Talk:Gulf of Mexico

Gulf of America should be in the LEAD section?

I am requesting that all other discussions about the Gulf of America be closed and have a formal RfC to resolve this issue. Consensus has shown AGAINST changing the entire title to the Gulf of America. But there is still debate on whether or not it should be included in the article, particularly in the LEAD section. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the same thing happened with the Persian Gulf and Wikipedia did it there, so I think there should be no difference here. [1] Rc2barrington (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Persian Gulf Naming dispute was an international debate, involving the United Nations. Somejeff (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's basically an Iranian lobby piece, it's not really appropriate to represent it as an international debate. Golikom (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the international groups such as the United Nations group of experts on geographical names (meeting in April), the International Maritime Organisation and the International Hydrographic Organization opt-in to recognising the U.S. owned portion of the gulf as the Gulf of America, then I agree that we should concede to the name. Somejeff (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To both sides of this "question", this entire discussion is moot, since the moment Donald Trump leaves office the next President of the United States will immediately reverse the name-change order.

  The Gulf of Mexico will remain The Gulf of Mexico so long as modern human society endures. Looneybunny (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose – This name is clearly not in common usage among reliable, independent sources, who neither refer to it being in common usage nor use it as a de facto name for the basin. I haven't seen a single such source presented as a basis for its inclusion in the lead. Instead of documenting the Gulf of Mexico as it's actually called by reliable, independent sources, this proposal seeks to use Wikipedia's platform in order to slingshot an extremely uncommon name into common usage and manufacture consent for it. This would be, as I said above, like introducing the Atlantic Ocean as "The Atlantic Ocean, also known as the Argentinian Ocean..." after Javier Milei unilaterally signs an executive order declaring that the official name of the ocean. It's the height of WP:RECENTISM and has zero encyclopedic merit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all great points that you brought up. However, I would challenge the last one. I don't think it's comparable to analogize the Altantic Ocean and the Argentinian Ocean example with this case. At least a couple dozen countries border the Altantic Ocean, whereas there are only two major countries whose maritime borders encircle the Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America.

  Instead, this case is more comparable with the main example that most people are bringing up: the dispute over how the Persian Gulf can also be called the Arabian Gulf. With time, we can expect that the "American Gulf" will become an increasingly common alternative name for the Gulf, including in reliable sources. Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you've somehow forgotten about Cuba, whose maritime borders enclose the east of the Gulf. What's the cutoff then at which we say one country's head of state (not even the other parts of the government) can manufacture an alternative that we need to include in the lead absent common usage? You say, "with time, we can expect", but that's a textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL argument. By trying to predict what common alternatives will be, we're in fact abusing our position as a highly trafficked encyclopedia in order to induce the usage of the alternative rather than describe it. Wikipedia has always been and will continue to be a resource to describe and summarize what the reliable, independent sources say. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would not Cuba (and Mexico for that matter) have their own Wikipedia entry. Specifically https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golfo_de_M%C3%A9xico zimmhead (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Wikipedia is in no way affiliated with any country. What the Spanish Wikipedia wishes to do in regards to this issue is up to them. However, we are the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, nor is the Spanish Wikipedia, the Mexican Wikipedia. Losasta (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As an editor of the Spanish Wikipedia, this issue does not concern me in your Wikipedia, since both are independent; but the Spanish Wikipedia unanimously chose to keep the name "Gulf of Mexico" And it was decided not to mention President Trump's unilateral decision regarding the name, although this decision is influenced by the fact that America in Spanish does not mean the same as in English. PH2601 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It touches a lot of countries and it is in the Gulf of America which means it touches America Mexico and several Central American countries it's not even up for debate and it will be changed whether you like it or not 65.102.184.179 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Cuba does border part of the gulf, but clearly not as much as the US or Mexico. Nevertheless, my argument still stands. If only three countries border the gulf, with two of them making up a majority of the maritime borders, then it's still not comparable to analogize renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America with renaming the Atlantic Ocean to the Argentinian Ocean. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Google just announced there changing it on their maps Bamaboi445 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Google is not Wikipedia. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You had no problem with President Obama changing the name from Mount McKinley to Denali it's over if that's what president Trump wants that's what he gets you can still go on to Google maps and this nonsense on here Wikipedia and I still got to hear the same bullshit if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander it changes and it needs to be changed now today not yesterday because you don't like trump it don't matter I voted for Obama I voted for that change I didn't like that Mount McKinley got changed him out Denali but because I voted for it happened it going to happen fight it love it leave it it does not matter it's changing and we're not going to stop until it does 65.102.184.179 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Google announced they will be changing it on their maps, but only in the US as per their policies. Other countries will still see it as the "Gulf of Mexico" to reflect their own government's official name. This wikipedia serves more countries than just the United States so what they name a place shouldn't be the primary consideration, if it should be a consideration at all. Should we also rename the wikipedia entry for "french fries" to "freedom fries" to reflect what the US government says? DaEpicNebula (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Google is an independent, reliable source and reflects 80% of the map usage consumer base. This is defacto "common name". Objections are political and not dispassionately reasonable positions. The lion share (306m) of native English speaking people (400m) live in the United States where the name will both be official (US gov) and common (Google Maps).

  At this point, objections are around non-English-speaking countries (such as Mexico) and other contrived objections. The name should change upon change in the USGNS. Aaronmos (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no agency named USGNS. If you're referring to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), they are not the final authority in the United States for nautical charts. Instead that would be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That agency is the United States member of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) which is the world body responsible for the standardization and of nautical maps and charts.

  Google Maps is demonstrably not responsible, so whatever choices they make are not relevant with respect to official names. Even if they were, they are only making the change for US users, not any other English speaking areas they serve.

  Further, there is ample precedent there for multiple names being in use on Google Maps, look at the Sea of Japan/East Sea.

  No changes should be made until it has worked its way through the relevant international standards organizations. Wombat Command (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  USGNS presumably was intended to refer to the US Geographic Names Server, which is the official database of the US Government for recording the names of foreign geographic features. Its content is maintained by the United States Board on Geographic Names. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies if I used incorrect markup.

  Approximately 1.5 billion people speak English worldwide (2024 estimates).

  ~400 million are native speakers.

  ~1.1 billion are second-language (L2) speakers.

  The USA has about 300 million English speakers (including native and second-language speakers).

  To estimate those not living in the USA:

  1.5 billion (global total) - 300 million (USA) = ~1.2 billion English speakers outside the USA.

  Breakdown by Regions (Approximate Estimates)

  • India: 250–300 million (L2)
  • European Union: 200 million (L2)
  • China: 200 million (L2)
  • Africa (various countries): 150–200 million (L2)
  • UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland: 100–120 million (native and L2)
  • Southeast Asia (e.g., Philippines, Malaysia): 100 million+
  • Other countries: 100+ million (L2)

  Conclusion

  At least 1.2 billion people outside the USA speak English, either as their first or second language. Khurt Williams 13:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don’t see why a mention would be a problem considering the fact that American schools (and media) will soon be teaching it as the Gulf of America. Jstewart2007 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL argument. You're assuming that American media is going to be using 'Gulf of America' with no basis whatsoever, and the reason you're doing that is because you know that none of them do right now, thus you need to push it off to some unfalsifiable prediction of the future. As for US schools, plausible I guess. Report back when that yields something remotely common in reliable, independent sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many media outlets have already switch to gulf of america. One example of many: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coast-guard-surging-assets-gulf-america-other-waterways-support-trumps-executive-orders Byates5637 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that Fox News is a good example since they occupy an unusual position as a de facto wing of the the Republican party and are an overtly partisan media outlet. Are there examples of more neutral organizations using the change? Harimau777 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that many extremely biased news articles are used on Wikipedia to shape an article's tone while almost always abandoning a neutral approach, it always baffles me when contributors will just outright admit their problem is that it's right-wing. As if being left-wing is inherently correct at all times and never falls into misinformation. Zerochuckdude (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be equally problematic to use a far left news source. Harimau777 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you feel that certain articles are biased due to their sources, feel free to challenge those claims, however judging from the context you may be unaware that FOX is unreliable moreso because it's not a good source for the type of information Wikipedia looks for in a source, not just because it's right wing. This especially applies to politics, and a president that put a FOX presenter as Secretary of Defense pulling a highly-controversial change of the name of one of the most established international waterways on Earth is inherently political. Reliability is not the same as bias. See WP:FOXNEWS for more information. Departure– (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By "many media outlets", I presume you're referring to US based media outlets? Because I'm not sure "many" accurately describes the position of the entire English speaking world. Ghalse (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The US federal government does not dictate school curricula. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and as a teacher I can say that making predictions about what my millions of colleagues will do is hopeless at best, particularly given that this issue is a strictly partisan political one. D.Holt (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And even if some state schoolbook authorities do support the change, it will be years before textbooks containing the change reach classrooms. I remember the textbooks we were using in junior high in 1956 saying that Java was a Dutch colony. Of course, I guess states could follow the example of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and distribute strips of adhesive paper with "corrections" to be pasted into textbooks. Donald Albury 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We all know that it will change back once Trump is gone in 2029. TheEarth1974 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know of four (4) schools in three different States which have publicly stated they will NOT be changing their curriculum to reflect Donald Trump's executive order name change, and I've little doubt that number will grow in the coming days and months.

  Also, the moment Donald Trump leaves office the next President of the United States, (who will, considering recent events, most assuredly be a Democrat), will reverse the order, and the "Gulf of America" will vanish as quickly as it appeared, just another example of exactly why Donald Trump was the worst pick for President in American history. Looneybunny (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per recentism and WP:POINT. No one cared about this article two days ago. I link to this article regularly. The lead needs to reflect the article, not what's not the news. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In case editors don't realize, usage of this name has already begun: "an area of low pressure moving across the Gulf of America, interacting with Arctic air, will bring widespread impactful winter weather to North Florida, etc." StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable, independent sources used to verify common usage do not include a press release by Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a single prominent political ally of Trump. You need to show common usage of this name to justify including it alongside the one used by essentially the entire world minus a rounding error, which this source categorically fails to do, and the fact that this is your first source of choice only demonstrates how woefully deprived the 'Support' vote is for actual sources on this matter. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned this above but independent coverage is more relevant for an article rename discussion. For a mere lead inclusion such as this, to qualify for it per policy, it would need sufficient reliable source coverage and/or mention by notable figures.

  It has both. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You've just linked to WP:N which has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Lead inclusion is a question of notability. A lead that doesn't mention the most notable aspects of the subject is against policy and WP:NPOV. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But Google Maps does. It represents 80% of the map-using user base. Not just a plurality, but a vast majority. It is impossible to get more common than the single largest authority on maps. All "common name" objections just became invalid. Aaronmos (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cite evidence that Google Maps shows "Gulf of America"? As of 31 January 2025 at 9:00 AM EST, the web version Google Maps show the Gulf of Mexico. Googe Maps searched for the "Gulf of Mexico" also show that. Khurt Williams 14:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are in the process of. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That "source" is from the POLICTICAL OFFICE of a well-known extremist right-wing supporter of Donald Trump

