Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 1

That's an image of just the Mississippi watershed. What about the others?

This EPA image shows the Gulf of Mexico watershed in the US, but omits Canada, Cuba and Mexico. I suspect we will not be able to find a free map that shows all of the watershed. Maybe someone can produce one for us. -- Donald Albury 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the following commentary from article. Was not peer reviewed and seems a speculative search for new ideas rather than a report on researched data.

In a December 2002 commentary published in the journal "Explorer" of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Dr. Michael Stanton, a retired Canadian geologist, proposed that the Gulf of Mexico was formed by an immense cosmic impact event (either an asteroid or comet) that was also the cause of the Permian mass extinctions. Stanton presented a strong case for the formation of the gulf and related impact features located as far away as Arkansas and Oklahoma USA.

The commentary is online at http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/12dec/gom_impact.pdf - for those interested. Removed from the article per WP:Undue weight for what looks like a speculative essay. Vsmith 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The AAPG essay / commentary about the Gulf of Mexico being an impact crater is not only very speculative, but it is also very badly flawed and sloppy in terms of its scientific content and interpretations. It relies too heavily on very dated, if not antiquated, reference material, including a 1979 textbook. This essay either overlooks or ignores a considerable number of more recent peer-reviewed publications that contain geophysical and geological data and research that readily refute specific interpretations made by it and its proposal that Gulf of Mexico is an impact crater. For example, the research that can be easily found in the published literature readily refutes claims that the fold belts of the Ouachita trend and the metamorphism of associated Paleozoic rocks was caused by an impact event. Also, there is enough published geophysical and geological data that demonstrate that the central uplift claimed to exist in the center of the Gulf of Mexico is completely imaginary. The commentary is very, very poorly researched and thought out to the point that provides an extremely weak case for the Gulf of Mexico being an impact crater.Paul H. (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed the lone statement about the Chicxulub Crater that was at the end of the lead section because (A) it didn't tie its subject to the article subject; (B) it was not further discussed anywhere in this article; and (C) nothing in the current version of Chicxulub Crater ties it to the Gulf itself (other than incidental location). If this is truly a subject worth pursuing in either article, the connection should be made clearer. If it's a controversial subject, it should also have more sources and a broader range of professional opinions. Either way, the single sentence was just too tangential and jarring in the current context. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The artice states: "... is the ninth largest body of water in the world". That should be "tenth"; see for example http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/toptenlists/World%27s_Largest_Bodies_of_Water. 199.3.224.3 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article gives its size as "about 1,600,000 km2". The link above says 1,507,476 km2, and lists the 9 larger "bodies of water" (whatever that means): Bering Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Caribbean Sea, South China Sea, Arctic Ocean, Southern Ocean, Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. But what about the Arabian Sea (3,8620,000 km2) 1; Weddell Sea (2,800,000 km2); Bay of Bengal (2,172,000 km2); and Sea of Okhotsk (1,583,000 km2)? Also, since "bodies of water" is rather vague, do things like the Sargasso Sea count?

There are also a number of sources that give the size of the Gulf of Mexico as something around 600,000 km2. I am guessing these are an error as that seems to be the approximate size in square miles, not km. Nevertheless, that top ten list link seems dubious to me, since it leaves out some rather obvious larger bodies of water, most notably the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gulf of America is correct because more of the coast line is under USA control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.142.62 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2012

No. Its WP:COMMONNAME is Gulf of Mexico. Nobody calls it Gulf of America. Bazonka (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time that it was named, Texas, Florida, and the coastal parts of Alabama and Mississippi all belonged to Mexico. As a result, it was named the Gulf of Mexico. This still is the officially recognized and common name for this body of water. Go see Geographic Names Information System and Gulf of Mexico for more information Paul H. (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone should add a picture of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.139.53 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me.

why I came across this article was because I was looking for the Gulf's maximum depth. somewhat surprised to find that it's not an element in the "basic data" template for an ocean region.

In fact, both of these points would probably be valid additions to the template. How to go about editing a template though, I've no idea.

(Just trying to actually answer the data part of the question.)

Aidan Karley (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Though I have fixed some of them, there are some biases toward the United States perspective, or possibly from a Eurocentric perspective.

For example, originally it only listed the major rivers that were in the United States as drainage rivers, but none were coming from Mexico. It mentioned Canada's obscure role in the drainage basin system, but failed to even mention Guatemala that has a more noticeable and direct link to the Gulf of Mexico via the Usumacinta River. The original listed settlements included almost every American city on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, but just few in Mexico itself.

Also, in the history, which I also just recently added some small change to push the narrative in the right direction, the human history starts with Christopher Columbus despite that the Mayans traded via the Gulf of Mexico perhaps centuries before he even arrived.

