Talk:Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland

Requested move 22 August 2019

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)

---

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Support, since it covers multiple proposals. bd2412 T 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

*Support Seems like a good idea. Chetsford (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support BarrelProof Version for reasons described by BarrelProof Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

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)

That seems like a good idea. Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

What are the other significant aspects to Greenland-US relations? Chetsford (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

Those appear to be addressed in the current article. Chetsford (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

"Trump's tweets are not the basis for Wikipedia articles." This question was already discussed and decided here. Chetsford (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The current title is misleading as to the status of the current "proposal". ----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)