 (
talk) 17:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The first two paragraphs of the section "2019" read:
In 2017, the Danish government declined a proposal from China to purchase an abandoned naval base on Greenland over concerns the arrangement would strain its relations with the United States.
American president Donald Trump discussed the idea of purchasing Greenland with senior advisers. Administration staff members reportedly discussed expanding the American partnership with the island, including a possible purchase; one official stated that the United States can subsidize Greenland for much more than Denmark can.
Now, as I understand it, the first was about real estate - China buying a piece of land, but Greenland/Denmark retaining sovereignity over all of Greenland. The second - though Trump did describe it at one point as a real estate deal - was as I understand it about USA gaining sovereignity of Greenland. I think that in principle those are two very different things, and I think the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs suggests that they are more similar than they really are. I think the article should be clearer on this.--
Nø (
talk) 15:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
In the first paragraph, China has now been changed to a Chinese mining company, which certainly is an improvement. I suppose the paragraph serves to put Trump's idea into a wider context of the emerging scramble for the Arctic (a subject currently underdeveloped and downplayed in
Geopolitics of the Arctic). Perhaps a more direct reference to this scramble would be still better.--
Nø (
talk) 17:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Distance and Geography
Some of the following trivia might be relevant somewhere in this article (perhaps alongside info that Greenland is on the North American continental plate) - but a source would be required. These values I approximated using Google Earth:
Distance between territories:
Greenland--Denmark: 2050 km (1275 miles)
Greenland--USA: 1965 km (1220 miles)
Greenland--Canada: 22 km (14 miles) (not counting minor and in one case disputed islands)
Distance between capitals:
Nuuk--Copenhagen 3540 km (2200 miles)
Nuuk--Washington D.C. 3260 km (2025 miles)
Nuuk--Ottawa 2555 km (1590 miles)
If you are going to bring up Geography, you might notice that Canada is the logical North American country to purchase Greenland, as we own the rest of the Arctic Archipelago, and the people that became our Inuit settled Greenland (back in the day). We Canadians find American hubris laughable, but it shouldn't drive Wikipedia articles.
72.141.106.240 (
talk) 18:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
First,
WP:NOTAFORUM. Second, your agenda-pushing and irrelevant Canada-related edits have been removed. Third, the UK/Canada has, unlike Norway/Denmark/US, never had a claim on Greenland; proximity alone gives Canada no more a claim than on St. Pierre and Miquelon, or France has on the Channel Islands, or the US has on Bermuda/Bahamas/etc. Fourth, Canada is free to express interest in purchasing Greenland; if such happens this article would reflect such.
Ylee (
talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should not have mentioned Canada in my post - the change to the article that I suggest might be one sentence like "Greenland is situated a few percent closer to USA than to Denmark". Properly sourced.--
Nø (
talk) 13:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 16 August 2019. The result of
the discussion was speedy keep.
A fact from Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a
WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland. There is clear consensus that a plural title is an improvement, with the form suggested by BarrelProof getting the widest support. There is also some support for a broader treatment of Greenland-US relations, but no consensus that this entails an immediate move. (
non-admin closure)
Colin M (
talk) 01:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support This should be plural, as you say. I can't think of a better title quickly myself. I wouldn't go with "History of the United States' interest in Greenland" because it's much more specific than "interest". I'm fine with either "purchase" or "acquire". ›
Morteetalk 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support BarrelProof's version. BarrelProof makes a very good point and I think his "Proposals for..." is an improvement on "Proposals by...". ›
Morteetalk 22:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. As stated, the current title makes it seem as though it's talking about a single specific proposal.
Fernsong (
talk) 18:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, since it covers multiple proposals.
bd2412T 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
*Support Seems like a good idea.