I'm just informing this now because while I have spotted some details, there could be a lot more that is biased toward the American or Eurocentric perspective. I feel like that needs to be looked into. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the depth? It looks like a few thousand metres?49.178.184.162 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the estimated average depth and the range of estimates for the maximum depth to the infobox of the article. - Donald Albury 14:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Klavoie511969 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done See the previous discussions on this idea. - Donald Albury 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

change name to:

gulf of america 2600:1007:A025:8C9:55D3:C1F:FD05:49B1 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done, see WP:COMMONNAME and the multiple threads above. Giraffer (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are two images, one of ships and oil rigs and the other ostensibly of the Cantarell Field, stuck willy-nilly at the head of the Geology section, with no explanation or reference to either of them in the text? A reader would have no idea why we're showing these here, or what the "Cantarell Field" could possibly be (there is nothing, other than this name, in the caption). The other image in here, captioned "Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico", is equally out of place, but at least it shows part of the Gulf and landforms bordering the north of it. rowley (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This is minor, but in the history section there is the following sentence. "As early as the Maya civilization, the Gulf of Mexico was used as a trade route off the coast of the Yucatán Peninsula and present-day Veracruz." "Trade route" links to the page "Trade in the Maya civilization". However, there is a far more relevant article "Maritime trade in the Maya civilization", and the general "Trade in the Maya Civilization" hardly discusses Mayan use of the Gulf of Mexico for maritime trade at all. I suggest changing that link to the more relevant article accordingly. I also suggest fleshing out that section a little bit more maybe. In fact the whole history section should probably expand beyond Spanish exploration. 2601:801:300:8230:F901:E2B4:E056:5A72 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Partly  Done. I made the suggested change in the link. The last part of the request is too vague for action here. If you desire, you can make more specific requests, supported by references to reliable sources as needed. Otherwise, further editing will be dependent on editors with the interest, time, and access to appropriate sources. We will hopefully be able to lift the editing restrictions on this article in a short while, and you will then be able to help improve the article yourself. Donald Albury 14:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The final portion of the "History" section about d'Iberville's 1697 expedition needs to be cleaned up. As it is written it makes very little sense. There is a paragraph long run-on sentence which never manages to conclude a thought. 2600:1700:D40:1D80:EA26:FF67:5B4D:8B3 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if it was official America does not get to own Wikipedia entries. It's stays the Gulf of Mexico as the rest of the world calls it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.137.167 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Who made you boss of Wikipedia? Not logged in 2 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by community consensus. They don't have authority to create the rules on a whim and neither do you. All they're doing is explaining current reasons as to why (backed by policy). Departure– (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the comments here, I am not seeing a consensus. Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There IS a consensus against changing the title of the article to the Gulf of America. There is NOT a consensus on whether or not it should be in the LEAD section. Rc2barrington (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On January 7th, 2025, United States president-elect Donald Trump announced during a fit of dementia that "pretty soon in the future" his administration will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, stating that "we [the United States] do most of the work there." 66.8.225.138 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: see to get consensus and this version lacks WP:NPOV. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like a small section should be dedicated to this, maybe a section on the origin of its name could be included. Trump seemed serious during his remark and MTG already stated she would be willing to draft the bill. Although I also think that the phrase "during a fit of dementia" should be omitted as it is too politically charged and a baseless claim. 2600:1700:CD8:5740:34E5:BB1E:C46E:FF59 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think at this point it'd be, at the most, WP:DUE to include on perhaps Trump's article or Second presidential transition of Donald Trump and/or Taylor Greene's (although it looks like no one has even tried yet, probably for the best). But not here as a bit of verbage about renaming the Gulf doesn't really have any encyclopedic value about the Gulf itself. Maybe in a few weeks/months/years. Skynxnex (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, normally I would agree, however with the amount of influence Trump has, it is likely people will begin calling it "The gulf of America" regardless of the fact that no action has been taken to formally change the name yet, if 80 million Americans (which is a pretty conservative guess) start referring to the gulf of Mexico as the gulf of America, that is worth putting in this article to let people know, that way they don't get confused when someone refers to it as this. I've already heard people refer it as such. Juju376 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a modern version of the Freedom fries jingoism, having nothing to do with geography and everything to do with politics. We have the same sort of thing as a perennial complaint with British Isles from a series of Irish editors. This nothing new or special, and can be documented on its own and with simple passing mention in the article if and when it becomes more than a sound bite at a news conference. See British Isles naming dispute, Sea of Japan naming dispute, Persian Gulf naming dispute... Politicians do this sort of thing all the time. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME the article name would not change even if on of the countries in the region unilaterally started using a different name. Even in the unlikely event that other countries started using the alternative name Wikipedia policy is clear that WP:OFFICIALNAMES should not be used just because they are official. 2A04:4A43:898F:FB21:9898:E0B7:34F8:59FE (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Gulf of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8 § Gulf of America until a consensus is reached. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Literally why does the Gulf of Mexico article have a British English tag? It is surrounded on two sides by exactly one English-speaking country. Master of Time (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is also bordered by Belize and there are a number of BrE-using Commonwealth Realms in the Caribbean. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 03:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ummm no…..Belize is on the Caribbean not the Gulf…. I would endorse use of American English in the article. Reywas92^Talk 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh, was misremembering. Yes AmE seems fine by me too. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Reywas92. It would probably make more sense to have the article fit US english. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:TIES. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

