Breaking all the old Encyclopedia Britannica editorial rules about waiting for an event to "end" before writing about it, now Wikipedia is writing about an event that has been threatened (America taking over Greenland) to happen but hasn't.
Requested move 17 January 2026
- 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: RFC about a move (that was a consensus) has just closed in the past 24 hours, with this suggestion being a minority viewpoint. Best focus on content discussions until more sources are provided for an article name change..Moxy🍁 04:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Moxy🍁 04:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Greenland crisis → Greenland–United States crisis – Per WP:PRECISE, as "crisis" is very broad. There was a clear consensus against the clunky former title, but I believe this one would be an improvement as well. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose and speedy close. The nominator was one of 3 people who opposed the current title, that was supported by 20–30 people in the RM that just concluded. "Greenland–United States crisis" is a horrible proposal that will make the title clunky again, even more so than before. It's not just a crisis "between" the U.S. and Greenland, it involves Denmark and lots of European countries now embroiled in Trump's newly announced trade war. At this point Greenland has become the focal point of a broader international crisis with implications for international security, transatlantic economic relations and more, one that threatens the future of NATO and just led to the much-discussed EU–US trade agreement being scrapped. It's not simply about the relationship directly between Greenland (as a Danish territory with 57,000 inhabitants) and the U.S. or Trump's desire to "take over" Greenland. "Greenland crisis" is a succinct title that covers all this, plus it has been used in several RS. No RS use "Greenland–United States crisis." --Bjerrebæk (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. As Bjerrebæk says it would make the title less accurate and unnecessarily clunky. 光の夢 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment.
I would have supported because the basic point is totally valid:
"Greenland crisis" is much better than the former highly POV title, and
could likely be improved further. The reason that the previous title
was bad isn't that it was "clunky" really, it was that it was not a
common name for the situation, and it was POV. I'm not supporting
because I think further discussion might clarify and come up with an
even better title. It's a crisis yes, involves the US and Greenland,
yes, but also Denmark. I'm also concerned that the article is a
semi-duplication of Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland
which is a separate issue which might mean that the right answer for
this article (or that one) is a merger under some new title. I'm in a
"let's discuss further" mindset.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- The former title was not POV. It was a descriptive title that was fairly long, but that was an accurate, neutral and encyclopedic description of what the US has been doing in Greenland. It was supported by the content and many sources in the article. The term is entirely normal and descriptive in expert discourse and has been widely used in mainstream RS in Denmark from Denmark's "BBC," DR, to Denmark's main newspapers. It was based on ample precedent with regard to how we describe other countries, like Russian hybrid warfare. Over more than a week, U.S. editors expressing a personal dislike of the title refused to provide any kind of evidence, broadly construed (sources, policy, precedent, or even a coherent argument), for why the title was supposedly "POV". The objection seemed to hinge not on sourcing, but exclusively on exceptionalism for the U.S., which is not a valid policy argument. The insistence that the U.S. receive unique treatment, where standard terms used in scholarship and expert analysis are set aside and established norms do not apply, without any evidence or argument, is something Europeans cannot accept. Not on Wikipedia, and not in international relations, as seen in the Greenland crisis.
- Now, since the article was created this has evolved into a much bigger international crisis, with the new trade war and more, so the old title – while encyclopedic, reliably sourced and neutral – would be too narrow now, in addition to being clunky. Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland is a highly problematic article, and it does not cover the same topic at all, as discussed on its talk page. This is an article about the international crisis started by Trump; it already has its own sub articles (like Hands off Greenland protests), and I imagine more are forthcoming (like the trade war triggered by the crisis). That other article tries to cover historical, domestic debates in U.S. political history about ideas of "buying Greenland," a very niche topic (hardly anyone in Denmark or Greenland had even heard of those previous proposals before Trump), but it is not written from a broad, international perspective. Lumping together what Trump is doing today with obscure 19th century internal debates in U.S. government circles about failed proposals to offer to purchase Greenland – something that was possible in the 19th century, but not something that is a thing or even possible today – is fundamentally misguided, and also unfair to those 19th century U.S. politicians.
- That other article contains an astonishing amount of speculation that can only be described as U.S. nationalist in spirit, original research, and irrelevant material, and it becomes painfully clear that the voice, perspective, knowledge of and respect for Greenland, Greenlanders and their history, culture, legal framework and what Greenland's political debate about their own country looks like is completely absent. It reads more like a brochure quickly prepared for the Trump administration for why they should steal Greenland's natural resources, which are addressed in great detail[23]. Even the title is horrible, it's a Newspeak title, as another editor called it.[24] "Acquire" – or rather, "ACQUIRE" in caps lock – is the exact word that Trump uses in his bizarre threats against Denmark and other NATO countries. Only yesterday did the former Danish foreign minister compare Trump's threats to German demands on Polish territory in the 1930s. We wouldn't call the German or Soviet invasions of Poland, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an "acquisition". We wouldn't allow German editors to change descriptions of what their country did to other countries to "acquisition" or similar language, ever. Even articles that discuss German dreams of a Greater Germany in the pre-Nazi era, or discussions of Greater Serbia for that sake, don't use this kind of euphemistic, sanitizing language. It's only used in articles about U.S. dreams of annexing other countries. The article needs to get rid of all the sales pitch stuff about all the great natural resources the U.S. could pillage, all the synthesis stuff that portrays the annexation of Greenland as completely rational, and it needs to contextualize its topic within the nationalist discourse it is part of, like we do for all other articles about movements that seek to annex other/neighbouring countries. It should absolutely not be merged with this article, a proposal that fortunately has very little support. They are two long articles that differ fundamentally in time frame, geography, actors, and analytical frame. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not Greenland vs US or vice versa, it's US/Trump vs pretty much everybody, crisis will do nicely ftb.Greenland crisis: Europe needs the US, but it also needs to stand up to Trump (Guardian). Selfstudier (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This is a full-blown NATO crisis, and the new title implies that this is just between the US and Greenland. ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 03:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Changing the Infobox type immediately is not Infobox military conflict
Please change the infobox type immediately, it is misleading. If no one else does it, I'll do it. Just so you know, this isn't the right way to write an article. --Dorian88A (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Let's
try not to start off on the wrong foot right away. We must stick to the
facts!!! To what really is. There is no armed conflict. Dorian88A (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- The crisis is diplomatic and political and Template:Infobox diplomatic mission has been chosen. Dorian88A (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that anyone here wants to reason even when things are obvious. Maybe you don't like the diplomatic template because it was implemented poorly. Dorian88A (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- The crisis is diplomatic and political and Template:Infobox diplomatic mission has been chosen. Dorian88A (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
All of the above was copypasted by us yesterday in case it vanished; this sort of stuff usually does, months later when nobody is looking. The point here is that Wikipedia is playing at being a news outlet for the Google infoboxes, which is insane if you think about it, because the AI large language models scrape Wikipedia (and everything else) to fart out their "reasonable" facsimiles of actual written work.
(Post under construction.)
