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 Proposed United States acquisition of 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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States 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.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
The 1951 treaty provided the US with exclusive jurisdiction over three "defense areas", but the United States subsequently returned two of these back to Danish control thereafter, leaving only the Eastern Defense Area (Thule Airbase), under exclusive US jurisdiction. The 1951 agreement has been periodically amended. Most recently, a revised agreement was signed in 2004 clarifying that the only current "defense area" under American jurisdiction was the "Thule Airbase defense area". See here [1]. The 2004 amendment to the 1951 treaty still permits new parcels of land to be designated as "defense areas", but since 2004 none have been. Thule was renamed "Pituffik Space Base" by President Obama in 2023. See here [2].XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what I'm getting at is that the treaty is not covered in the article so what we have atm is one cherry picked element of the treaty mentioned in the lead without reference to any other aspect of the treaty. How does the treaty deal with the sovereignty question, for instance?
The article body does have a section that discusses the defense area. The treaty states that the defense areas are under Danish soviereignty, but that the bases themselves are under American administration/jurisdiction. In essence it gives a territory concession to the United States, with Denmark retaining residual sovereignty (Similar to the situation at Guantanamo Bay).XavierGreen (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Acquisition" has a crystal ball element supposing how Greenland might become part of the USA. Acquisition is a bloodless term, typically meaning some sort of transactional agreement, like buying real estate. However Trump's statement are quite clear: "one way or the other, we’re going to get it". This statement can include force; "one way or another" means "taking most aspects or considerations into account". And the phrase "get it", has a tone of grabbing or snatching something in a physical way. This is all sepeculation of course, but so is our milktoast "acquisition", which is not the term to apply to a forceful taking, that would reasonably be part of "one way or the another".
"Acquire" usually refers to property. But a country/territory is not property. It's everything - government, court systems, financial systems, etc..
The section "territorial expansion" under "American goals of acquisition" is a nonsensical addition that should be deleted. The entire section is literally just a datapoint on why America would be larger, and the only source merely lists those statistics. There is no known group of Americans whose "goal of acquisition," as the section is titled, is to acquire territory for the sole sake of America being larger. Resources and strategic value are listed elsewhere, so the reasoning for this being a separate section, implying that people simply want America to be physically larger, is nonexistent. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's "no known group of Americans" argument is a bogus strawman argument. This content has been in the article for a long time, and its current version can be seen here, from January 9, 2025. It's from an eminently RS and provides valuable information. As such, it deserves to be restored. Could it be improved, framed better, or maybe moved? Maybe, but outright deletion, especially without discussion, as was done, is disruptive and contrary to normal editing practice.
When BRD was practiced by me, the restoration was an act of edit warring. Do not delete properly sourced, and longtime, content without discussion or consensus.
I will restore it while this discussion is ongoing, as BRD assumes the BOLD edit has been REVERTED, and the content's fate is then determined by DISCUSSION. That's what we are doing now, while the status quo version remains in place. Don't edit war. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has the content to do with "Territorial expansion"? It's just a random commentary about land area should there be an acquisition/annex in the future. Just because this irrelevant factoid is sourced to an RS doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, per WP:VNOT. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Have you even read the WaPo article? It's on-topic here, including "how drastically Donald Trump's proposed acquisition of Greenland would redraw the U.S. map". The article provides some important context to the geographical aspects of the topic. Are you suggesting that geography is irrelevant to this topic? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that geography is irrelevant to this topic I am suggesting that it has nothing to do with "American goals of acquisition/Territorial expansion". Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the RS would differ with you. I have now added content from elsewhere in the article that describes how Trump is enamored by the size of the island. He thought its acquisition would be a great real estate deal that would secure his place in history.[1]
Now there are two RS that describe the size as a simple fact and a motivating factor. Trump is always fascinated by superlatives he can attach to his own reputation and legacy. That he misunderstands the actual size is a humorous illustration of his ignorance. Althougg the Mercator projection always fools people, Greenland is still large. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too was reverted when I restored the properly sourced content. I also noticed that in addition to @Valjean:, @Sam Sailor: was also reverted. As mentioned above, the content has been stable in the article for some time. Per the discussion above, it seems that it may be the section heading that is being questioned. I have no objection to finding a compromise on the section heading, but the content is indeed relevant to the article, is properly sourced, and should remain intact in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written from a manipulative, U.S.-nationalist point of view. It pushes a far-right fringe idea as if it's serious policy, despite it being explicitly rejected as absurd and having no serious legal or historical basis. The opening sentence falsely and manipulatively compares Greenland to the Danish West Indies, ignoring that the cases are completely different in legal status, history, and meaning to Denmark, and that that they cannot be compared. For one thing, the age of selling other peoples and territories has been over in Europe for a long time. Secondly, Greenland's status is completely different, and just because Denmark sold the Danish West Indies over a century ago (a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), it has no bearing on any supposed right to buy Copenhagen, Greenland, or any part of the Kingdom of Denmark today. Thirdly, the only real connection between the two cases is that Denmark used the opportunity to secure guarantees for its sovereignty over Greenland, the exact opposite of the MAGA nationalist narrative this article is pushing. Trump's ideas are viewed as bizarre absurdities in Denmark and Greenland. The article should present a mainstream perspective rooted in international law and today’s realities, that Greenland is part of Denmark. Instead, it focuses heavily on internal American deliberations within the MAGA movement, ignoring the internationally recognized legal framework and the clearly stated positions of both Danish and Greenlandic authorities. This is not neutrality, it’s nationalist distortion. It's like writing a history of Nazi Germany’s plans for Eastern Europe by only covering internal German deliberations about what they viewed as their strategic interests, while skipping over (or barely covering) the very existence, rights, perspectives of the people living there, and the international legal framework. Greenland's prime minister has said very clearly that "the United States will not' get [Greenland]"[3] and that this is not a serious proposal, and the article now needs to center the mainstream perspective instead of nationalist fantasies. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article quotes Frederiksen and other Danish and Greenlandic leaders multiple times as rejecting a sale of Greenland. It frequently quotes Greenlanders' opinions.
What you have repeatedly tried to do is to put your POV in the lede. The lede summarizes the article. It is not meant to convey a POV any more than anywhere else in the article. Wikipedia is not your means to denounce "a far-right fringe idea" or "MAGA nationalist narrative" or anything else. That is why you were reverted. Ylee (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Title says it all, the rhetoric is ongoing with a big splash news story coming in once every two weeks or so. Should it have, or would this be reserved when there's direct negotiations or a war, etc. DannyDouble (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
