Talk:U.S. Virgin Islands

---

Wondering how to edit this Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

---

Denmark pressured to sell V.I.?

Someone is persistently editing out any reference to the duress the USA placed Denmark under. I shall find an alternate form of words, and if this article is selectively edited again I shall report that as vandalism. One should not suppress historical instances of US imperialism, no matter how justified they may appear; rather, context should be provided. PML.

Just goes to show why one should routinely cite authoritative references, otherwise no way to tell the fabrications apart from truth. The duress part is an interesting explanation for what has always seem unmotivated to me, but surely a real historian has published something about this episode. Stan 16:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I note the vandalism, and I shall report it before fixing it. The problem is that the nature of the pressure has been edited out, making it appear a voluntay acquiescence and not a rough wooing. PML

I understand what the edit changed, but you still need to prove your claim. Facts so obvious that every human being agrees on them don't need citations ("water is wet", etc), but accusations of political chicanery don't get to live without reputable authority to back them up. Now that I'm watching this page, attempts to put the statement back aren't going to last, not without a supporting reference that I can look up for myself. Stan 00:29 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have suggested referring the matter to Danish sources. My own knowledge is indirect and not recent, and I don't have references to hand any more. (I looked up constitutional stuff, and one clue led to the Danish Crown holdings.) By all means disagree, and complain that I can't cite a source - but don't make out that that means there isn't one. It just means that when I saw this and put in something from memory, I didn't have the rest on hand. Editing it out is vandalism from pushing an unbacked view, with the difference that it isn't even backed by memory. So, no I do not need to "prove your claim" - it is prima facie plausible and it corresponds with my recollections of something that turned up in passing during otherwise unrelated researches. If we want to argue this, leave it as is while we check - don't suppress the US imperialism side while we do. (This isn't mere US bashing - feel free to put in what the British did at Copenhagen if you like, or in Iceland.) As for "chicanery" - that is well known in US behaviour of the era (examine all US Marine Corps interventions in the Caribbean around a century ago, if you like). It is distortion to suppress this! PML.

US intervention in Haiti, etc, is well-documented, and I have personally have added many mentions of it via various articles on the many Navy ships that took part. However, your claim is completely new to me, and if you can't manage the simple scholarly task of citing a source, why should I believe you? Your comments make it clear that it's more important to you to slur the US than to prove your assertions, so I have no compunctions about "suppressing" your claim. Stan 04:20 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Disagreements are not vandalism. Again, if you will supply us proof for your assertions, I will step aside, but until then, your assertions are POV and I will rever them. -- Zoe

I put it in as "The Danish Crown agreed to the sale, but felt pressured to do so, fearing the USA would simply seize the islands if they refused the sale" - is that NPOV enough for everyone? -- Jim Regan 06:17 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

NPOV has little to do with it (though that wording is subjective, ascribing a motive to the Danish Crown without indicating a factual basis for it - though the US motive was perfectly acceptable to the biassed, they refused to allow any mention of actual and historical duress on Denmark). I am after a wording that points out factual stuff, then leaves people to figure out whether US actions (under Woodrow Wilson, no less) were more imperialist even than the standards of the time. Negotiations took place between neutrals who were not themselves in immediate danger (see the dates), Denmark was not able to be subject to any US pressure or even incentive (self evident) except a threat of seizure and had no free incentive to give up the islands (an independent cash cow and perquisite of the Crown, the loss of which it could not easily replace - I know something of the constitutional history there), and US permanent acquisition went beyond the norm of temporary acquisition in these matters (see the Kew Letters and the 1941 occupation of East Timor). References to things like East Timor got cut - and then followed by the chutzpah of claiming I had given no backing to the factual stuff! PML.

Well, I don't have evidence to present which I could use to word it any other way, and even as it stands, I'm taking your word for it. I don't think you'll get much backing if your main motive is to try and show the US as imperialists, rather than to provide the best article possible, which should be your main motive. I know I'm not interested in helping you push an agenda. -- Jim Regan 06:59 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

On this one, you've got it backwards. Having seen the smoking gun and formed a conclusion, I feel it would be wrong to suppress that and make out that even presenting what is there is POV. PML.

As a follow up, I've just given up looking for any reference to the notion that the US may have put pressure on Denmark to sell the islands, and, finding nothing, have removed the reference accordingly. -- Jim Regan 07:09 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think you've made one big confusion here, between "Denmark" and "Danish Crown". Ipso facto, the USA had nothing to offer the Danish Crown; that colony was almost the last bit of financial independence it had, once it lost the toll rights through Denmark (there was a colony near Calcutta left). That's what I meant by prima facie plausible that pressure was applied - the USA had nothing to offer the owners. What happened in the end was that the payment was actually folded into an independent revenue stream, and a decade or so ago Denmark derived the Crown of even that. "Denmark" may well have co-operated in the power shift, for all I know (I told you it was a constitutional thing). PML.

I looked again, I found this (http://members.aol.com/XPUS/HF-Shame.html) "The Danes agreed (knowing that the U.S. would in any case seize the islands if Germany did take Denmark, and Denmark wouldn't get a dime for them), on the condition that the U.S. not interfere with enlargement of Denmark's control over Greenland." Out of 30 odd minutes of googling, this is all I turned up, and it doesn't support what you had written, or what I tried to write. -- Jim Regan 07:16 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I got my material, when I got it, peripherally and incidentally during readings of real world sources for constitutional purposes. I didn't expect it to crop up in a colonial context like this, so I didn't keep materials to hand and now all I have is recollections. I have since been asking around among local real world Danish resources (who reminded me about the Indian colony). None of which counts as evidence to the likes of Zoe. (Note that they had no problem with certain of my recollections - just with the context I wanted to give from other colonialists, the fact of the Danish Crown's involvement, and the permanency of US intentions.) PML.

OK, I put it back in, differently. It makes more sense to me that the pressure on Denmark is of the "in the case of invasion" variety, rather than just the US flexing its muscles. -- Jim Regan 00:33 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, clear up to the outbreak of US hostilities the USA was discounting the possibility of being dragged in. To have presented that sort of option in that way at that date would have been a pushy negotiating position at best. PML.

What other kind of negotiation would you expect in a time of war? Sheesh. -- Jim Regan 18:31 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am missing the legal status of these territories.

HOVENSA

I was born and raised in St. Thomas, and never heard the oil refinery on St. Croix referred to as HOVENSA. By my understanding, HOVENSA is the holding company that operates the refinery. The name of the facility itself escapes me, however, and online searches haven't helped much. Any Wikipedians in the U.S.V.I. out there to clarify this? --Dsibilly 05:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HOVENSA is the company. I (also born/raised on St. Thomas) recall hearing "the refinery", "the Hess refinery", or "the St. Croix refinery", but The Daily News (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com) refers to it as "HOVENSA's Refinery, "the Hovensa refinery", or "Hovensa Oil Refinery". Not really a name, but close.... I'll try to find out what the actual name is.

Gruepig 18:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)