Jump to content

Talk:Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.141.106.240 (talk) at 18:31, 1 September 2019 (→‎Requested move 22 August 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDenmark Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreenland Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 22 August 2019

Proposed United States purchase of Greenland → Proposals by the United States to purchase Greenland – The present title misleadingly suggests this article is about a single proposal (e.g. the one currently in the news). However, the topic, and the article, clearly encompasses multiple proposals. A more sophisticated, historical scope of the title is warranted, to help stave off the negative aspects of recentism and to reinforce the notion that this is a concept with historic relevance (even if this article was solely about the present day proposal, the title is a bit clumsy). Plural titles are totally fine when warranted per WP:NCPLURAL, as this is about a group of specific things, not a single event or entity. Some support for renaming is at the deletion discussion. I'm open to variants such as History of the United States' interest in Greenland, Proposals by the United States to acquire Greenland, or others that gain consensus. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:08, 22 August 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". › Mortee talk 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...". › Mortee talk 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. bd2412 T 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]
  • Support BarrelProof Version for reasons described by BarrelProof Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 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. › Mortee talk 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]
  • 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]

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]

 Done Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 - real estate or sovereignity?

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

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland&oldid=913542663"