  It is not a reliable, nor independent source, and therefore should be discounted Looneybunny (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Looneybunny It is a reliable source for the following fact: "The Gulf of Mexico is officially known as the Gulf of America in the United States." That doesn't mean that everyone has to call it that, which is also not what this RfC is deciding. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Ron DeSantis using Trump's preferred language is not a reliable source for this. This term has been exclusively used by Trump and his top political allies, not by any independent agencies of the federal government. DeSantis is not a part of the federal government in any capacity, but he is a top ally of Trump. That he would use the term "Gulf of America" is unsurprising and irrelevant to this discussion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the Executive Order does not even cover the entire Gulf of Mexico; it would require renaming of the US portion ("...the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba"). International sources will presumably stay with the WP:COMMONNAME for the complete body of water. It's worth mentioning in the article, but not significant for the lead. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this is entirely recentism and we can wait until the dust settles to see if there is enough RS usaage to warrant coverage in the lead. Also as noted it's only to a portion of Gulf. Golikom (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – As mentioned above: Undue weight, recentism, WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the latest policy would only apply to a subsection of the Gulf of Mexico. It does not apply to the entire Gulf of Mexico like many seem to think. It is not a renaming of the whole thing. This is important to know since this would put it on the same level as other subregions within the Gulf of Mexico like the Gulf of Campeche, for example. It does not supersede the common name either. As such, it should not be part of the LEAD section. DemianStratford (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now as far too soon; one news cycles and one press release does not a pattern make. If it reaches sustained usage such that a nontrivial number of people use that as their primary name for it, or the entire US government uses it regularly, or this is in fact how it ends up being taught in US schools, or some similar sustained, significant usage, happening now and not in the hypothetical future, then it should be included in the lead. Rusalkii (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One sentence in the lead is appropriate. The executive order has been widely reported and is thus notable, and readers will be coming to this article to learn about what it actually does, and it serves our readers best if they don't have to dig deep into the article to find it. As many point out, U.S. federal government is not the only entity that has the ability to decide on naming, but it is a major one and its actions are noteworthy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Way too early. The French have been calling the English Channel ‘La Manche’ for centuries, and although mentioned in the article it hasn’t yet made the lead. MapReader (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a non-English name which is a bit different. For instance Golfo de México is the Spanish language name for the Gulf of Mexico. The French article for the English Channel is called La Manche as the French would expect. A more apt comparison would need something with multiple English designations. Persian Gulf is an example that is in line with the situation here, where Arabian Gulf is also mentioned. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The comparison between the Arab/Persian Gulf naming dispute which has been ongoing for decades now and the Gulf of America thing which happened literally yesterday is undue
  -Me, above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Names are not events, so length of time isn't particularly relevant. More important is that it is geography with multiple official designations in the same language. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:COMMONNAME is cited by a few editors but it is being incorrectly invoked as it is guidance on how to name articles, but this is not a rename discussion. It is a discussion on if a new official name for the gulf is notable enough for a lead mention as an alternative designation, and by any interpretation of policy it is given the reliable source coverage and notable use. I've also seen a WP:RECENTISM mention, which not only is an essay, but is being cited incorrectly here as an official name change is enduring and thus is the antithesis of recentism. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact it's a name change argues against it's being enduring without evidence of use in a sustained manner. Golikom (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are conflating the event of the official name change with the new name itself, which is now already in use. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not. It is not automatically enduring because it has been officialy changed (though as we know even that hasn't actually happened yet) Golikom (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This "new name" is ONLY in use by right-wing extremist supporters of Donald Trump, who represent a minority of Americans.

  The majority view is the name should be, and is still, "The Gulf of MEXICO" Looneybunny (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as alternative name. There should also be a dedicated section in history. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is an actual formal process that needs to be gone through to rename a geographic feature under the sovereignty of the United States, and this is certainly premature until that process is complete. Plus, the United States has sovereignty over only a portion of the Gulf of Mexico, and other countries such as Mexico and Cuba have a legitimate say in the naming of the entire gulf, and their interests and wishes cannot be ignored. Even if the Trump regime manages to rename the portion of this gulf that is under US sovereignty, that new name will not apply to the entire Gulf of Mexico but only to the US waters. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The US has sovereignty over the majority of the Gulf of America (53%). Your argument undoes itself.

  You are correct that it is premature until the name is updated in the USGNS, which will happen next month. The change should not be made until next month at which point it should be made. Aaronmos (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the United States does not have control over the majority of the Gulf of Mexico.

  It controls only the portion which falls within the INTERNATIONALLY recognized 12-mile limit from the US coast Looneybunny (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adding "also known as the Gulf of America" would suffice, and there is precedent with the Persian Gulf Coleisforeditor (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But it is not yet also known as the Gulf of America. Surtsicna (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is though, as it was made official, and it is seeing significant reliable source usage. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without supporting or opposing, I propose keeping an eye on https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ as this will be a major force (of hurricane strength) in how widely the name change will enter into use. Jrcovert (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As an agency of the US government, NOAA will not be a reliable source for adoption of "Gulf of America" in common usage, as all US agencies will almost certainly be required to use the name. - Donald Albury 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your only source is not reliable or neutral, being a press release from a POLICTICAL office controlled by a right-wing extremist supporter of Donald Trump

  Your statement is intellectually dishonest Looneybunny (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because a) it has not happened yet, b) the two names apparently do not refer to the same thing, and c) the name has not received significant usage in reliable sources to warrant such prominence. Indeed, so far it is only a proposal, and not even a novel one. Surtsicna (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Half support/half oppose (see my comments in the above discussion for more detail) – I propose that the name "Gulf of America" not be added to the lead for now. If notable use of the new name emerges, then obviously it should be. But for now, I believe the only mention in the lead should be in the form of a footnote in the first section. Under this proposal, the first sentence of the article would be as follows:

  The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México) is an ocean basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean, mostly surrounded by the North American continent.

  I believe that is the best option for now. DecafPotato (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. So far, the strongest arguments against mentioning Gulf of America in the lead section are from WP:RECENTISM and WP:COMMONNAME. From section 4B of President Trump's executive order, it's also ambiguous whether "Gulf of America" refers to the entire Gulf of Mexico, or only the portion north of the southernmost continental shelf tips of Texas and Florida it's clear that the "Gulf of America" refers to exactly the same thing as the "Gulf of Mexico", so it's confusing and unclear why other people are saying that the Gulf of America is only part of the Gulf of Mexico. There's already precedence where the Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf both refer to the same thing. So far, the only major sources that I've seen to use "Gulf of America" are the US Coast Guard and the state government of Flordia. More reliable sources and public usage are needed before this alternate name can be mentioned in the lead section. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS. Belongs in the article, but not one of the most notable things about the body of water. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This would be a violation of both WP:RECENTISM and WP:COMMONNAME. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM being premature, and on the basis that the "renaming" applies only to portion of the Gulf. Donald Albury 14:39, edited 22 January 2025 (UTC) 20:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Fox has switched. StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fox is not a reliable source. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  StAnslelm, please see WP:FOXNEWS (and since that's a link to foxnews.com/politics, see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - Even if we accept Trump's EO (which the rest of the World - English-speaking or otherwise - obviously doesn't have to), it explicitly only applies to the part of Gulf corresponding with US coastline and water, so it's part of the Gulf of Mexico, not the entirety of it. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording of the EO is actually somewhat ambiguous/contradictory. It does state that "the Secretary of the Interior shall, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as the “Gulf of America” the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico." So this might tend to suggest that the name change should only apply to part of the Gulf. But then it goes on to state that "The Secretary shall subsequently update the GNIS to reflect the renaming of the Gulf and remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law" - suggesting that the intent was to rename the Gulf in it entirety. Either way, I think the proposal should be noted in the article (as it already is), but the new name prob isn't yet in widespread enough use to list it as an alternative name in the intro. This could change in the future, if school textbooks, atlases, etc. start using the "Gulf of America" name. Ultimately, actual usage is more important than a presidential EO. -Helvetica (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the executive order only renames the portion in the U.S. EEZ and not the entire gulf. Additionally opposed as GNIS has not adopted this formally yet. Once they do I will remain a weak oppose and I think it is best mentioned as is in the name section unless the nomenclature attains widespread use outside of U.S. government. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As this is the English Wikipedia, this site should use the common name used in the bordering English Speaking country, which is the Gulf of America in the United States.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the English language Wikipedia and not the American language Wikipedia and the Gulf of America name is not the common name 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  America is the largest English speaking country on the planet and Gulf of America is seeing significant and notable usage. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not by the British. Departure– (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The US is a single country out of many and the name only applies to a part of the Gulf of Mexico. DemianStratford (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only about 20% of English speakers live in the US, so please ensure the "significant and notable usage" applies to the other 80% too!

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population?wprov=sfti1#List Timtjtim (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a common name in the US and the name only applies to a part of the Gulf of Mexico, similarly to the Gulf of Campeche. DemianStratford (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "this site should use the common name used in the bordering English Speaking country, which is the Gulf of America in the United States"

  I'd be inclined to agree with this reasoning, as far as it goes, but the problem is that I don't think it's YET been established that "Gulf of America" is in fact now the common name that's mostly widely used for this body of water in the USA....Yes, Trump did sign an executive order mandating this name change within official US government documents, but this doesn't automatically make it become the common name.

  As an analogy, let's say a Latino were elected US president, and he decided to honor America's Hispanic/Latino population, and its contribution to agriculture in particular, by officially renaming strawberries to "fresas". He could mandate that US government agencies use this name for the fruit in their official documents, but it wouldn't automatically become the common name that English-speaking Americans used for it. -Helvetica (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This executive order holds no more weight than one renaming the Pacific. GMG^talk 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per recentism, other good points above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, look at the page views for this page, and it's purely because of the name change. And executive orders by the US government are significant, even if they're founded on stupidity.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Names used for the Gulf by WP:RS following the executive order, in articles not directly about the executive order:
  Washington Post, Straight Arrow News, India Today use both names but "Gulf of America" first; Ksat still uses "Gulf of Mexico". The close of the recent RM should really be overturned (there's no way a consensus can be formed after only an hour when most people have not been able to give input) but for the topic of this RfC- yes, both names should obviously be in the lede and I don't know how this is apparently controversial. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  for the topic of this RfC- yes, both names should obviously be in the lede and I don't know how this is apparently controversial.

  Agreed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The name only applies to a part of the Gulf of Mexico, similarly to the Gulf of Campeche. It shouldn't be in the lead. Gulf of Mexico and "Gulf of America" refer to different things. I don't know why people keep pushing for something that is so obviously incorrect. DemianStratford (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where do you get that from? It's the entire Gulf. Tab1of2 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Executive Order says in part: "Secretary of the Interior shall ... rename as the “Gulf of America” the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico." It's somewhat unclear, but the "US Continental Shelf area" is only the Northern part of the Gulf and would appear to exclude, for example, the continental shelf and territorial waters controlled by Mexico. Elsewhere in the same EO, it seems to suggest renaming the whole Gulf. We may have to wait till the US government updates their charts to see precisely what change they are making. Dragons flight (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per recentism, POINT, etc. One person has no power to rename an international area. It’s not a COMMONNAME, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it is an official name in current use. Geographic areas should always have official English names in their leads as a basic substance for encyclopedias as long as the name is reasonably used. The recent Florida executive order demonstrates contemporary use. Gulf of Mexico should remain article title until Gulf of America becomes commonly used outside of an official capacity (assuming it does). anikom15 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - America doesn't own the Gulf, and hence can't officially name it. E_F⁵ 21:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per all above. Are we really debating this? Wasn't the WP:SNOW consensus on the RM enough? Departure– (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To this point, I'll say that it's poetic that 10 inches of snow fell on the Gulf Coast today. Not that it changes the outcome of this discussion. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There still isn't a consensus. It is still lopsided. There may be a majority, but it is a very narrow one and far from a consensus Rc2barrington (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - per OFFICIALNAME, even if you argue that Gulf of America is the official name, that does not merit usage. COMMONNAME takes precedence. Also, with all the "Americentrism" accusations, this would only fuel those. As far as I know, no other country calls it the Gulf of America. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Changing to Conditional support. Google Maps is about to call it the Gulf of America. NOAA too(I'm biased towards NOAA). Wording needs to be picked carefully though, to avoid Americentrism. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Penitentes for getting me into Wikipedia edits and User:EF5 for helping me edit and User:Departure– for reviewing my first DYK [7]

Just wondering, and I'm not implying anything, but are you and the above two editors a friend group or perhaps alts? Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't the same person. We edit in the same topic areas, and regularly check each other's contributions, hence why we (probably) voted at around the same time. E_F⁵ 23:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're members of the Wikipedia community with convergent interest in weather articles. Departure– (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't going to get into this but for god sakes, why has nobody pointed out that all the American media companies are currently kissing up to a wannabe despot? Google is not a reliable source anymore, in fact it is no better than meta or Twitter.

Also, how can you bring up NOAA and then caution against Americentrism?

