Talk:Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland

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)

• 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)

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)

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