Chetsford (
talk) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to a somewhat different title: The concern with the current title is valid. However, a purchasing proposal "by the United States" would be a purchasing proposal issued by the United States as the proposing entity. Much of what is discussed in the article are proposals and suggestions by individual people or expressions of general or strategic interest, not proposals for purchase emanating from the United States as the proposing entity. Perhaps "
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland" would be better. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 00:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think it's a somewhat meaningless distinction: the people who have made such proposals are U.S. government representatives, thus
synecdoches of the United States Government. Of course, the U.S. as a landmass or collection of states technically cannot propose anything, nor go to war, make laws, etc (the people of the U.S. do), but in common parlance, it's not improper to say so.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 23:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
One difference is the 1910 proposal, which was an ambassador floating ideas in the administration. If we're discussing proposals "for", then that belongs in the article. If "by", not. The 2019 case seems grey to me: some things Donald Trump does can reasonably be described as "the United States" doing it, but not others. I don't think it's clear whether "the United States" proposed to buy Greenland in this case. Unless there's a reason why "by" is actually better wording than "for", I prefer the "for" version to remove that potential ambiguity. ›
Morteetalk 01:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as more indicative of content. However, I'd suggest a broader change as an alternative. Currently there is a
Denmark-United States relations article, and a redirect,
Greenland - United States relations. It might be prudent to rename the 'proposals to purchase' article to
Greenland - United States relations and expand it accordingly; there is already information in the 'proposals' article which goes beyond the proposals, in particular the strategic importance information and the activities during World War II before US entry. Content from
Denmark-United States relations could be moved into the new article, and a brief statement made in the Greenland section with cross-reference to the
Greenland - United States relations article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think
Greenland - United States relations can be made a redirect to this article now. That said, I suspect that in the long run the topics will justify having two separate articles.
Ylee (
talk) 15:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems like a good idea.
Chetsford (
talk) 16:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree: that would present the false picture that the only relations worth mentioning are of the U.S. (or high ranking people therein) wanting to acquire the island. Taking a step back from the most recent daily news, if anything this article of rather obscure, trivial info should be redirected to Greenland-U.S. relations, where all significant relations can be given due coverage.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
What are the other significant aspects to Greenland-US relations?
Chetsford (
talk) 05:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Reply to
Chetsford: USA has major security-related interests in Greenland. Hypothetically these could be served by USA purchasing Greenland, or conquering Greenland, but in reality, they have for decades primarily been served by USA renting land in Greenland for military bases, and by USA and Denmark maintaining a close alliance.--
Nø (
talk) 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Those appear to be addressed in the current article.
Chetsford (
talk) 15:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
To some extent, yes, but they are not at all about proposals for USA to purchase Greenland, so another title would be more appropriate. Anyway, the wider title
Greenland–United States relations (that I think would be better) would suggest we also included trade relations, and other things.--
Nø (
talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Are there trade relations of any significance? According to this
[1], Greenland only exports fish and last year exported less than $23MM of it (potentially much less) to the U.S. It imports less than $12MM from the U.S. And I'm still not sure to what the nebulous "other things" or "all significant relations" refers. American interest in acquiring the island seems to be the only significant aspect of its relationship with Greenland.
Chetsford (
talk) 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I guess you are right that trade is insignificant. The lease of
Thule Air Base is not.--
Nø (
talk) 10:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Alternative: I think it is obvious that "proposal" should be plural (i.e., Partial support), and I think BarrelProof's suggestion "Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland" is a further (slight) improvement. However, I think the existence of this article, created two weeks ago (for obvious reasons), is a bit of an oddity. Far more importantly we should have a
Greenland–United States relations article. (What we have is a redirect from
Greenland - United States relations to
Denmark–United States relations, but it has been proposed to redirect here instead.) In such an article, the present material would make up a good part (unless it was made a "main article" link in a section). (Also, we should have a broader article on the scramble for the Arctic by USA, China and Russia, but I suppose that is or should be covered in
Geopolitics of the Arctic.)