Here is a better idea: ban the Americans from editing this article and this whole ridiculous problem goes away. Goddale120 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why anyone ever thought Google was a reliable source. WP:GOOGLEMAPS O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns summarized on WP:GOOGLEMAPS are irrelevant here. In this case, the argument for Google Maps is simply evidence of usage, not an authoritative source of a name—few editors are advocating for entirely renaming to "Gulf of America". Also note that arguments that hinge exclusively on contempt for Donald Trump or the United States are not useful and may be ignored; see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 15:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Don't care for what one country says Jfrimpong945 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support mentioning it as an alternative name. The article's title won't change per WP:COMMONNAME, but I seriously believe that one of the major countries bordering the Gulf should get its favored name as well. Different countries can have different names for the same geographic body. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the name only applies to a part of the Gulf of Mexico, similarly to the Gulf of Campeche. It is not the entire thing. Read about what you support. DemianStratford (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Other than one use by Florida, I've seen no use of this new name besides in the context of the debate over having a new name. We should wait to see if it'll actually become a common name. Until then this is WP:Recentism. Nuew (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Coast Guard is using it too. StAnselm (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The Coast Guard is part of the government. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now At this point I think it's too early to tell if this has any longterm relevance. It seems to me that the way that this is handled should depend on how relevant it turns out to be:

• If this is something that no one talks about in a week or two then it may not be worth even mentioning.
• If the name becomes a culture war for a while but then dies out, then I think it makes sense to handle it similar to the French Fries vs. Freedom Fries rhetoric.
• If this becomes a long running culture war issue (perhaps a subsection of conservatives start routinely using "Gulf of America" similar to how some Southerners routinely use "War of Northern Aggression", or perhaps "Gulf of America" starts coming up every election cycle) then it makes sense to discuss the culture war in this article.

Harimau777 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given that there does not (yet) seem to be any significant coverage using the term "Gulf of America" outside of the context of US politics. Therefore the only meaningful reason to mention it in the lead, would be to give coverage to that executive order. For an article that is about a body of water, in politics, it to me does not warrant being mentioned in the lead. NPOV also is an argument against it. Gust Justice (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but not in the first sentence. It should be bolded and higher in the page than the "Name" section, but the U.S. doesn't own the entire gulf, which is too hard to explain in the first sentence. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 18:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Google Maps will officially use the name "Gulf of America", as well as several others that will including the Associated Press and the U.S. federal government (which is inarguably notable, and it's more biased to just ignore them than vice versa), I change my vote to strong support for acknowledging the official name in the lead paragraph. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 04:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the AP says:"The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences. "https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/ap-style-guidance-on-gulf-of-mexico-mount-mckinley/ Google will show the new name to Americans, but not all over the world. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps doesn't have it changed for all users. Mine is still showing Gulf of Mexico. It depends on where you're using Google Maps from. King Lobclaw (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as recentism. It’s really not a central fact about the Gulf that the US president has ordered its renaming. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - This is not "American Wikipedia" or "English Wikipedia". It's Wikipedia in English language. Wikipedias are not national projects. They are supposed to adhere to world standards. Political whims of nationalists are irrelevant. "Gulf of America" should be mentioned because it's a fact that a government has decided to call it like that, but it does not deserve special attention. Lajoswinkler (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose on RECENTISM grounds as well as the fact that the name is too new in the public eye to be widely used and accepted, especially widely outside of the United States--Wikipedia should not place disproportionate weight on a name that is not broadly used among English speakers in any country (this may change, but it is too soon to say). SnowShoes8 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding Gulf of America to the beginning of the Wikipedia page after Gulf of Mexico. There is already significant public interest, even if not public support. We can include a neutral qualifier that it's a very recent change or something similar. Vgp0012 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, the international standard is Gulf of Mexico, and even in the US, Gulf of America is not widely used regardless of what the current US administration attempts to claim. Sarrotrkux (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unfortunately. I’d like to take the time and explain my thinking in regards to all points:

The most common place Americans encounter the name is in official notices, where it will be called Gulf of America, and Google, where it will be labeled as both. It would be ridiculous if someone saw the name Gulf of America and searched for it, got to WP, and got no explanation for the inconsistent name somewhere in the lede. This alone dismisses COMMONNAME concerns for me. It has to show up somewhere in the lede. This is in addition that this isn’t a move discussion, as others mentioned.

Recentism is a more justified concern, but I think since the mentions in official dispatches and Google are already enough, and there is no sign of this possibly changing in the next 4 years unless conditions change radically, that we are already aware of what the reality on the ground is. Now recentism is just a form of delaying acknowledgment vainly, not helping by avoiding hasty change. This is also my view on crystal ball arguments, which I believe are weaker in general, since the counterargument is inherently reliant on predicting a future where this name eventually ceases.

Finally, this is clearly important to the American right wing, and despite the fact that I’m not a fan, I have to acknowledge that this makes it a notable issue that needs to be addressed. While it is addressed in the article, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be addressed in the lede, which is huge anyways. There’s no real reason to prevent the mention of the issue from getting in. It’s significant. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, a subsection needs to explain this trend among the US right, using reliable sources. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia is not an arm of the United States government, we should not be beholden to its idiocy Snokalok (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I sincerely oppose any name change to Gulf of America. I am a US citizen and I do NOT agree to the name change whatsoever and I sincerely hope Wikipedia does NOT feel intimidated by Trump to change it.Zachygirl (talk) Zachygirl (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support inclusion in the lede. This is something map makers are currently dealing with. While I think it is dumb, not mentioning it feels like a political statement and not a neutral approach to the topic. I've seen multiple sources on this already, including the BBS article Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America in US, PBS Google says it will change map names for Gulf of Mexico and Denali when government updates official listings, and CNN Google Maps will change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America discussing Google changing it on Google maps. As a cartographer/geographer, place names are multifaceted and are different depending on the who you talk to. We can date globes based on the changing place names. If the United States is changing this in the official sources, map makers in the U.S. will use these as their base because doing otherwise is taking that decision onto themselves rather then using the standard. The US makes a lot of the worlds maps, especially soft copy digital ones. This should be mentioned. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage The change is not official yet even inside the US. Most US agencies are not using it. I'd wait until they do so and add that to the article then. Gue101 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - There are so many countries besides the US, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for it to be mentioned in the lede. With many sources (Google Maps especially) using the 'Gulf of America' name, particularly within the US, this constitutes a significant enough variant of the name to be mentioned in the lede. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps isn't using it globally. Where I am, it's still Gulf of Mexico. King Lobclaw (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support it should be mentioned only in the part talking about alternative names exclusive to the US (specifying that it is exclusive to the USA) Eva The Lefty (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No matter the outcome of the vote(which is going to be almost certaintly against 2-1 its like 75 to 35) I think it is important to mention this attempt to rename it not in the start of the page but in some other place most likely as a footnote. Eva The Lefty (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Name originated in the EO does not clarify which America it refers to, Central America, South America, or North America. Single word term America is not a recognized geographical name. Wmigda (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this pedantry is relevant to the way that Wikipedia should present the name, it feels like you've internally derailed the question at hand for yourself by nitpicking a colloquialism that exists *well* beyond the scope of the label of one geographical feature.

For the record I oppose the change too but non-sequitor complaints about people shorthanding the USA to just "America" has absolutely nothing to do with what we should call the Gulf. 2401:D002:6508:E500:4426:E868:CE48:2F07 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think purely MENTIONING the name change is appropriate, as whether or not you support it (I certainly don’t), you can’t deny that there was a name change, however legitimate that may be. It’s certainly notable. Smurr7 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - The EO is not intended to rename the entire Gulf of Mexico, only the waters in US' continental shelf area. Mentioning the new name in the lead is just incorrect information. Gue101 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not respecting the majority who are not on the Left is why I no longer trust Wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source. 104.51.27.114 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The name stands in the United States and with Google maps. The common name, internationally recognized, won't change. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - it is a national change at best, not international, and this forum is worldwide, not US-only. Therefore it should be listed as a controversial change only. 81.56.213.101 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc2barrington Strongly support: so long as the world's most powerful country officially calls it the "Gulf of America" (likely only for the next 4 years), the name definitely should be covered at the start of the lead, if only after a "known also as". Kaotao (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a american company and as such should follow the President's executive order. The Gulf of America is it's name. And the only consensus that was made was because you have banned comments from people you view as wrong. 47.26.84.209 (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This probably won't do any good, but here goes:

1. Executive orders apply only to the executive branch of the United States government. They do not apply to the private sector, or even to the legislative and judicial branches of the government.

2. Any attempt by the President or any of his delegates, or Congress, to restrict what anybody says or writes (other than in the course of their duties as an employee of the U.S. government) would be in violation of the First Admendment.

3. The WikiMedia Foundation is incorporated in the United States, but it does not have the power to dictate what any language wikipedia calls anything. Donald Albury 20:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY SUPPORT this is the only link needed all others are a distraction and are second hand accounts designed to undermine the law. The name of the Gulf is Gulf of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/ 47.26.84.209 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this RfC is discussing proposed changes to the article lead, any argument citing WP:COMMONNAME in either support or opposition of the proposed change is not relevant. WP:COMMONNAME is a shortcut to a section within Wikipedia:Article titles, this article describes policy on Wikipedia Article Titles, not leads.

A more appropriate guideline to reference would be MOS:LEADALT.

Support - I'd like to state that excluding an official name change by one of the two main countries relevant to this geographic feature is not encyclopedic in nature and ignores Wikipedia's precedent on name changes like this.

An interesting article example is Denali, where the official title is immediately mentioned in the lead. While I do acknowledge these cases are different, mainly in that Denali (Mount McKinley) resides entirely within the United States and the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America) is an international geographic feature, I once again stress that an official name change by one of two major concerned countries is cause enough to include it at minimum as an alternative title in the lead.

Another guideline which supports this edit can be found under the General Guidelines section of WP:PLACE, where it is stated: "a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead".