2A02:C7E:5A60:5900:423F:7ADF:CD12:E68B (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gulfamerica12 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Trump’s proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico be mentioned somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - yes I believe it should believe it should be mentioned, as it has become a large topic of discussion globally relating to the the gulf, I believe a subcategory called “Trump name change proposal” would be appropriate and in that briefly summarise what he said in the press conference and following, the Mexican presidents reaction and wider international and national reaction, it could also be prudent to mention that there is debate whether the President of the United States has the authority to rename the gulf as many news outlets have been covering that aspect to it in the wake of the press conference @Hurricane Clyde Knowledgework69 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the above is a question and not an RfC, and bolded supports or opposes are premature. As has been noted above, the question of where and when the renaming proposal should be mentioned in any Wikipedia article needs further discussion. Donald Albury 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Edited. 15:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, but it should now be added, as of 9 January 2025 MAGA Republicans in the United States Congress, have introduced a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America (Spearheaded by Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene) supporting President Elect Trumps proposal to rename the Gulf: The Hill, The Well News, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Press Release

As previously mentioned Trumps proposal has drawn international coverage and has been responded to by the Mexican President

@Donald Albury@Hurricane Clyde Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are links to H.R.276 of the 119th Congress introduced by Congresswoman Greene of the State of Georgia, Co-Sponsored by 14 other congressional members congress.gov Gulf of America Act (Pre introduction as H.R.276) Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ll second that by saying that the AP has also mentioned it too. There are certainly reliable sources. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

USA Today has also mentioned it as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say if it touches anything with the current Congress or the United States Board on Geographic Names. – The Grid (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Direct link to H.R. 276, but the proposed language won't appear until next week. – The Grid (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion @The Grid, regardless of whether or not Congress actually takes up the issue; I think just the reaction internationally is notable enough for at least a mention somewhere; whether here, or on one of the Donald Trump articles, or both. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it has reached the threshold for notability, I think the most appropriate would be to add mention to the name change proposal in this article and the second trump presidency article Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I was surprised to see this is not mentioned. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes it should definitely be mentioned in the article somewhere. And once it is confirmed that the US Government is officially referring to this body of water as the "Gulf of America" it should be mentioned in the lead section and bolded as an alternate name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Funny story, the first Wikipedia page to include the Trump name was the RUSSIAN Wikipedia page. Gives You ("made-again-great"-)US-Americans something to think about... Lumenor (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

the whole page should be renamed to the Gulf of America. Mexico has their own version of wikipedia and if they want to call it Golfo de Mexico then they can do that on their own page. Jhartman087 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the American Wikipedia, however, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. — Czello ^(music) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Will be signed today, as per CNN reporting. 99.227.156.90 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The US is only one of the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language. If the adoption of the new name becomes widespread among English speakers, then yes, otherwise it should remain as Gulf of Mexico. No offense, but Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but the information is relevant in the article. There are multiple sources discussing already. USA Today, The Independent, US New and World Report. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Some alternatives, once the executive order has been signed, are "also called" in the lead sentence, an explanatory footnote, or a "Name" section. Any other suggestions? Donald Albury 16:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think something like (if he does actually do it), "Donald Trump made an attempt by executive order to change the name to 'Gulf of America' on (date)" with reaction from Mexico etc. would probably be good enough for now. We can note later when the US official maps get changed, wait to see how many other countries change their official maps. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Once (and if) it happens, I do think we will need to discuss how prominent in the article this should be. I would like it to be a section or a footnote, but I expect to see supporters for putting it in the lead. Donald Albury 16:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and again, I would like to point interested readers to the history of Cape Kennedy. Donald Albury 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The best analogue is probably Sea of Japan where there is a dominant English-language name for a body of water in which the two countries claiming that it should be named after itself. There, it has a name section, and a link to the section from the top. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely. Some mention of this alternate naming convention is needed; it's clearly notable enough -- but the predominant name in English remains the Gulf of Mexico, so it should be addressed lower down in the article. Jbt89 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be treated in the same way as Mount McKinley/Denali. 99.227.156.90 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not at all equivalent since the Gulf of Mexico is substantially international waters and has multiple English speaking countries bordering it and even in it, unlike Denali which is entirely within US territory. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Denali was actually at one point named Mt. McKinley. It has never been called the Gulf of Mexico. The Radioactive Box (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Stand by for an incoming spate of vandalism... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We should eagerly change its name here in advance of any official order or legislation. Anyone who dislikes the name change probably hates President Trump and probably hates America too. At some point they ought to accept that he overwhelmingly won the popular vote. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Bryan (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed it was. Of course it's not. But let us acknowledge that President Trump is our leader. Let's stop bickering, put America first, and move forward. Bryan (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The article's name should not be changed unless a significant majority of English speakers worldwide adopt this new name. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

