Talk:Monroe Doctrine

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2026

With the recent action by the US in Venezuela, and Trump citing the Monroe Doctrine in his news briefing--I foresee the page getting an increase in visits and would like to suggest this small tweak, which I am unable to perform.

Currently written: "During World War II, the US invoked its Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland to prevent use by Germany following the German occupation of Denmark. The US military remained in Greenland after the war, and by 1948, Denmark abandoned attempts to persuade the US to leave. The following year, both countries became members of the NATO military alliance. A 1951 treaty gave the US a significant role in Greenland's defense. As of 2025, the US Space Force maintains Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, and the US military frequently takes part in NATO exercises in Greenlandic waters."

It feels like the "both countries" is ambiguous (sounding like Greenland became a NATO member). Maybe it could read The U.S. remained in Greenland after the war, and by 1948, Denmark abandoned attempts to persuade the U.S. to leave. In April 1949, the U.S. and Denmark both became members of the newly formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance. Phat.Tyre (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

The Greenland paragraph of the WW2 section should be updated with Trumps threats during his first and second term.


The lead should also incorporate criticism of the doctrine and its 20th century/cold war development as de-facto american imperialism and contrast that with the original non-interventionist intention — jonas (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust definition of Foreign Interference

As written, I don't think it's clear that the doctrine allows for foreign interference by the US or other American powers. I think the lede and definitions could be rewritten to make clear that it opposes intervention by European, African, or Asian states but allows for (and contemplates) US foreign intervention. Dauntbares (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

What is the utility in adding "and is being substantially reinterpreted in the 2020s" in reference to Donald Trump's interpretation? What does the term "reinterpreted" wish to signify here? Every President mentioned in the line held their own interpretation of the doctrine. ~2026-24147-0 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed not by me though. Lova Falk (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.