My proposed edit would be "The Gulf of Mexico (Official U.S. name: Gulf of America)" or something similar. Wikiauthor25 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting this is this account's first edit ever. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that worth noting? Wikipedia:NOOB Wikiauthor25 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion elsewhere discussing whether editors with less than 500 edits should take part in RfCs dealing with American politics. Many of these seem to have edited those for political reasons (on both sides of the issues). A number of us feel this isn't conducive to good decision making. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Support per new evidence [8] Rc2barrington (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (Already !voted at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Strong oppose per TheTechnician27. Also worth mentioning that the American NOAA/National Weather Service continues to use Gulf of Mexico. I'm sure one day Trump will try to do something about that (Project 2025 advocates abolishing NOAA entirely), but that's for another time. As of right now, not even the entire American government is adopting the name; it's way too early to even say "also known as the Gulf of America" or "officially known in the United States as the Gulf of America." Not just in the lead, but anywhere in the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is recentism and unreasonable weight. Wikipedia is based on currently established precedent for usage, as it stands it is not a widely used name and should not be included prominently. Better as a small part of the name section. 180.150.37.206 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support – This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Several editors, like Vanilla Wizard have pointed out the National Weather Service still uses the "Gulf of Mexico". However, other weather-related articles that involve any sort of double "official" names list both in the lead sentence. For example, Wikipedia's Featured Article Typhoon Tip is officially known to the Philippines government as "Super Typhoon Warling", which the very first sentence says. Do we rename the article? No per WP:COMMONNAME. But Wikipedia precedent says it should be listed. A ton of other weather-related articles follow this practice for official/unofficial names including: 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, Hurricane Sandy ("Superstorm Sandy"), 1993 Storm of the Century, 1996 Lake Huron cyclone ("Hurroncane"), and even Storm Daniel (Europe/Africa storm also called "Cyclone Daniel"). Non-weather articles do this as well, including Persian Gulf and even Nile ("Nile River" and "River Nile"). There is enough precedent on Wikipedia that this should not even be a question. Despite what editors like Jfrimpong945, "one country" can be enough for lead sentence inclusion (as clearly demonstrated here). I am surprised to see other weather-related editors like Wildfireupdateman and Departure– and EF5 oppose it, even with Wildfireupdateman saying official names don't merit lead inclusion. In-fact, weather articles help prove they do, even for one country's official name. For all of that, I am a strong support of having the lead mention "known in the United States as the Gulf of America", which matches dozens of other Wikipedia articles, including Featured Articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone except for conservatives and high-level government that doesn't do anything on the ground using Gulf of America though, that's my issue. I'm in America and I know it as the Gulf of Mexico as does everyone around me. Departure– (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the United States to, and I will continue to call it "Gulf of Mexico". However, I'm looking at the facts and Wikipedia policy and precedent. There should not be any argument on whether we have enough RS to say it is an alt-name; that seems fairly self-explanatory given the media coverage of this supposed name-change. But likewise, for major devastating typhoons that maybe just barely impact the Philippines, we still include the Philippines name in the lead...without fail. For example, last year's Typhoon Gaemi caused less than $2 million (USD) in damage to the Philippines out of the over $4.5 billion (USD) that it caused in damage to other countries. The name "Super Typhoon Carina" is still included in the lead, despite not much coverage with that name. I'm not an advocate for "Gulf of America" at all. However, precedent and honestly policy seems clear that it should indeed be listed as an alt name (OR Rant...), no matter how insane this change is and how no one will actually really be using it except a select few. That said, the stupid name change will probably easily be remembered for a long, long time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names little used in English should be taken out of other articles, not added to this one. (t · c) buidhe 14:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who started my Wikipedia journey by mostly writing about hurricanes in my earlier days here, I can understand where you're coming from with your analogy to how we list the alternate names used by the Philippines for Pacific typhoons. But I don't think that analogy works, at least not yet. As I mentioned and you noted, even the American government is still using "Gulf of Mexico" in new publications created after the signing of this executive order. Not even America calls it Gulf of America, at least not yet. At this time, I'm okay with us still mentioning in the article body under the "Name" section that Trump has in fact signed an executive order intended to initiate a process to change the name used by the American government. But right now, to say "also known in the United States as the Gulf of America", either in the lede or anywhere else in the article body, would be incorrect.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Its understandable then, if it will mention the US Jfrimpong945 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the lead mention the new name when the new name refers to a subregion WITHIN the Gulf of Mexico? Does the article also mention all the other subregions in the lead? I don't think so. Gulf of Mexico and "Gulf of America" refer to different things. The new name doesn't replace the common name and deceiving political stunts do not dictate Wikipedia what to do. DemianStratford (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the entire Gulf. What source said it was just a sub-region? Tab1of2 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Textbook recentism and crystal ball. --Spekkios (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose bolded alternate name. We have too many articles cluttered with several names none of which has 10 percent as much usage as the main one; that does a disservice to our readers whose main interest in the topic is probably not "what else is this called". Oppose any lead inclusion per WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a mention. AP's saying that's basically how they plan on handling this - [9]. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Ravensfire's AP link shows, there are no standards for naming international geographical features. When different groups refer to a geographical feature by different names, our usual approach is to follow WP:COMMONNAME for the article title and include alternate names depending on their prominence. Of course the Persian Gulf naming dispute is coming up here: it's directly parallel, with competing interests wanting the body of water to be named different things for purely political reasons. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, we just present information. But, as the executive order itself says, only the portion within US territorial waters is being referred to by the alternate title, and it's too minor of a point until anyone outside of the United States starts using the name in common practice. At best, the lede could have something like "portions within the territorial waters of the United States are referred to as the "Gulf of America" by the United States government", but that's a pretty awkward and minor point for the lede. It should just be described under the Name subsection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a mention, per the AP, and also per the fact that Clingmans Dome got renamed on this same Wikipedia overnight, even before it had become a common name. How come some editors jump when some bodies are renamed by the US government, and become gun-shy when some bodies are renamed by a different US government? XavierItzm (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference between restoring a name used by Indigenous people for a natural feature and changing to a newly invented name. In other cases, a name change involves removing a derogatory and/or insulting name. Donald Albury 00:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're going to cite the Associated Press, you might want to cite the press release they made where they explicitly stated they'll continue to call it the "Gulf of Mexico" because the alternative name has no common usage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "How come some editors jump when some bodies are renamed by the US government, and become gun-shy when some bodies are renamed by a different US government?" — Have you considered that a single mountain in Tennessee is a geographic feature contained entirely in the United States? No one country owns the Gulf of Mexico. Trump also renamed Denali back to Mt. McKinley, and judging by the talk discussions, it will eventually be moved back to McKinley once the name change is actually official. It's not about who's in the White House.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Until and unless the proposed new name enters common usage (at least in US government publications) there is no need to mention it in the lead. Wikipedia follows and describes usage, we don't make or prescribe it (at least we shouldn't). Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for a passing mention, either in brackets or as a footnote, that it is officially called Gulf of America in the USA only (while the rest of the world is still calling it Gulf of Mexico). P1221 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, wait and see... At this point, I don't think it needs to be included in the article lede. The article of course should (and does) mention the proposed name change and Trump's proclaimation, and I think maybe "Gulf of America" should be bolded when it's first mentioned in that section. But I don't think that it's yet in widespread enough use to be put in the intro. I would suggest revisiting the topic in several months to a year's time. If, at that point, there are a significant number of school textbooks, atlases, etc. using the "Gulf of America" name, then it would make sense to include it as an alternate name in the intro. -Helvetica (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with others that "Gulf of Mexico" should remain this article's title, for all the obvious reasons. But I do think "Gulf of America" should get a fairly prominent mention (perhaps near the end of the lead?). My thinking mirrors this guidance, and the general goal of being useful to our readers, some of whom will likely to wondering what is going on or why they got redirected here when searching Gulf of America. I'd lean towards including a mention immediately, though wouldn't be too bothered if the consensus is to wait until the US government actually starts rolling out the change in their public documents. Dragons flight (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Until there is consensus, both diplomatically and academically, the name is here to stay. Afghanistan had to change flag because that was the reality, even if other prominent sites oppose it. -Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support -- While the legitimacy of the renaming could be challenged later, fact of the matter is that the official name is now technically the Gulf of America, and the article should be named as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherWeatherEditor (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, because the Gulf of Mexico is international waters, and doesn't belong to the USA or its president. It doesn't have a single 'official name' in the sense that something like a highway does, and the name it does have is determined by common usage internationally. The International Hydrographic Organization has very significant standing, although even their ruling is not definitive - but POTUS just can't do that, any more than he can rename the Bay of Biscay. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The official name used by the US government is the "Gulf of America". Not WP:COMMONNAME, but when dealing with disputed names of maritime features (Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal) we mention all names in the lede. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just because Trump declares it doesn't make it the OFFICIAL name by the US Government or by the individual states. Maybe the President thinks this is all it takes, but I would assume it needs to have more than just 1 person's say so before its legit. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are indeed wrong- see e.g. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5105335-gulf-of-america-mount-mckinley-name-changes/ Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Denali Borough, Alaska. This would be much harder to rename. Departure– (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. It's an entirely new name that might be reversed in four years. It's also unclear if the entire Gulf will be renamed as some recent official announcements seem to indicate or if it's just the US portion, as the EO said. It's also unclear how widespread the uptake will be. At the very least we should wait until the ambiguities around scope are resolved. Even then, it might be worth waiting until there is higher uptake, since the closest comparisons (Arabian/Persian Gulf, Japan/East Sea) were much longer disputes with predominate usage. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It is already a tragedy that the beginning of the name section says " 'Gulf of America' redirects here." Despite everyone's enjoyment of freedom fries, Trump will move onto some other waste of time within a week. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You shouldn't ignore something because you don't like that it happened. You're right, Trump will move on, because the president has a lot of stuff to do, but that doesn't mean that "Gulf of Mexico" is temporary, and we can't pretend like it is. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 22:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose on recentism and bias grounds. We can revisit in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Support per new evidence Rc2barrington (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (Already !voted twice in this thread. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Support Despite Reluctance While I do not agree with the decision to rename the Gulf, the decision has nevertheless been made and there's no sense in debating over it much longer.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but the decision was made by a body with absolutely no legitimate authority to make that decision. It's literally just a fiat statement from the US president regarding an international body of water. There's absolutely no reason why an international encyclopedia should be humoring this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per that NYT Article recently, with apparently the name having the full backing of the new administration. If it's going to be used in official government records, in the media, etc., then that goes beyond simply just WP:RECENTISM and at the least warrants a mention in the lede. GuardianH (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose: A political stunt doesn't override WP:COMMONNAME, and an executive order doesn't override the International Hydrographic Organization. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A paragraph in the "Name" section is sufficient. We don't need to give this stunt any more attention than that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose – This is **not** the US-american edition of wikipedia, but the english-language wikipedia (native language or not) with worldwide relevance. It is a given fact that the majority of readers will continue to name the gulf the **Gulf of Mexico**. So, follow WP:COMMONNAME. The Gulf of America naming is an anecdote that belongs not in the lead but in some subsubsection, if at all. MikeZ (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the evidence presented. Bobherry Talk My Edits 15:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not relevant to the rest of the world and, so far, not even to the USA. The only context in which it is called the Gulf of America right now is in pieces reporting on the renaming. If a considerable number of publications start referring to it mainly or exclusively as the Gulf of America, then this should be added to the lead to avoid confusion. LukeTriton (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support It is important to address the elephant in the room here: There is a strong liberal bias on Wikipedia. By comparison, the Obama administration changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali in 2015, and the Wikipedia editors were almost tripping over themselves trying to make the name change from Mount McKinley to Denali. I understand that the Gulf of Mexico is a different case in that the Gulf of Mexico is not entirely within the borders of the United States, as Denali/Mount McKinley is, but I think that at the very least the president's executive order must warrant changing the title to: "Gulf of Mexico, officially the Gulf of America in the United States." To me, any opposition to simply noting that it is officially called the Gulf of America in the U.S. is bald-faced activism protesting the name change more than it is actually rooted in reason, evidence, and consistency across articles. U.S. Federal Agencies will henceforth be referring to it as the Gulf of America. If someone sees the name Gulf of America on a U.S. Federal map and enters it into Wikipedia, they'll need to scroll down to the middle of the page and read a paragraph buried in the article containing irrelevant information such as a comedian Stephen Colbert's comments on the name to try to make sense of why they're seeing Gulf of America on a map. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to transmit information; activism and bias should be discouraged. (For evidence of such activism and bias, just look at the opposing comments above describing this as a "stunt"; yet no one ever described Obama's name change from McKinley to Denali as a "stunt." Such opposing positions are not rooted in reason, only bias and activism.) Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really is the essence of false balance. "We shouldn't call something Trump does a stunt, unless we can also describe something unrelated that Obama did as a stunt." (We can unpack the facts if you like, but this isn't the Denali page; it's the Gulf of Mexico page.) Things can be qualitatively different from each other. Describing different things with different terms isn't bias, it's analysis. And sometimes the analysis can quite validly (if informally) be 'yeah, that's a stunt'. Biden claiming to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment was also a stunt. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you're not demonstrating any of the said analysis. You're just making broad sweeping statements that it is different without demonstrating such. I noted one difference is that it not entirely within the bounds of the US, but that shouldn't preclude a note in the title that it is officially (which is a fact) the Gulf of America for U.S. federal agencies moving forward, just as Denali was. Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the ERA article's lede does not contain mention of Biden's tweet. JeanLackE (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The above user is currently blocked from editing in the main space, as a sanction for having edit warred on the Gulf of Mexico article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. And the editors who were warring to include comments from comedian Stephen Colbert and to revert the changes with even more frequency than me were not temporarily blocked from editing. Further evidence of bias and activism. Thanks for pointing that out. Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting linguistic tic you've got there, always pairing "bias and activism". GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on that analysis you alluded to in your prior post. Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I mentioned that it's possible, which it is. I'm not here to perform for you; your own biases are showing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that would be your response. Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down guys, please WP:NPA Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think you could have made the argument Denali was the common name before anything official changed. I did a search of one of my local papers (outside the US) and Denali was used before the official name change, and Mount McKinley only appeared in parentheses in a couple recentish (early 2020s) articles. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but was the Wikipedia article named Mount McKinley or Denali before the Obama administration changed the name? Well, I looked at the history of the Mount McKinley page, and on 30 August 2015, Muboshgu moved the Mount McKinley to Mount Denali over redirect: #ThanksObama. The editor hash tagged "Thanks Obama." The reality here is that putting Gulf of America in the title by at least saying "officially Gulf of America" is completely functional, yet there are editors who do not want to do the functional and rational thing because it is associated with Trump. The fact is that people are going to be seeing Gulf of America on U.S. governmental maps whether they like it or not, yet certain editors here want to bury the name in the article on recentism grounds--which is very poorly reasoned. But really the recentism argument is just an excuse for protesting Trump. This should be a black and white name change, but it is not because it is wrapped up in ideology. (And I understand, a lot of liberal editors probably feel that the Denali change is an easier pill to swallow because (1) it was done by Obama and (2) it is a repatriation of the name to indigenous people who have had a lot stolen from them, so let's just give them a name back to make them feel more ownership over what was stolen, right?) But the fact is that the name has been changed and it will be different from now on in U.S. government maps and elsewhere. You're doing the public a disservice by not just including the name Gulf of America in the lead. Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I do not think the title should be changed to Gulf of America but it should appear prominently in the lead. Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out before, Denali was included as an alternate name for Mount McKinley in that article since 2003, as well as the mention that the State of Alaska officially referred to it as Denali (and I believe that goes back to the 1970s). Denali had been overtaking Mount McKinley as the most common name for the geographic feature for years. Obama's executive order was bringing the federal government into line with common usage, and is therefore not comparable to Trump's executive order, which is a name change by fiat. - Donald Albury 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that once Obama issued an executive order that Wikipedia editors changed the name of the article to Denali and included a hashtag #ThanksObama after changing it. Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was some naming dispute in the background does not change the fact that Wikipedia editors conclusively changed the name after the issuing of the executive order with the hashtag #ThanksObama. Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly Donald, I am not supporting a name change for the article. I am supporting merely mentioned the boldened name "Gulf of America" in the lead and noting that it is name recognized officially by the United States government. If another executive order is issued 4-8 years from now and it is no longer Gulf of America, then change the article again and move that down to the discussion section. But it's going to be changed inevitably the more the government is forced to use it and it becomes a part of common use anyway. All the opposes at best are just temporarily succeeding even if they want to push the name down next to a sentence about Stephen Colbert to make it as obscure as possible. Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree with this reasoning. US government agencies are using "Gulf of America". The common name arguments are illogical because this isn't a requested move. If people are going to see the term "Gulf of America", they're going to Google it and be taken to this article. If we don't include the term "Gulf of America" in the lede they won't know what it is. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“If we don't include the term "Gulf of America" in the lede they won't know what it is.”

except people have something called eyes. That’s like saying if we took out Fascist salute in the Roman Salute article they will never know the Germans did it in the 1930s-1940s. Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main_Square in my home city was for a brief moment in history renamed by nazis as Adolf Hitler Platz. As you can probably guess, that name didn't last long. Wmigda (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Pure WP:Recentism, the name change is not official and has yet to be recognized in any capacity internationally. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not predict what the future of this water body brings. jolielover♥talk 19:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM. DigitalPanda (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. There is a redirect and mention in the first section of the body. As others have noted, this would be clear WP:RECENTISM — and indeed, since WP is , would seem to me to slingshot into the public consciousness a rename that as of yet nobody is using. The lede is for the most pertinent introductory details... this is not pertinent, or in fact even interesting. JeanLackE (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as per RECENTISM and COMMONNAME. –Davey2010^Talk 08:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in a way its very similar to Deadnaming if the federal government wants it to be Gulf of America then that is what it should be called. Did we have this type of vote when Ellen Page changed her bame to Elliot? I know its not a human but it still applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In deadnaming the person being named has made the decision to change the name. There's not really an equivalent for an inanimate object. Harimau777 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, his. Second, no, it doesn't. The US doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico. WalnutBun (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose recentism. It'll take time for evidence to emerge of any actual change in usage. If the change starts getting significant traction outside those required to use it then we can reconsider. Kahastok talk 14:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Chicago White Sox only recently changed their ballpark's name from Guaranteed Rate Field to Rate Field; does that mean we should still call it by its old name due to "recentism?" The Southern California fires are also recent; do you suggest that Wikipedia ignore those events for the time being, as well? What about famous people who died yesterday? Should we pretend like they're still alive until their deaths are no longer "recent?" Greggens (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Except the US Federal Government isn't a baseball team, and they don't own the Gulf of Mexico. That's like saying "I can change the name of my dog whenever I want. So I should be able to change the name of my street." GMG^talk 01:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How are any of these differences relevant? Sounds like your reasoning is quite arbitrary. Greggens (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Putting "Gulf of America" in the lead section, something like Gulf of Mexico, also known as the Gulf of America. Page name should stay as Gulf of Mexico due to common usage. Flimbone08 talk 19:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The Gulf of California is partly in international waters, yet Mexico calls it the Sea of Cortés in its entirety. The Rio Grande, at least the Mexican portion, is known in Mexico as the Río Bravo. If Mexico can come up with its own names for certain bodies of water, even ones it doesn't entirely control, then why can't the United States do the exact same thing and call the Gulf whatever it wants? Greggens (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both statements are false, Gulf of California is the official name in Mexico, while Sea of Cortez is the common name, the difference is that the Gulf of California is more than two centuries old that it is called that officially and many people also call it that; on the other hand the Rio Grande in Mexico has always been called Rio Bravo, since it was the name given to it by the Spanish and to this day if you ask a Spanish speaker about the Rio Grande they will not know what you are referring to because they only know it as Rio Bravo, the fact being that Rio Grande was the name given to the Rio Bravo by the United States. PH2601 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now The name “Gulf of America” is only required to be used by the U.S. federal government. The overwhelming majority of people, including most Americans, will still refer to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico. Adding “Gulf of America” to the lead adds undue weight and is also premature. If more reliable sources begin calling it the “Gulf of America”, then sure, but only if. GN22 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also already a section in the body explaining the name change. GN22 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no they will not, it is already known as the Gulf of America 47.26.84.209 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the term “Gulf of America” should not be included in the lead unless it becomes a much more common term outside of the federal government. If someone looks “Gulf of America” up on Wikipedia, they will be taken to the section talking about Trump’s executive order. I am part of the roughly 70% of Americans who oppose Trump’s name change and I will continue to refer to the “Gulf of Mexico”. Plus, the executive order is only talking about the U.S. continental shelf and only works for the federal government. Most people in the U.S. still use “Gulf of Mexico”. Even the NOAA is currently just using “the Gulf”. The term “Gulf of America” is currently not at all common and belongs in the “Name” section. GN22 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Having read through all the support and oppose votes till now, I don't see merit for inclusion for the time being. The supports hinge on WP:OFFICIALNAME (isn't yet, E.O.'s don't do it and throwaway usages by some agencies should not really count towards it as well) and that it is sure to become mainstream in the near future (WP:CRYSTALBALL). I also don't see much weight in WP:RECENTISM or WP:COMMONNAME if we are talking about lead section inclusion of an official name change. Since it is also not yet exactly clear whether the name applies to a part or whole of the Gulf (appears to be the latter), we should wait for official usage to begin in earnest to see the intent and accordingly place the alt name in either the lead sentence (if it applies to the whole of it) or somewhere in this sentence of the lead para "The coastal areas along the Southern U.S. states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, which border the gulf on the north, are occasionally referred to as the "Third Coast" of the United States (in addition to its Atlantic and Pacific coasts), but more often as, "the Gulf Coast"." Alternatively a paranthetical inclusion maybe preffered in either case as is the case at Sea of Japan, but we still need this to be official in the first place.

This comment pertains only to the lead section (per the RfC), not the lead as a whole (which I think can, for the time being, include the alt name somewhere in the last lead paras). Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted this below as well, but I think it's time for some of the "wait and see" votes to reconsider or change their votes https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/27/google-maps-to-show-gulf-of-america-after-government-updates.html || CNBC: Google says it will change Gulf of Mexico to 'Gulf of America' in Maps after government updates Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not Google!

This strikes me as in line with Facebook's actions of lightening censorship and Twitter's actions of existing past 2022 of trying to be in line with the new Trump government because if I'm not mistaken they're facing a pretty serious federal anti-trust lawsuit. What shows up in Google maps does not necessarily reflect what is in common usage. Departure– (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that this is merely a question of entering in the lead ", officially Gulf of America in the United States," not to change the title wholesale. As pointed out earlier, the moment that the Obama admin changed the name Mt McKinley to Denali, liberal Wikipedia editors changed it forthwith and added the hashtag #ThanksObama! Common usage was moot at that time because everyone knows that the common used term was Mount McKinley, not Denali. But now all of a sudden common usage returns to the forefront. Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, stop treating common usage as a dispositive factor. It was not dispositive for Mount McKinley, and in that case, the entire article name was changed—a much more drastic measure than is being proposed here. Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Better read up the policy. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gotitbro (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that is not directed at me. Defining someone who posted #ThanksObama in the edit line of the Denali article as a liberal is a personal attack? Read the link I shared above: While redirecting the Mt McKinley article to Denali, an editor inserted the political line into the edit #ThanksObama. That to me is far less neutral and inappropriate than me defining such an individual as a liberal. Certainly a conservative didn't write #ThanksObama. No one was attacked personally here. Ambrosiaster (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again "Comment on content, not on the contributor." We do not care about the personal attributes of editors including their political orientations, nationalities etc. as long as WP policies are not violated; casting WP:ASPERSIONS and assuming bad faith on account of those is indeed a personal attack. It would be better if you familiarize youself with WP policies first before jumping into contentious topic areas (I see that you have already been notified of contentious topics on your Talk page). Gotitbro (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am now inclined towards a parenthetical inclusion in the lead para (per Sea of Japan). But the question still remains whether it applies to the whole or (US) part of it to determine where to place the name; if someone can conclusively define this now we should go ahead, otherwise we can still wait and see how the usage emerges. Gotitbro (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google and their ilk changing the name is pretty obviously pandering to the Trump administration. It would be a bad precedent to start using that as the standard for changing information. Harimau777 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a single-sentence mention based on the executive order making this the "official" name in use by the U.S. government. Frank Anchor 19:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose As many have already pointed out before, the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and the English Wikipedia is not the US's Wikipedia. English is the lingua franca of the world, and the English Wikipedia must reflect that.

If English Wikipedia is to retain the authority it has, it must be a neutral place, and not merely a national project. The project already suffers from Americentrism, let's not encourage it.

If the new nomenclature were to become common, I'll then support to change it. Doing it beforehand, in an already very polarised and controversial athmosphere, does not seem proper nor reccomendable. FransenVe (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard the news? https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/27/google-maps-to-show-gulf-of-america-after-government-updates.html || CNBC: Google says it will change Gulf of Mexico to 'Gulf of America' in Maps after government updates Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is very funny to me.

Google says it will show Gulf of America only in the US. Not outside the US. Americentrism strikes again.

My point is that English Wikipedia should not be the US's Wikipedia. The US is free to call stuff however it likes, the rest of the world will continue to do it's own thing.

They are still called French fries, not freedom fries. FransenVe (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but move slowly. If "Gulf of America" becomes the official name used by the United States Board on Geographic Names and the US Geological Survey, then there is no reason that Wikipedia should not list that as an alternate name, right in the lead sentence. Just like "Islas Malvinas" is mentioned as an alternate name for the Falkland Islands. This should await that official redesignation, at which point Google Maps is expected to follow. As for the name of the article itself, that should stay "Gulf of Mexico" for the time being and should continue to follow the name that's used in most of the anglophone world, which I suspect will remain "Gulf of Mexico" for the foreseeable future. But a reminder that Wikipedia's only role is to report usage, and not play activist. Wikipedia is not #Resistance. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Strong oppose’’’ per WP:RECENTISM, WP:COMMONNAME

the fact that the U.S. is not and shall never be the only country in the Anglosphere. To quote FransenVe in their above comment, “If English Wikipedia is to retain the authority it has, it must be a neutral place, and not merely a national project.” Casspedia (talk)  02:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The United States is a country. It doesn’t matter it’s not the only country. I think all arguments that say this should be struck down. I am not proposing that the title be changed. I am proposing that it should say “The Gulf of Mexico, officially called the Gulf of America in the United States…” Rc2barrington (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oddly, it seems that everyone in the "oppose" camp has not read the discussion line. The question here is not to change the title but to simply add in the lead that it is recognized as the Gulf of America in the US—an extraordinarily reasonable request. It is now appearing on Google Maps as such as in federal government maps. No one brought up "common name" when changing Mount McKinley to Denali, but now all of a sudden common name is dispositive. Very odd, indeed. Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, i don't see the issue with adding it to the lead. Tab1of2 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference, as per the Associated Press (there's a link here somewhere already), is that Denali/Mt. McKinley is a geographical feature entirely within American jurisdiction, so the American government is the authority on what its official name is, and both names reliably apply to the entire feature. The Gulf is an international body of water where one of the countries with territory extending into it wants to change the name while the other countries with the same stake don't, and nobody is really certain at this point if the U.S. government is trying to apply a new name to their own territorial waters or if they're asserting that the entire Gulf is renamed. Therefore it's not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia to say anything suggesting that the entire Gulf is known by two names, because frankly we don't know if it is or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly!!! Rc2barrington (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Too early & WP:COMMONNAME & WP:RECENTISM. It's pretty unlikely the US's proposed name change will stick in the US, much less be adopted in the rest of the English speaking world. We won't really know if the WP:COMMONNAME is going to shift until RS's have a chance to actually write about the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed name change may seem significant and important now, but that's just WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, the United States is only a minority of the English-speaking world; 1.3 billion people have English as a first or second language - there are many, many English-language sources outside the United States. Moreover, this is a highly polticised, partisan term; the sweeping Trump excutive orders are very likely to be rescinded the moment another party gains power. If Trump was to issue an executive order demanding the U.S. government call it the "Gulf of Trump", would we follow? — The Anome (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Gulf of Trump" <chuckle>. That's next. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per WP:RECENTISM, WP:COMMONNAME --Schrauber5 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, which international sources continue to use for the whole body of water. The EO only concerns a portion of the Gulf. I may be worth mentioning in the article, though it risks recentism, but not significant enough for the lead.Mr leroy playpus (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - The name change does not include the entire Gulf of Mexico to begin with. This only covers the area between the coast and the US continental shelf. Therefor it is illogical to change the name of the article. Just mention that within the US, that the section between the coast and the continental shelf is known as the Gulf of America. This move is likely one to stroke the ego of the US President and Wikipedia must remain neutral. The approach here needs to be objective, non-partisan and within reason. --NevadaExpert (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @NevadaExpert: Can you clarify? This discussion isn't about renaming the article. That's a different discussion already rejected. This discussion is about whether to mention it in the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is why I would not mention it in the lead. Technically speaking, it’s only a portion which has been renamed. Whether or not Trump himself knows that is besides the point. He probably doesn’t even know how to tie his own shoes, so we should not subject Wikipedia to the whims of someone who is not of sound mind. So no, I would not put this in the lead. NevadaExpert (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Harimau777; the difference between mentioning "Gulf of America" as a notable political discourse or controversy and mentioning it in Wikipedia's voice as an "alternative name" as some suggest, is an important one. It is too early to tell if it is either, and certainly a paucity of RS are calling this body of water the "Gulf of America." ByVarying | talk 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehement Oppose if nobody can take away the US president's crayons we may have to suffer through four years of nonsense like this. Best to show early on that reality does not bend to the whims of a fool with an army. Simonm223 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a fair and balance, (definitely not biased) take on how encyclopedias should be written. Tab1of2 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm opposed too, but this is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rationale.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly the rigor of my comments is a reflection on the absurdity of the request. The Gulf of Mexico is international water and Donald Trump has no jurisdiction to unilaterally rename it. I don't see any valid reason whatsoever why we should humour him just because the Americans decided for some reason to elect him to their presidency again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a mention in the lede, but carefully worded so that it does not imply that it is an alternate name. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, since that is about article titles and a lot of the commenters seem to have missed what this RfC is about. Since the executive order and subsequent declaration by the DoI are unlikely to be changed during the next four years and since the decision has been very widely reported in international sources, in English and in other languages it makes sense to add it as part of an accessible overview per MOS:INTRO. Sjö (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until and if it becomes a commonly used name in the English language - not just the United States - which it's not at present. Until then it belongs in a "Naming dispute" section, similar to what's included in the Sea of Japan article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a world outside the United States and the rest of the world still uses the WP:COMMONNAME. We shouldn't be changing it just because the American government decrees they are changing what they call a geographical entity. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. We can reexamine when Trump annexes Mexico. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Somejeff. If the IMO, or the IHO, or the United Nations group of experts on geographical names agree with the name chnage, then yes. But currently, no LightlySeared (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Per TheTechnician and WP:COMMONNAME, with a smidgin of WP:CRYSTAL. Serial (speculates here) 14:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The National Weather Service has begun to use 'Gulf of America' instead of 'Gulf of Mexico'. andrew30126 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just checked and they're still using Gulf of Mexico on their website. Where did you see this?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the Storm Prediction Center day 1 severe weather outlook, issued this morning, they used 'Gulf of America' for the first time. The forecast has since been updated, but it was referenced in this report. [10]https://x.com/BNODesk/status/1884644275956134307 Andrew30126 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care if the Queen of Sheba starts calling it the "Gulf of America". This is a GLOBAL encyclopedia and the United States does not own the entire Gulf of Mexico nor does it get to dictate to the rest of the world what something is called. Damicatz (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I have no reason to believe that the screenshot in that tweet is fake, I checked and the word Gulf is nowhere to be found in the current Day 1 outlook. All other outlooks just call it "the gulf" and avoid using any name, almost making me wonder if they're deliberately avoiding calling it anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was used on the 13Z Day 1 SPC outlook. Later outlooks don't use that term. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Recentism, the U.S. BGN was not even notified yet, and the order applies only to the U.S. continental shelf under U.S. jurisdiction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftrebien (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This verifies from the source. Hmm, should the article about the continental shelf be split off and redirected here? It's within the Gulf of Mexico and has received significant independent and official coverage, so a split of just the officially renamed areas could be feasible, especially if further coverage separating the American continental shelf area from the wider Gulf of Mexico continues. Note: Don't !vote here, but give your thoughts to a "split" (in all actuality, it'd be new content). Departure– (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I doubt an executive order from the US president, can change the name of the gulf, just like that. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: What a single country calls the bay should not be an aspect of the lead, as it's not the WP:COMMONNAME that the entire rest of the world uses. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: Largely for reasons already noted, but I wanted to add that a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 25% of Americans supported the renaming, with 70% opposed. With numbers like that, it's going to be hard to see it enter common usage, especially when going against centuries of prior usage. It's a bit WP:CRYSTAL BALL in the other direction, but I wanted to provide some numbers at the very least. AG202 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as WP:UNDUE because for the lead section, the length should be about 250 to 400 words. Right now, it is 304 words, but it does not even include the history or the biota, from what I can tell. There is no mention of fishing or other industries. In essence, there is even more that could be summarized about this international topic in numerous other scopes, and the US-centric name change fails WP:PROPORTION, "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Obviously the name change is worth covering in the article body, but in the context of the whole topic, it would be disproportionate to include in the lead section. The redirect of Gulf of America to the relevant content about it is appropriate enough at this time. No objection to revisiting on a later date. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Trump can say whatever he wants but as far as I can tell, an executive order isn't even enough to officially rename it under American law, much less change the WP:COMMONNAME. Loki (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RECENTISM as stated above. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not only per RECENTISM, but because this Executive Order only affects how Federal agencies refer to the body of water. It's not "officially" changing the name of anything, just what the Feds call it when referring to it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehemently Oppose Donald Trump does not have the authority to dictate to the entire world what something is called. He is not the emperor. The rest of the world calls and will continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico. Damicatz (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is forcing the rest of the world to call it "Gulf of America." That's just what the United States will call it. Mexico is still allowed to call it the "Gulf of Mexico," and every other country on Earth is still allowed to call it whatever they want. Greggens (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I see arguments both ways, and I think the best thing to do is wait and see to what degree this is picked up outside of the Trumposphere. That said – those (and there seem to be many) arguing against this on a WP:COMMONNAME basis don't, not to put too fine a point on it, know what they're talking about, because WP:COMMONNAME is a WP:AT issue and this is a discussion about the lead paragraph. Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is already mentioned in the article. I do not think it warrants mentioning it in the lead paragraph, since this is English Wikipedia, and other English speaking countries have not recognized the change. In fact, only the U.S. government recognizes the change - it is not even clear that the majority of U.S. public will start using the new official name. Until the new name becomes common among U.S. population and media, it is not worth mentioning it in the lead paragraph. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have to admit I find the opposees here bizarre. It's almost as if some of the oppose votes didn't read the RFC. This RFC isn't about changing the article's title. The WP:COMMONNAME is most definitely the Gulf of Mexico. The act by the current US president isn't a trivial thing since the United States has recognized the change. That should dismiss the calls for WP:RECENT. This is certainly an event that passes the ten year test. This is mentioned enough in the body, covered by a variety of WP:RS, to to justify a mention in lead. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isnt't good enough reason to oppose mention this somewhere in the lead. Nemov (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a really good argument, and very true. Rc2barrington (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you claim it will pass 10YT when his proclamations keep running into court problems and getting reversed? And please do not dismiss the large number of opposes as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These are valid concerns. At article Nakhodka Bay you will see another attempt to call another land, a part of Russia, 'Gulf of America'. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like it or not, this event is now an inseparable part of this article's future. I think the attempted name change is very dumb, but just because I think something is dumb doesn't mean I come to a RFC to POV push it out of existence. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  " The WP:COMMONNAME is most definitely the Gulf of Mexico." So it seems like you are backing the oppose arguments there. Just because the American president decrees it, doesn't mean the rest of the world is obliged to follow. There is a world outside the United States who have refused to recognise that position. Also, how can it pass the 10 year test when its barely been 10 days? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The C of EAgain, this RFC isn't about changing the article name. It's about including something in the lead that's well represented in the body and covered by WP:RS. Nemov (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I understand that this is not a move request, I also can't support making the lede say "The Gulf of Mexico, also known in the United States as the Gulf of America [...]" when it's just factually not true. US government agencies like the NWS are noticeably hesitant to adopt the name. Their marine forecasts continue to say "Gulf of Mexico" to this day. Their severe weather outlook said "Gulf of America" for approximately 1 hour before they removed it and decided to just say "the gulf" from then on. American news orgs are putting out statements saying they'll continue to use Gulf of Mexico. 70% of the American public opposes the rename. It's not known as the Gulf of America here, and it's hardly even being used by the government. So it's irrelevant that this isn't a move discussion, it's still a proposal to add something that's simply wrong to the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. I think the reason that the people who are asking for this change are seeing such a negative reaction is that there is simply no framework wherein the American President can, by fiat, rename natural features that are not even fully within his country's jurisdiction. We understand that 29.3% of adult Americans cast a ballot for Donald Trump (excluding those who did not vote as well as those who voted for other candidates) but this plurality was not an election for king of the world. Even other American institutions realize this isn't a thing the President of their country has the authority to do. It's effectively a publicity stunt that the US President has engaged in so that he can throw a bone to a nationalist sub-set of his base. On such a weak basis, an international encyclopedia, such as en.wp should absolutely not be humouring him. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This RFC is just about including this somewhere in the lead. It doesn't discuss how or where is should be placed. There's no logical reason not to included this information further down in the lead. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just WP:IDHT I just laid out why we should not be including this in the lede. Frankly we should not be including this in the body. You're saying that, because Trump scribbled his signature on a piece of paper that Wikipedia should be boldly wrong in the lede of an article about a body of water. No. Just no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems clearly you either not reading what I'm writing or ignoring it all together. This is covered by a ton of reliable sources. You opinion about the motivations of Trump are interesting, but completely irrelevant. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being covered in newspapers isn't an indication any given piece of information must be included. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is an indication per WP:DUE. As has been said before, we do not base inclusion in the articles on whether we like something or if we think a particular statement is correct. If it is covered in reliable sources and relevant to the article we include it. However, we must take care to follow WP:NPOV which is why IMO "also known in the United States as the Gulf of America" is not NPOV since it is a disputed fact. But, it can be mentioned, maybe something like "In 2025 Donald Trump signed executive order XXXXX about changing Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America". Sjö (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would call that deeply undue in the lede per WP:NOTTRIVIA. That level might be due in the body though I'm loath to include even that much as it seems like WP:RECENTISM. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This has received significant and sustained coverage by WP:RS. It's not trivia at this point and this isn't a biography. Regardless of what the future holds this event is part of the history of the article. When reviewing the current article this information is significantly represented in body enough to justify WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'm saying is that undue weight is being given to this publicity stunt in the body. Let's consider a WP:10YT. Will anyone care that Trump did this? Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: It is an official change by the US and definitely received widespread coverage worldwide. This being an English Wikipedia, name change in English speaking countries, especially the US which hosts Wikipedia, should be reflected. --The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The worldwide coverage was about the name change (not about the gulf itself). And this event (the official name change in USA) is already mentioned in the article. The question here is whether the new name should also be mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article - the article being about a gulf, not about the event. I argue that until the new name becomes common among U.S. population and media, it is not worth mentioning it in the lead paragraph. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. WP:CRYRECENTISM all you want, but per Nemov, this isn't merely WP:COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME is for determining the titles of articles, and does not apply here, as we are discussing the lead sentence. For that, we turn to MOS:LEADSENTENCE. As it explicitly states there: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms. This has also received significant media coverage, so it checks off WP:V. For people arguing WP:10YT, the section literally states: Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Never seen WP:CRYRECENTISM before, looks like it was actually written during this discussion. Though for what it's worth, I actually agree with that essay and find it to be very useful. There is a problem (particularly at AfD) of editors routinely !voting to remove content simply for being recent, regardless of sourcing. But as you and Nemov acknowledge, this discussion is only about the lede. And I do think it's fair to criticize the oppose !votes whose rationale is purely based on article title reasoning.