where are the servers located? --Mapsfly (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mapsfly Here is a link to answer your question, cheers! --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@BryanKaplan, trying to make this political is disruptive. Please stop. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I came off as disruptive, @Valereee. Let's keep politics out of unpolitical matters, sure, but we're discussing a literally political topic here. I mean, it's a place name which appears on political maps.

Wikipedia determines which name people use in the world, @Accuratelibrarian. Bryan (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@BryanKaplan, let us acknowledge that President Trump is our leader. Let's stop bickering, put America first, and move forward and Anyone who dislikes the name change probably hates President Trump and probably hates America too. At some point they ought to accept that he overwhelmingly won the popular vote and we should all be on board with following his lead are political statements. Stop now. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@BryanKaplan, I see someone has removed the comment I was replying to. I would still like to reply. My reply was:

No topic on Wikipedia is "political". We follow the sources and summarize what they say. Making political statements is 100% unhelpful. If you cannot understand that, you should not be editing in politics topics. Do you think you can comply? Valereee (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right: @Acroterion deleted [my comment] because in his words it was “grossly inappropriate”. I have to wonder what else on Wikipedia he's thought it's okay to delete.

It's naive to pretend political things are apolitical. Claiming the Gulf of America is apolitical does not somehow make it so. It's a political region found on political maps, and the political leader of the free world just made clear in a political address that its political name has been changed. Politically.

My only point here is that we should stop bickering and accept the inevitable. Anything else is counter-productive and anti-American. Do you think you can comply? Bryan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@BryanKaplan, so you're telling me you can't comply? Valereee (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is talking a different variant of English anti-American? The world extends beyond the Borders of the United States. Donald Trump is not 'our leader', he's your leader. Kardoen (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And this is one of the reasons we don't get into this stuff, @BryanKaplan. @Kardoen, I'm going to ask you not to continue. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what impact you think calling things "anti-American" is going to have, particularly as many of us aren't American; as has been explained, this is not the American Wikipedia, and even if it were, WP:COMMONNAME still exists. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wherever you happen to live in the world, the Gulf of America is located in the Americas, between two countries which are both part of the Americas. Its historical name, the Gulf of Mexico, should be clearly identified and explained in the article. The term I used, “anti-American”, is not meant as an insult but rather a plain description of opposition to our acknowledgement of the Gulf's new name. Bryan (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@BryanKaplan:, there is no "Gulf of America" right now. One can't just point a magic wand and say "this is the thing", there is a way that geographical names are determined. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding Hurricanehink. As I said in another comment, Wikipedia is not just for Americans. It is a project of international collaboration. We are no more beholden in our editing to the POTUS than we are to any other head of state. So long as the majority of the English-speaking world calls it the Gulf of Mexico, then so it shall remain here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

But, @Hurricanehink, @TornadoLGS; I do think Trump’s proposal to change the name should at least be mentioned in the history section. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

But not if the proposal isn't a real proposal! Trump often says wild things just to rile people up, and then doesn't do it. Think of the Greenland/Canada/Panama invasion threat. Until there is something actionable here, I don't think we should be promoting the words of someone who can't just snap and force things to happen. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is honestly quits silly. I'm not an American, and for my entire life it's being called the Gulf of Mexico - and will remain being called the Gulf of Mexico in every country other then the US. To say that not naming it is "anti-American" is quite silly, cause than rejecting the name that Mexico uses for the gulf of Mexico, for example, means I can call you "anti-Mexican". Just because a foreign president like yours has made an executive order doesn't mean it's the actual name people call it by - most Americans themselves will probably continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico anyways. This whole conversation is quite silly. Foxterria (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that a future U.S. President or future U.S. congress can revert this silly renaming stupidity. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's just leave comments about it to the side. The talk is for discussing the article. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How ephemeral you think the name will be is Original Research and should not be taken as a point against renaming. Some renames last and some don’t.