So, what I am suggesting is really a move to
Greenland–United States relations instead, but it would require someone sufficiently knowledgeable to put a substantial amount of effort into expanding the article to deserve that name. I think the move could come first, though, hoping for someone to put in the effort later.--
Nø (
talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I think this holds the most promise in the long run, allowing for balanced coverage not-dominated by flash-in-the-pan news reports. And no, Yahoo News throwing a few sentences to the 1940s doesn't equal critical coverage: lets see how actual historians and political scientists have framed the issues and determined balance (this means using books and journals, not the first free article on Google).
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Trump's tweets are not the basis for Wikipedia articles. In 100 years, we will want to remember the history of the USA's acquisitions, and acquisition attempts, but this specific proposal is not worth a stand-alone article. The specific Greenland/USA page is worth an article though.
72.141.106.240 (
talk) 18:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support: The current title is misleading as to the status of the current "proposal". ----
Ehrenkater (
talk) 22:04, 1 September 2019 (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.
Map should include Puerto Rico
This is relatively minor, but if Greenland were purchased by the US, it would (presumably) become a territory given its small population. As such, the map should probably also have Puerto Rico colored red. Thanks.
Jacoby531 (
talk) 17:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The first two paragraphs of the section "2019" read:
In 2017, the Danish government declined a proposal from China to purchase an abandoned naval base on Greenland over concerns the arrangement would strain its relations with the United States.
American president Donald Trump discussed the idea of purchasing Greenland with senior advisers. Administration staff members reportedly discussed expanding the American partnership with the island, including a possible purchase; one official stated that the United States can subsidize Greenland for much more than Denmark can.
Now, as I understand it, the first was about real estate - China buying a piece of land, but Greenland/Denmark retaining sovereignity over all of Greenland. The second - though Trump did describe it at one point as a real estate deal - was as I understand it about USA gaining sovereignity of Greenland. I think that in principle those are two very different things, and I think the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs suggests that they are more similar than they really are. I think the article should be clearer on this.--
Nø (
talk) 15:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
In the first paragraph, China has now been changed to a Chinese mining company, which certainly is an improvement. I suppose the paragraph serves to put Trump's idea into a wider context of the emerging scramble for the Arctic (a subject currently underdeveloped and downplayed in
Geopolitics of the Arctic). Perhaps a more direct reference to this scramble would be still better.--
Nø (
talk) 17:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Distance and Geography
Some of the following trivia might be relevant somewhere in this article (perhaps alongside info that Greenland is on the North American continental plate) - but a source would be required. These values I approximated using Google Earth:
Distance between territories:
Greenland--Denmark: 2050 km (1275 miles)
Greenland--USA: 1965 km (1220 miles)
Greenland--Canada: 22 km (14 miles) (not counting minor and in one case disputed islands)
Distance between capitals:
Nuuk--Copenhagen 3540 km (2200 miles)
Nuuk--Washington D.C. 3260 km (2025 miles)
Nuuk--Ottawa 2555 km (1590 miles)
If you are going to bring up Geography, you might notice that Canada is the logical North American country to purchase Greenland, as we own the rest of the Arctic Archipelago, and the people that became our Inuit settled Greenland (back in the day). We Canadians find American hubris laughable, but it shouldn't drive Wikipedia articles.
72.141.106.240 (
talk) 18:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
First,
WP:NOTAFORUM. Second, your agenda-pushing and irrelevant Canada-related edits have been removed. Third, the UK/Canada has, unlike Norway/Denmark/US, never had a claim on Greenland; proximity alone gives Canada no more a claim than on St. Pierre and Miquelon, or France has on the Channel Islands, or the US has on Bermuda/Bahamas/etc. Fourth, Canada is free to express interest in purchasing Greenland; if such happens this article would reflect such.
Ylee (
talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should not have mentioned Canada in my post - the change to the article that I suggest might be one sentence like "Greenland is situated a few percent closer to USA than to Denmark". Properly sourced.--
Nø (
talk) 13:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply