Talk:Greenland

Grünland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grünland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Buying Greenland

I was asked about this on my talk page and thought I should explain my edit here too. By inserting a sentence on Trump's idea into the end of the history section it makes it sound like this is the most significant thing that happened in Greenlandic history for the last 10 years. And it really is not, this is just some little idea that will go nowhere and affect nothing. At this stage it feels to me like WP:NOTNEWS applies, along with WP:UNDUE.

Here's another way to think about this: Should we add a sentence on this to the Donald Trump article? I think we probably shouldn't, this is such an insignificant part of Trump's career that it's probably not worth mentioning at this stage. But it's an even less significant part of Greenland's history.

This was a minor blip on August 16. As of today (August 21) it has turned into a significant incident that is leading the news in the US and Europe. Do you wait until US aircraft carriers are steaming into the port of Nuuk before it is considered relevant to the story of Greenland that people around the world are looking to learn? The Premier's quote that Greenland is not for sale is essential information that people are seeking, and that needs to be in a prominent location to pre-debunk the inevitable crowd of people who believe whatever comes from the man in the Oval Office. Malangali (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's true that this is an idea that has been pursued with more seriousness in the past and there would be nothing wrong with writing about that. There's probably even enough material for a separate article on Attempts by the United States to purchase Greenland and it would be fine to deal with Trump's version of this there. Haukur (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, although it does lighten the mood in this article, it's just too minor to mention. The section went quickly over the entire history of their home rule, and then mentioned offhand comments by a foreign politician. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be in favor of including it if it had some context and wasn't just to mock Trump. There was an apparent attempt by the Truman administration to buy it in the mid-1940s, primarily for its strategic military value:

Nelson, W. Dale (May 2, 1991). "Wanna Buy Greenland? The United States Once Did". AP News. Retrieved August 16, 2019.

The plan varied over time. Variations considering offering to swap Point Barrow in Alaska for Greenland, and separate treatment of oil rights. Apparently it never went anywhere past an offer that was tendered to the Danish foreign minister when he was in New York in 1946; and it became moot once Denmark and the US signed a treaty allowing the US to maintain military bases there. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

[edit] I see now this is already covered in the article, in the first paragraph. Given that, at most, it would rate an additional sentence along the lines of, "according to reports in 2019, President Donald Trump also expressed interest in acquiring the territory.[cite]"

By the way, a little more detail on the 1940s proposal is in Rytter, Jens Elo (2010). Phasing Out the Colonial Status of Greenland, 1945-54: A Historical Study. Museum Tusculanum Press. pp. 49–50. ISBN 9788763525879. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How come the History of Greenland can go into detail about the previous attempted purchases, but it's forbidden to mention this one? Do you people have some kind of political agenda against news relating to Donald? Yes, I'm talking about my edit that was undone. I came back to add the by now available response from the danish government, but apparently the matter is too insignificant to speak of and/or has to be covered up, like it never happened. GMRE (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, as for the above excuse of "By inserting a sentence on Trump's idea into the end of the history section it makes it sound like this is the most significant thing that happened in Greenlandic history for the last 10 years." It's not my fault that greenland is such a boring place where noting else has apparently happened in recent history. How is the lack of other events even relevant? GMRE (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Lots of things happen in Greenland like in every country. But we have no Greenlandic editors and so this article and History of Greenland tend to reflect an outside perspective to an embarrassing degree – we are reporting on Greenland insofar as Europeans and Americans interact with it and not as a living breathing country with its own people and culture. But even by that standard this latest piece of transient trivia is especially bad. Haukur (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the context of Greenland as a whole, it's more of a blip, isn't it? Greenland covers a lot of material, well beyond its history. Arguably, neither of the attempts -- neither of which have amounted to much -- should be in the main article, and the History of Greenland article is the right place to treat it. TJRC (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is an ineffectual momentary news in terms of the whole history. I added about it to the "strategic importance" section of the History of Greenland article and the person who undid my edit directed me to this talk page. Naturally by now I have not only readded my edit there, but improved it to include the response from the government of Denmark. That section of that article exists for no other reason than that exact kind of news. GMRE (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Denmark–United States relations feels like a reasonable place for this information and, indeed, someone has already added it there. I still don't feel it belongs in the main Greenland article but I am not going to fight a revert war here. Haukur (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And now Kim Kielsen expresses interest in Greenland buying America.[1] I assume this important matter will be immediately added in a prominent place on the United States article. Haukur (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course the Greenland page should feature this moment. More people will visit the Greenland Wikipedia page in the next 24 hours than have in the past 365 days. Wikipedia exists to provide people with the information they are looking for, not to decide what information is palatable for their pretty eyes. If you want to provide a gentle redirect to a more informative article about Danish-American diplomatic relations, then keep the text about the current incident short - but keep it, don't delete it. Malangali (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've now added a link to Proposed United States purchase of Greenland. The section in question needs some work, though. Haukur (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think my most recent edit leaves the article saying the right amount, in the right place. The issue may need to be revisited if the US threatens an invasion, or if the idea becomes a basis for invoking the 25th Amendment Malangali (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence this is more than yet another Trump spews something crazy to get the media in a tizzy? I think this should be kept out until it is shown to be more than NOTNEWS. Springee (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I still agree with this. Note that no-one is adding this to the Donald Trump article but this is still much more about Trump than it is about Greenland. However, now that we have an article about buying Greenland, the Greenland article ought to be able to link any searching readers access to this information if they're looking for it. But we need to find a good wording which doesn't give this WP:UNDUE weight. Haukur (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