Wikipedia should use the name that shows up in reliable sources. anikom15 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The political garbage (inaccurate as it is) has no place here. Spanghew2fs (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Bryan, You made it political when you brought up Trump and when you accused people who did not like the name change of hating America. TheEarth1974 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am an American and love my Country, yet i oppose this name change. I agree with the consensus that we should use the most common name for this body of water, which is the Gulf of Mexico (a name which is still used by most Americans) AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"overwhelmingly won the popular vote"? 50.53% of voters voted for someone other than Trump. 49.8% of voters voted for Trump.

Even disregarding non- major-party candidates, Trump's margin of victory was only 1.5%...the fifth-smallest of any election since 1900.

Trump did win the popular vote. But to call such a margin "overwhelming" is nothing but partisanship. Spanghew2fs (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The President of the United States literally said it's the Gulf of America. Regardless of if this is consensus the name is now officially in dispute. It would be the same as if an unrecognized country existed or anything else. Bobklosak (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The president of the United States does not have the authority to change the name of international waters. I'd say we keep it as the Gulf of Mexico unless we have over 50% of the world's population agree to change the name to Gulf of America. Kiphub21 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It should be included in the LEAD section because not doing so is just against America. Arabian countries did the same thing with the Persian gulf, and Wikipedia complied. It should be "The Gulf of Mexico, called/officially called the Gulf of America in the United States." Rc2barrington (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The EO only renamed the U.S.-contiguous part of the Gulf. So it would be incorrect to say that the Gulf of Mexico is "officially called the Gulf of America in the United States." FPTI (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing an interesting usage, the 'U.S. Gulf of Mexico", already in use, which was just changed to "U.S. Gulf of America" in the Queen snapper article. In a way, that makes it clear that it's only the U.S. part of the Gulf. Faolin42 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing the name of the "The Gulf of Mexico Fish Management Council" (such as in that edit) would need to actually occur formally before changing the name of the organization here. I'm sure there will be waves this kind of jingoistic and premature editing for a while.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The main issue is that it is not called the "Gulf of America" under law, per 43 USC 364 there is a whole body that determines what the Federal Government calls places. The president has no such authority to do this and he even acknowledges this at the beginning of the Executive Order by asking all department heads to purge any members on the Board on Geographic Names who may disagree with Mr. Trump. Even then, there is still a UN equivalent. If the Board on Geographic Names rules that it is now the "Gulf of America," then the article probably ought to mention it. The Radioactive Box (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to discuss seriously how do we handle an executive order. I don’t have a dog in this - but I do hope we can stay objective - and remove politics - for the benefit of the project. An executive order changes a lot in this conversation.

TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump has no authority to rename an international body of water like the Gulf of Mexico by executive order, unlike Denali, which is entirely a domestic matter. Seems to be pretty clear cut case against renaming it for the far future unless the rename gains international traction. Uberbane (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Authority or not, we should all be on board with following his lead. Bryan (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This site is not just for Americans, though. Its editors are not beholden to the President of the United States any more than they are to any other head of state. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

'We' will do no such thing. This is the site for an ENGLISH-speaking project, not AMERICAN. Pinnecco (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the name change proposal should at least be mentioned; even if the title stays as Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the information currently in the NAME section of the article, referencing the executive order, is a good compromise. Pinnecco (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Why? 2601:3CB:901:E720:B9EA:3FFB:9F09:DD7A (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but everyone in the world knows the President of the United States ordered the name to be changed so wouldn't the name officially be "in dispute" as far as the world is concerned.

We acknowledge China's one China policy for example when talking about Taiwan. Bobklosak (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bobklosak Mexico borders the GoM as well. They have as much of a claim to naming it as the US does. Why are you so insistent on this change? Anomalocarididae (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the article, but not in the first part of it. We can not mention all names of pkaces in different languages in the ingress. Futher down, so the reactions from for example Mexico and other Americans might be written too (dont forget that Mexicans also are Americans, even if the US does not like to hear them be called Americans). Adville (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Spanish version should continue to call it the golfo de México, I would certainly agree. In American English, however, it is now the Gulf of America according to US law. Not logged in 2 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

America isn't even half of the English-speaking world. In Britain, which isn't bound by US executive orders, it will remain as the Gulf of Mexico (except to Nigel Farage, a good friend of the American right-wing political scene). Departure– (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: Untrue, the population of UK (68 million), Anglophone Canada (31 million), Australia (26 million) and NZ (5 million) combined total only 130 million native speakers (vs 334 million in the USA). The other countries (eg. Ireland, India, South Africa) speak English as a SECOND language and therefore are not counted. Renaming to Gulf of America is also justified for the following reasons:

(i) 'Gulf of Mexico' is not a neutral name and could be exploited by Mexico in the future if future oil reserves are discovered in this vicinity.