  But I also think Erik gave a fantastic explanation for why this shouldn't be in the lede, especially when you also consider that this name really isn't being used in America in any meaningful way, even by the government. At most all that's happened is Trump gave an order to begin a process of jumping through hurdles to eventually have government officials say Gulf of America instead of Gulf of Mexico, with some confusion over whether this name refers to the entire Gulf or only the section of it closest to the United States. And mentioning that in the lede section when there's far more important parts of the article that didn't make it into the lede fails proportionality.

  I also want to briefly point out that many of the support !votes are not in agreement on where or how to mention it in the lede. Nemov's understanding of this RfC is that we're only !voting on the question of if it's warranted to mention it anywhere in any way, while it looks like you're asking us to say something to the effect of "also known as the Gulf of America" in the 1st sentence. I would consider that to be misinformation.

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article name and lead information needs to be changed to reflect the new name of Gulf of America. I am just adding this comment to show support for the change. 2001:8003:7C23:7B00:79F3:1365:778A:28F5 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what is proposed in this RfC; there is nothing here about changing the article name. But again, the Executive Order does not magically change the opinions of people in the USA, much less the rest of the world. (The President has also tried redefining human biology and assigning blame for accidents by EO; I'm not convinced that an EO by itself is evidence for anything except its own existence.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as there's no pretense of its being a common name. I personally think the name change is ridiculous — and from a political standpoint, I agree with some of those here who wish we could just ignore it until it goes away — but the fact remains that it's a name that millions of English speakers, particularly in the USA, will be seeing in government bulletins, certain news sources, popular map apps, etc. In my opinion, it would be a benefit to Wikipedia users to clarify that if they see "Gulf of America" on a map or in the news, it's a reference to the same gulf they've always known as the Gulf of Mexico. My preferred language might look something like this:

  The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México; also known as the Gulf of America by some institutions in the United States) is an ocean basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean…

  It's true that people who go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_America will be redirected to the relevant section of the page, but I don't think most people navigate Wikipedia that way. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a carefully worded mention in the lead. Look, personally, I think the order is bullshit. I personally intend to keep calling it the "Gulf of Mexico", and I hope that will continue to be the common name even in the US. But at least for now, "Gulf of America" is going to be the official name according to the US federal government. I don't think we can just ignore that in the lead section. The wording should specifically attribute the name to the US federal government, and not imply that Americans generally (or even state governments, for now, till we see how they respond) use this name. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We're now at over 300 comments, so I feel it's a good time to check on the state of the discussion. By my count we're at 81 opposes, 39 supports, 1 half-support-half-oppose, 1 wait, and 1 neutral. Wikipedia says there's over 150 participants so I don't know what explains the discrepancy (did 30 people comment without !voting, or am I just really bad at counting?) It goes without saying that Wikipedia is not a vote, and it will obviously be up to whoever closes this to weigh the !votes appropriately. I recognize that several oppose !votes made weak arguments (one of them was even WP:JUSTAVOTE), but even then, it's still not close enough to be in no consensus territory. Not saying we need to close this just yet (the last few !votes were supports after all), but if it stays like this for much longer, an oppose consensus might be a foregone conclusion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We also cannot count opposes that cite WP:COMMONNAME and others, since as @Nemov said are not valid arguments. Rc2barrington (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how it works. You can't just avoid counting opposition votes because someone on your side said that argument is invalid. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think that votes that say WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be counted? WP:COMMONNAME is only for article titles. This RfC is not about changing the title of the article. It's about saying "Gulf of Mexico, officially known as the Gulf of America in the United States". We've done the same thing with Persian Gulf, why can't we do it here. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wildfireupdateman, I think you misunderstand something. RfCs are not votes. They are discussions. The administrator who closes this discussion does not have to, and in fact should not, give all opinions (e.g. ones that misinterpret or disregard policy) equal weight. After this discussion is closed, if you believe that consensus was mis-analyzed by the closer (and not simply because you disagree with the decision), e.g. because you think "votes" were unfairly considered or not considered, you can ask that the closure be reviewed. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 06:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm sympathetic to the counterargument that WP:COMMONNAME isn't applicable because this isn't a title change discussion, I don't think we can just blanket disregard any !vote that mentions COMMONNAME. Few !votes hinge entirely on it, as most !votes provide more than one reason.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but we should disregard the few votes that hinge entirely on it. And not just that, there are other reasons.

  Talk:Gulf of Mexico#c-Nemov-20250129221800-Casspedia-20250128021100

  The reasons listed here should also be examined. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Concerns of due weight, proportionality, and the factual accuracy of suggesting that it's "also known as" or even "referred to by the US government as" the Gulf of America are still valid concerns. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would argue most of the users who tried to invoke COMMONNAME, though technically incorrectly, were probably meaning to refer to the fact that Gulf of America is not commonly used, not even by the United States Government — and that, unlike the policy titled COMMONNAME, actually is a valid argument against its inclusion in the lede. I don't see any other reasons in Nemov's !vote which you've linked to that would justify dismissing all the !votes from the other side; the rest of Nemov's !vote is simply disagreeing with the oppose !votes, not demonstrating that the oppose !votes are misapplying a policy. The president can't unilaterally change geographic names, even domestically. The USGS continues to use Gulf of Mexico. You might disagree with !votes that argue this is too premature or too recent to belong in the lede, but you can't just disregard all of those !votes.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm only suggesting disregarding votes that include political statements, or invoke policies incorrectly. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those things do make a !vote less credible, but most bring up points beyond that. A few arguments are basically just "Trump bad" or "don't bend the knee!", but only a few. Arguments that include political statements or mis-citations of policy should be regarded with scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they're all non-useful, as long as there's something else there. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 07:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is not the first instance of geographical names and political conflict, see eg Sea of Japan >< Eastern Sea. The whole world calls that body of water the Gulf of Mexico, when the world does otherwise, we should discuss anew. Satu Katja (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are only two genders sexes, "Donald" and "Trump", but this does not deserve more than a sentence down lower in the article. It is not yet lead-worthy. Zero^talk 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mention in the lead. The readership of this article has jumped up lately from a long term average of about 1,000 views per day to about 50,000 per day so far this year. It seems likely that these readers are wanting to read about the name change and so we should assist their navigation as it's a big article. There's a section about the history of the name and a subsection about this latest change and so a mention in the lead is appropriate as the lead is supposed to summarise the main points of the article,

Name changes and disputes are very common and so we have extensive guidance at MOS:ALTNAMES and articles such as Geographical renaming. I'm in the UK but am very familiar with the renaming of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and back. That gets a mention in its lead and so should this.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I also support the eventual move to Gulf of America. I wasn't inclined to vote at all, but was invited to do so and encouraged as an American citizen and Wikipedia user who commented on this earlier. I want to voice my pro-forma support for the elected leadership of the United States. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like we have some canvassing going on… 296cherry (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no, and no: "Gulf of America" is "an ahistorical innovation" that is very unlikely to gain traction. Even so, a future administration is likely to revert the change. The relevant policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, and the Associated Press, "whose style guide is widely followed", has said it will continue using the "Gulf of Mexico" name. Call it as you personally feel, but we should feel no obligation to entertain histrionics, nor should we be inclined to overturn hundreds of years of wisdom regarding the gulf's English name as of now, and that's coming from another guy who has lived near the coast his whole life. "Gulf of Mexico" has offended no one in the South—until Trump, who I hope is joking, stated otherwise. FreeMediaKid$ 20:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As has been already discussed, WP:COMMONNAME is about page names and moves. This RfC is not about moving the page, so COMMONNAME is not the "relevant policy". — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 20:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Not the common name, not a name with any significant history; its use depends exclusively on a megalomaniac with a microphone and the authority to coerce the entire government to follow his lead. In a few years this name is likely to be as dead as "Freedom Fries" or "Liberty Cabbage". Who gave the president the authority to alter reality, or tell people what things are called? If he signs an executive order saying that the sky is green, and every department, bureau, and agency in the country issues a statement agreeing with him, does that make the sky green or oblige anyone else to believe it? This is an encyclopedia, not a branch of the administration. Propaganda has no place here. P Aculeius (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "In popular culture section" is too short and misses large portions of it's the history. The alternative name was referenced in folk tales prior to a comedian joke. Referencing the comedian joke as the dawn of the alternative name is misleading and is observably obvious that it's inclusion is solely to delegitimizeOtterstone (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to expand on the history of the Gulf of Mexico, while you unfortunately can't currently edit the article due to rampant vandalism, you're welcome to provide reliable sources here that expand on the body's history. Meanwhile, I've moved the contents of the 'In popular culture' section into the 'Name' section, since 'In popular culture' fails to justify its own existence by solely consisting of name-related facts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two most prominent works with citations directly referencing to "The Gulf of Mexico" are:

"Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,' just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod."

- Mark Twain (Life on the Mississippi, 1883)

and

"Mississippi begins in a lobby of a Memphis, Tennessee hotel and extends south to the Gulf of Mexico."

- William Faulkner (Requiem for a Nun, 1951)

The list of references to "The Gulf of Mexico" in literature is very long. Due to the controversy regarding change of name, I find it important that the Wikipedia article includes as many aspects of the name (both versions) as possible. BGA Player (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently claims that the term "Gulf of America" refers only to a portion of the Gulf of Mexico, rather than the entire Gulf of Mexico. This is contrary to all reliable sources which report that the executive order renamed the entire gulf, and also is contrary to the wording of the executive order itself– per section 4a "The area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico"; "I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America."; section 4b U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary shall subsequently update the GNIS to reflect the renaming of the Gulf and remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law.

It looks like some editors have been inserting claims that the term does not refer to the entire Gulf thanks to the strange wording of section 4b, but what is very clear is that not only do WP:RS indicate that the name applies to the entire Gulf, but also the facts that the executive order itself refers to "the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico" and directs to "remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico" indicate that the US federal government does not recognize the term "Gulf of Mexico" as applying to any part of the Gulf. Any claim otherwise is a violation of WP:OR. As such I will fix that article wording. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange wording indeed. The language that had been in the article was something of a compromise hashed out in an earlier discussion, but I'm not very confident about the armchair lawyering there: "seaward boundary" doesn't necessarily mean the seaward boundary of a state; there are multiple seaward boundaries. [11]

Anyways, what matters more is how the order is being implemented now that a few days have passed. One point that may be easy to miss is that GNIS only covers domestic names (and names in Antarctica), while the GEOnet Names Server (GNS) covers foreign features. The order singles out GNIS but doesn't say anything about GNS, which also has a record for the Gulf of Mexico (feature ID -1506402). Without speculating too much, the order clearly intends to remove "Gulf of Mexico" from use as a domestic toponym and avoid the term overall, but I think any claim that "Gulf of America" is the federal government's new name for the overall international feature will eventually need stronger references. It shouldn't be long before we see how, for instance, NOAA (or whatever becomes of it) refers to something happening closer to Cuba.