At this point, our otherwise-chronological history section jumps from 1946 to 2019 to 1950.

So far as I can see, this addition completely fails the ten-year test. This is basically a Trump thing, only tangentially connected to Greenland. I see no reason to include it. Kahastok talk 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ten year test is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. Right now, the addition meets notability. Greenland is a tiny country - in terms of its global influence. That's not a criticism, it's merely stating the facts. This incident made global headlines and news, and it is still coming up in media several days later. Based upon Greenland's overall global influence, this is a significant incident in Greenlands history - otherwise, Denmark would never have even responded to it. The interest in 'buying' Greenland is clearly notable, and meets the inclusion criteria. Anastrophe (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Stuff can get a lot of media attention and search hits without attaining encyclopedic significance. We don't have an article on Belle Delphine and no mention of her in any other article either. But in this case we do have a whole article now on Proposed United States purchase of Greenland and a perfect place to discuss minor diplomatic spats at Denmark–United States relations. The Greenland article can link to both of those in some appropriate place but it doesn't need to actually discuss this beyond that. If it ever actually looks like this idea will have some real consequences for anyone or anything then we can revisit it. Haukur (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong disagreement with this. However, the fact that wikipedia is a 'living' encyclopedia gives some latitude. I think in the moment, there is no harm in the mention, along with a pointer to the main article on 'purchase of greenland' - in fact, it's quite reasonable, and people are clearly coming to this article as a first stop to learning more. So including the mention - for now - isn't really a big deal. Leave it for a week or two, then remove it, after interest has fully waned. I think excluding it right now, while it is of public interest, is a disservice to the general reader. Anastrophe (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores

I've just removed this paragraph that was out of place in the section "Climate change" and was a copy-paste of a dubious pop-science magazine repeat of this ice core study: The study may however be relevant to mention in Flora and fauna of Greenland. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Questionable accuracy on the naming of Greenland being a land scam

In the article it states "Erik the Red's recruitment of others to settle in Greenland has been characterized recently as a land scam, the scam (and the name) portraying Greenland as better farm land than in Iceland" - i wish to dispute the accuracy of this. The quote that the citation leads to is "men would be more readily persuaded thither if the land had a good name." which in itself does not imply that it is a land scam. The argument behind it being a land scam is Greenland is currently covered in roughly 81% ice. I dispute this based on the fact that the western coast of Greenland was farmed during this time, which today is perrenially frozen. Thus, the land scam claim is basing this claim off todays climate in greenland rather than that of the the time.