(ii) The word "Mexico" derives from the "Mexica" tribe which was and is a LANDLOCKED tribe with no territory on the coast.

(iii) The word "America" has a broader meaning and can refer to the entire American Subcontinent encompassing, North America, Central America and South America.

(iv) Latin Americans consider themselves to be American (source: Quora)

--Gwynlais (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll ignore the AI-sounding part of this and focus on "The other countries (eg. Ireland, India, South Africa) speak English as a SECOND language and therefore are not counted." So? I'm American and don't even call it that so I don't see why it needs to be asserted as such. Departure– (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also add that the US borders the Gulf of America and has territorial waters encompassing it, so that has to be a factor that matters. For Wikipedia editors to be slow-walking this is an example of political bias, pure and simple. Not logged in 2 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Gwynlais, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Your comment is only arguing why you prefer the name, but this is irrelevant to whether or not it should be used on Wikipedia. We're not here to discuss the pros and cons of the names or convince other editors that one name makes more sense to us. What matters is which name is actually being used, not only by the involved countries, but the rest of the world.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Now changed by Donald J Trump the 47th president of the United States of America to Gulf of America on 20th January 2025 declaring the golden age of American democracy. Iddaya (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The US is only one of the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language. If the adoption of the new name becomes widespread among English speakers, then yes, otherwise it should remain as Gulf of Mexico. Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf says "also the Arabian gulf" because some arabian countries decided to change it. So I think it should be changed. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be changed just because a politician from a single country decided to sign a paper today. There's still no consensus among English-speaking countries. DemianStratford (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this idea really make sense?? I'm sure that "Gulf of Mexico" is a well-established name; everyone knows it by that name and I'm sure this will never be out-of-date. Georgia guy (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It doubtfully will ever be commonly named Gulf of America, just like (Mexican President said) the United States of America will never be named Mexican America. Bedivere (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But do you think it is likely that Trump's proposal will pass?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Speculation isn’t supposed to be on the talk pages though, it’s not a Crystal Ball. Also regarding the name change, consensus can change, but right now, no one calls it Gulf of America. It’s a political stunt and we’ll see if there are any ramifications down the line. But it screams recentism bias to add it in for now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it looks like Donald Trump has signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/ Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That does not make it the common name used to refer to this gulf. See WP:COMMONNAME. Bedivere (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said it was a common name. All I'm saying is that Trump is making the US Government refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect. If you read the executive order, it only renames part of the Gulf of Mexico. This article is about the whole thing. FPTI (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone coming to the page should refer to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTNEWS. I would argue that the phrasing of 'If Trump were to issue an executive order, the official name would change only in the United States, and other countries would not be obliged to follow.' does not comply with the latter policy.

Wikipedia defers to WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. Relm (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So far, it's only an Executive Order. Unless it gains traction, I wouldn't even consider renaming this page. NesserWiki (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the text of the executive order [1]:

The 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 seems that the newly named Gulf of America is actually only the northernmost part of the Gulf of Mexico, ending at the U.S. borders. This would make it a subdivision of the Gulf of Mexico, much like the Bay of Campeche. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not debating at all I am just confused lol. So like it just is naming a part of the whole? The whole being the gulf of Mexico and then the part that is purely bordering America and not in international waters the Gulf of America then? If so, then the American name change section of the article should be edited to reflect that. You could BE BOLD and change that then. I appreciate you @Antony-22 providing the text of the document. Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe it's being split in half, with the U.S. portion being the Gulf of America and the Mexican and Cuban portion remaining the Gulf of Mexico. We may have to wait for USGS to come out with new maps to know for sure. I'm mostly surprised that I seem to be the first person who noticed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The common name of the whole thing remains Gulf of Mexico. The smaller subarea named "Gulf of America" in the latest political controversy could perhaps be added to the "Seven main areas" part of the Geology section if enough traction and consensus in the English speaking world happens down the line. DemianStratford (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're not the first, I've been making this point repeatedly over and over. It says a lot that most people talking about this topic haven't actually read the executive order, including people who keep demanding we change the article title. FPTI (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Freedom fries derived from French fries and the French fries article does not mention anything about the political name change in the main article but merely a link to Freedom fries in the "See also" section. Political stunts in recent times should not dictate instant edits of this size in the main article, even if they're accompanied by policy warfare such as was the case with freedom fries. Linguistic consensus of the common names is what is important. Right now the consensus is Gulf of Mexico. I think if the name and concept gain traction later there could be a separate article like there is one for Bay of Campeche. It is too early for a change of this size. DemianStratford (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with DemianStratford.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously renaming the article would violate WP:COMMONNAME but I think putting some kind of entry into the article mentioning Trump's action would be appropriate. Anyone else agree? Ergzay (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that @Ergzay Middle Mac CJM (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