For the time being, I left in a short excerpt of the order's definition of "Gulf of America", without emphasizing whether it applies in full or in part.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. It is only a portion that has been renamed in accordance with US maps. Wikipedia is read by people all over the world who may have different names for this body of water. Just mention that the US government recognizes that portion as the Gulf of America. That will be fair. --NevadaExpert (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn GNIS currently defines the Gulf of Mexico at https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/gaz-record/558730 as "a major body of water bordered and nearly landlocked by North America with the Gulf's eastern, northern, and northwestern shores in the U.S. and its southwestern and southern shores in Mexico." If they use the same definition for "Gulf of America", then "shores in Mexico" is pretty clear that it refers to the entire Gulf, not just the portion north of Mexico's EEZ. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: My WP:CRYSTALBALL is too cloudy to know that they'll use the same wording whenever they get around to rewriting this database record or that they'll bother to update GNS with the same name. Second, it's a description field, not a field for legally binding definitions. GNIS is primarily a database of names, not geometries. Most descriptions are things like Post Office addresses and years of operation. Some descriptions are even by their own admission "incomplete". [12] Nevertheless, that description could help beef up Gulf of Mexico#Extent based on the status quo. I just wouldn't personally add it to Gulf of Mexico#Name, because I've already had more straightforward edits of mine summarily reverted as WP:SYNTH. Finally, a more relevant factoid would be that Mexican President Sheinbaum disputes any definition of "Gulf of America" that extends beyond the U.S. 12-nautical-mile (22 km; 14 mi) limit. [13] I've already added this to Executive Order 14172#Reactions. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two suggested additions from early 16th century:

• "Gulf of Saint Michael" (Latin: Sinus S.Michaelis) on a 1527 anonymous globe.
• "Gulf of Yucatán" (Italian: Golfo de Iucatan) on a 1531 planisphere by Vesconte Maggiolo.

Wikipetzi (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipetzi: Thank you, I added "Gulf of St. Michael" to the article based on a source that describes the globe in detail. [14] If you know of a source mentioning the appearance of Golfo de Iucatan in the Maggiolo planesphere, that would be preferable to citing the planisphere directly, though I suppose we could do that too using {{cite map}}. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minh Nguyễn: Thanks for the secondary source reference for the 1527 globe. As for the 1531 Maggiolo planisphere, I know that a secondary source would also be preferred, but unfortunately I couldn’t find one either. There’s not much literature about this planisphere which was apparently unknown until 1983 and undocumented until 1996. As for the primary source, the map itself, in addition to the catalogue image that I’ve already given in my previous comment, there is a higher-resolution one on the website of the Louvre Abu Dhabi, which is the current owner of the planisphere: by clicking on the third thumbnail on this page and using the full-screen and zoom options, you can get a very clear view of the (upside down) label "Golfo de Iucatan." (the "e" is in superscript). A close but later name is "Yucatán Sea" (Latin: Mare Iuchatanicum) in a 1544 atlas by Battista Agnese. Here again, I haven’t found a secondary source, but the primary source is visible in the National Library of Spain on this page. --Wikipetzi (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipetzi: Added both, thanks again. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gulf of America section of the article, there is the text "In January 2025, USA President Donald Trump...". Could someone change the text to read "United States President"? I can't edit the article due to not having extended protection. (assuming there is no grammatical/style rule saying to use "USA President" over "United States President") I am bad at usernames (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  novov talk edits 08:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• According to BBC (28 Jan. 2025), Google Maps will only totally rename it on US maps; its Mexico version will retain GoM, and elsewhere, both names will be listed. Kdammers (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • This was supposed to be in the section below.Kdammers (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I added a lv4 header for the Gulf of America paragraph in the Name section, since I thought it would be a better fit to segregate the 500-year history of the stable etymology from the very recent (in historical context) politically-motivated change suggestion, and thought it would be a better target for Gulf of America. I think I didn't update the anchor, though. Hurricane Clyde seemed to be trying to request to change the target on the redirect's talk page, but reverted themselves, then moved the Gulf of America hatnote from the new subsection to the top of the Name section, which I think breaks the link. I don't want to fix it without asking: do we want to have the lv4 subheader, and either way, where in this article should the redirect target? (I'm aware that this was just recently discussed at RFD - I'm not trying to reopen that discussion, just clarifying with the addition of the subsection header). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially make that request, until I figured out that the retarget wouldn’t have even worked in the first place for technical reasons. So I am withdrawing that “request” (which never got completely posted in the first place). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the hatnote, I moved it only to match where the redirect actually points to. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to ping @Ivanvector so that they can read this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the retarget request (now withdrawn), I had initially proposed retargeting to the section where the hatnote is. But when I try to write out the section, it redirects to the top of the article. That’s why I withdrew the request. And I reverted my request twice because I couldn’t get the template to include a section title; but then when I manually wrote it out, and started writing out the request, then I discovered the technical error. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But @Ivanvector, feel free to revert my change to the hatnote if there’s good reason. I was only trying to put the hatnote where the actual redirect target is. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What works is Gulf of Mexico#Gulf of America. Donald Albury 21:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then in that case @Donald Albury, consider my request to be reactivated. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, I think this is resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Ortelius is from Antwerp (not considered Flemish in historical or linguistic definition) but the term Mare de Nort is very clearly not Flemish. I can't seem to find the map which the article cites but the article does not claim it to be Flemish either. It is more likely to be contemporary latin with French influences, I am not really sure what it is but for now I would remove the claim that it is Flemish, which it certainly is not. Hans Brood (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Brood: Thanks for the clarification; I retagged the language as undetermined for that name. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text currently includes "Between 1999 and 2012, the chair of the United States Board on Geographic Names, John R. Hébert received repeated proposals from one individual to rename the waters Gulf of America," with the cited source calling this "the pet issue of one frequent complainant." Until the identity of this person is officially confirmed (or at least speculated about in "reliable sources"), it might be undue weight to include this sentence. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Reminds me of how one person is responsible for two-thirds of airplane noise complaints in Sydney. SportingFlyer T·C 04:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the cited source, the point of the anecdote is that the perceived association with Mexico the country has led to musings about renaming the gulf after the U.S. At some point, someone lopped off the first half of the sentence, which incorporated this framing. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that there is at least one other source where the "1999 and 2012" comes from. But it does seem awfully UNDUE.Sjö (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we wanted to make a more general statement, we would need to have actual sources for wider concern around this issue prior to, say, Marjorie Taylor Greene's proposed bill on the subject. Because aside from the one anecdote, this does seem to be a specifically 21st century niche interest of the US far right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GenevieveDEon I removed the mention altogether, since you opposed the general statement. Nothing in the source actually says that the complaints were received "between 1999 and 2012", and all we can infer is that they must've started at some point before when Ken Jennings published his book in 2011 (they all could've been after Colbert in 2010, or they could've been in the 1950s and Hébert learned about them from colleagues when he got the job). Therefore it's not even a valuable statement to say that this pre-dates the 2010s. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I agree with this decision. What this most reminds me of is when the UK's coalition government took office in 2010, and incoming Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles revealed a fondness for 'traditional counties' - a subject on which the leading popular activist was better known as a TV astrologer. And even there, there was at least some history behind the subject, even if it was broadly irrelevant to the actual practice of local administration. But all the talk of big changes went quiet after a few months. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I think there was a game of telephone: the sentence that I inserted originally attributed the statement to John R. Hébert, who was chair of the USBGN between those years, but someone edited it down to just those years without mentioning him, which is kind of misleading. Anyways, I think we found a more elegant way to incorporate these facts into Executive Order 14172#Background, where there isn't as much pressure to keep things concise. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the current naming controversy, I believe that placing this article under extended protection through January 2026 is significantly longer than it needs to be, almost to the point of absurdity. I don't think it should last any longer than a couple of months at the absolute most. MrJ567 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's likely we'll decrease the protection once we stop getting disruption from autoconfirmed editors here on the talk. You're free to make an edit request here, @MrJ567! Valereee (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiplibrarianship, your revisions appear to remove content that doesn't appear to be WP:UNDUE weight. I think the information that was present before your revisions was enough to keep here. I think only time will tell on how much this information will be useful towards the name change. The "Gulf of America" ultimately talks about a portion of the gulf. Maybe a re-venture and copyedit into the naming history is needed as we have a de jure versus de facto argument. – The Grid (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was already also thinking that we have too much detail about what various individual media groups are planning to recognize the proposed renaming. Based on real media coverage Google is probably due, the rest probably not. I shortened the hatnote, which was almost as long as the section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for chiming in. I just wanted to make sure it didn't seem like it was just one person changing things. – The Grid (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dedicated article for Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness, most of the minutiae isn't germane to this article. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 22:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the cities specifically on the Gulf - Mobile and Corpus Christi are there, but the larger cities of Veracruz and Matamoros aren't. Perhaps not having any cities would be relevant for the bathymetrical focus of the image, but as it's the main image I think it should be recreated to include a better mix of cities that aren't currently included. Given the whole ordeal around the "Gulf of America" name, as it stands the image isn't exactly neutral. (p.s. I'm well aware Matamoros isn't coastal, but neither is Houston. They're both connected to the Gulf via water - plus the Rio Grande at Matamoros is much more navigable than the Buffalo Bayou at Houston and goes directly into the Gulf without having to go through a bay.) Departure– (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That image, like most images used in Wikipedia, is hosted on Commons. I see there that the image, without cities marked, was uploaded from NOAA. Changes to which cites are marked on the map need to be made at Commons. Anyone can upload other versions of the map, as long as they are free to use on Wikimedia projects, and we can then decide which image to use in this article. Donald Albury 22:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new image that'll include a few selected major and important cities on the gulf - Matamoros, MX / Brownsville, US, Houston, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, Panama City, Tampa, Havana, San Francisco de Campeche, Ciudad del Carmen, Coatzocoalcos, Veracruz, and Tampico. I'm a bit torn about adding Progreso, Baton Rouge, and Cape Coral, however. Departure– (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to find a more top-down image to base yours off of (such as File:Gulf of Mexico ETOPO 2022.png), as that NOAA image, for some reason, is skewed so that it appears that you're viewing the Gulf at an angle. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/pre-Columbian-civilizations Britannica Encyclopedia (the only encyclopedia brave enough to stand up to Wikipedia) has a good article for pre-columbian civilizations that center around the Gulf of Mexico. Anyway this is crazy that an almost joke suggestion has the power to make a non controversial article that just 10 days ago was a geographical place that most Wikipedians didn't care about to indefinite ECP protection. I would love to see the reaction if Donald Trump for some reason signed an executive order to make the government recognize the sky as green or something, then wikipedia extended confirmed protects the article on the sky. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph in the citation I linked above details neolithic tribes that should be added upon in the Pre-Columbian civilization section. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need academic sources, not an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sky comparison doesn't work, because the sky has 193 countries bordering it. While Gulf of Mexico only has 2. So the debate around Gulf of Mexico makes more sense than sky.84.54.71.137 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of places don't distinguish blue and green, even as it applies to the sky, which has been described as green in Arabic and Persian poetry. Departure– (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page name from Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America([15]) JonahTank (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See extensive discussions above. — Czello ^(music) 15:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will continually call it the Gulf of Mexico. All Americans are not going to go along with this name "change." Changing a name of historic waterway to fulfill knee jerk reaction of any leader - is just silly. I vote - no - on this "name change." JohnBindon2 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that, the ONLY way that is ever getting changed is if the new “name” gets international recognition. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading "Geology," change "Late Triassic" in the second sentence to "late Triassic," to match the case used in the previous sentence and elsewhere in the section. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My request is for the change of the Gulf of Mexico to the gulf of America. It has been deemed so by the nation with the largest shoreline to the gulf, and one that has territory in it. It is only fair to refer to it as the Gulf of America here forth. 2600:6C5E:4000:26:D3A9:C222:DBD2:5FAC (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See extensive discussion above, and read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The name Sinus Magnus Antilliarum [Great Bay of Antilles] appears on an old Portuguese map made in 1558 by Diego Homen (original in British Museum). Probably the most remarkable name is that of Mare Cathaynum (Chinese Sea) which is found on one chart of the middle of the sixteenth century (copy reproduced in the Mémoirs de la Societé de Nancy, 1832)... Herrera (1728) called it Ensenada Mexicana and Seño Mexicano"

cite: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Gulf_of_Mexico_Its_Origin_Waters_and_Mar/v8tXAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Diego%20Homen&pg=PA15&printsec=frontcover Enri999 (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the latest temper tantrum about Greenland from the Orange One the Danish Parliament decided to rename The Gulf of Mexico to The Gulf of Denmark. This is to honor the Danish Vikings who traveled there 900 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.165.150 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled this and found no evidence of Denmark renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of Denmark”. However, this does demonstrate how pointless Trump’s name “change” is. GN22 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by multiple sources:

• Bloomberg
• Reuters
• CNBC
• The Times

Add this to the Gulf of America section. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]