When the government of the Ukraine changed the old English language word "Kiev" for an English neologism, editors here on Wikipedia rushed to comply. I am at a loss as to why when the Government of the United States does the same, editors are reluctant. The situations exactly mirror each other, no? XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

How many countries share Kyiv and how many countries share the Gulf of Mexico? Yue🌙 06:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@XavierItzm I think you're being disingenuous. Wikipedia kept it as Kiev for quite a while and there was heated debate on the talk page for a while. What made them flip is the majority of news media switching to calling it Kyiv. Many other Ukrainian city wikipedia pages still have their old well known Russian-origin names. This is what Wikipedia always does. In this case it's important for Wikipedia to talk about the naming as its well covered in sources, but renaming the page would not be appropriate because it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest reading that page. I personally do think however that Wikipedia relies too heavily on "traditional"/"mainstream" (often quite biased) sources though and I think that's a policy that will change with time, but it hasn't changed yet. Ergzay (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the current coverage in this article is good for now—there's one sentence in the lead and a paragraph in History. I'd caution that there should only be a separate article if the northern portion is hydrologically or ecologically distinct enough from the rest of the Gulf, and/or the naming controversy itself becomes notable. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, those sentences were not there at the point in time I left my first comment. Ergzay (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In spanish Wikipedia we still use "Kiev" instead "Kyev", as we use "Alemania" instead "Deutchland".

It's WP:COMMONNAME, official names are just official in their counties. Comendador Sombra (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So you're presumably proposing a 25 year moratorium on any name change then? Given Ukraine started requesting the anglicisation change from Kiev to Kyiv in 1995 and Wikipedia "rushed to comply" in 2020? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:D472:804C:970D:94D8 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

For now, the name has not been changed yet (Sec. 3 (b):within 30 days of the date of this order, 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”). In addition, the change applies only to the US and its administration. The Gulf of Mexico is a transboundary entity and its official name (including its English translation) remains unchanged in Mexico and Cuba. In addition, the English name of the Gulf of Mexico, as a sea body, is established internationally by the International Hydrographic Organization and listed in publication S-23. Limits of Oceans and Seas – changing the current name requires the approval of all countries (see the case of the Sea of ​​Japan). The US is not the only English-speaking country – the use of a given name in Wikipedia is due to its commonuse in the English language, not just in one English-speaking country. Aotearoa (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the executive order NOT be listed in the WP:LEDE for reasons mentioned by Aotearoa and DemianStratford in the above section. Per WP:BRD, I believe this edit by Hiplibrarianship should be reverted back to the status quo ante so that it is not in the lede. I have asked the editor to self-revert. The edit says this redirect discussion somehow justifies including the Order in the WP:LEDE. However, I did not see any mention of this article's LEDE in that discussion. Without consensus, the status quo ante should prevail. It cannot be edit-warred in. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Names should only be mentioned in the lead if significant. Too many articles are overly cluttered in this regard. A political stunt that may not catch on (we don't have a crystal ball to say either way) is not significant to the very long history of the Gulf of Mexico. I would not mention the alternate name anywhere in the lead, it can be briefly mentioned in the body. (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the alternative name should not be mentioned in the lead at present. Unless it catches on, this is a political stunt not a name of a body of water. No objection to mentioning it briefly in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Likewise - I edited in the lead paragraph to reflect the fact that it's an an initiation of a process rather than the completion of a name change, buyt that really just solidifies my I don't think this should be in the lead now, or untill there's widespread usage of this term. I fear in the long run it'll become significant enough for mention purely as a partisan football per the Persian Gulf naming dispute. Golikom (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion, belongs in the body, not the lead. GanzKnusper (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree it should not be part of the lede but if it is to be included in the article at all, perhaps it would be wise to include it in a section related to politics or modern naming controversy at the end of the article, not even in the history section yet until more time passes and we see how this develops and settles down. It is not history yet. Also, let us not forget that the alleged "renaming" only applies to a subsection of the Gulf of Mexico that the US already owns and controls. It does not apply to the entire Gulf of Mexico like many seem to think. 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 from what I understand in discussions above. DemianStratford (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I support having a single sentence in the lead. 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 they shouldn't have to dig deep into the article to find it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should NOT be part of the lead. Placing it there is giving a minor political event undue weight. While the executive order will very likely be observed by the U.S. federal government (in official documents and communications), it has no further reach. It will not affect U.S. media sites (other than those politically aligned with the president), reference works, or any other sources independent of the U.S. government. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the The executive order does not rename the entire Gulf of Mexico, just its northernmost part within U.S. borders. Here's the relevant text:

The 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.

I believe that the language "extending to" means "extending until but not beyond" the boundary of U.S. jurisdiction, but User:Ahecht disagrees, so let's get more perspectives. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Antony-22 Please remove your original researchsynthesis regarding the executive order only pertaining to the northernmost portion unless you can cite a reliable source. The wording of the executive order is ambiguous, as it does not specify that it only extends to the "maritime boundaries" of Mexico (which would imply the northernmost portion per the 1978 treaty), but instead specifically says "seaward boundary". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is ambiguous. The EO specifically mentions a U.S.–Mexico and Cuba border that is the limit of the renaming, and, there's no seaward boundary between the U.S. and Mexico that runs immediately along the latter's coast. If the EO's intent to rename the whole gulf, it would have said so in plain language. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Antony-22 The border of Mexico runs 12 miles off the coast, the maritime boundary just defines Mexico's Exclusive Economic Zone. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. That would still rename a portion of the gulf and not the whole thing, just a larger portion of it. We might just have to wait for USGS to come out with a new map to know for sure, but for now it seems clear that there is a boundary, it just might be unclear which one it is. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "seaward boundary" is defined in the U.S. Code as "a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line." Which is actually slightly smaller than the maritime boundary. FPTI (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@FPTI The maritime boundary, as described in the 1978 treaty, actually splits the Gulf essentially in half. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht Right. That's why I said that the seaward boundary is smaller than the maritime boundary. FPTI (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Antony-22 It's clear that this discussion at best would just end up with what Wikipedia's interpretation of the EO is. Until a reliable source chimes in, please revert the text to the neutral initiate a renaming process specifically designating "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" as the Gulf of America. See also #What is the "Gulf of America"? below. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll agree that sticking to the exact text is probably best at this point, and as you request, I'll make a revision along those lines. I've been keeping an eye on news reports, and haven't seen one that specifically interprets the text on the extent of the renaming, so there are no WP:RS leaning either way at this point. We can revisit this once a source appears that is clearly based on analysis of the actual text of the EO. However, I'd like to emphasize that we interpret and paraphrase the clear meaning of the words of a source all the time on Wikipedia, and there's nothing against policy about that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the decision of controversial name change at least be mentioned on the article ? Raggedrogue (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Raggedrogue, it currently is discussed at Gulf of Mexico § Name. The overall consensus so far is that it should be confined to a section and not in the lead of the article, currently. Since it's an ongoing thing, the placement may change. Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand all the fuss. I get waiting until it is actually official as per the Department of the Interior and not just ordered, but after that, it should read something like “The Gulf of America, or the Gulf of Mexico,…” or vice versa. Only three countries are on the gulf and Mexico and Cuba’s primary language isn't even English. LunarEcho87 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The name hadn't actually been changed yet in the US government, they've just been ordered to started the process, and so far no sources are actually calling it the Gulf of America that I've seen. Skynxnex (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ambrosiaster: This is ostensibly the fifth time you've reverted this content's inclusion in the article (I've only reverted your edit once and was unaware of this past activity). Please do not engage in edit warring. If you're against its inclusion, please read WP:DUE and try to generate consensus for it to be removed, as it's plain that at least three experienced editors see it as having due weight. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ambrosiaster: Instead of reading this, you reverted this material for now a sixth time in under 24 hours. It's okay to disagree, but the three-revert rule is firm, and what you're doing by not engaging here is disruptive and can get you blocked from editing. Given at least three editors who have at least some familiarity with guidelines and policies have expressly chosen to include the history of this name as a piece of satire as it's collectively referenced in multiple reliable, independent sources, it's up to you to generate consensus based on guidelines and policy for why it should not be included, not to continue to violate the rule against edit warring. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If the user continues to ignore you and engage in edit warring, I would strongly encourage making an ANI complaint Rc2barrington (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the most appropriate venue for this. Departure– (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article titles, if the United States, which has several states bordering the gulf, has it renamed, then the name Gulf of America should also be used. The common name, including those used by geographers and geologists, will stay as the Gulf of Mexico. But the name Gulf of America also deserves mention.

It's similar to how people still refer to Twitter as Twitter, though it's been officially named to "X" by Elon Musk. We feature both Twitter and X in that article. In a similar fashion, if the United States wishes to rename it the Gulf of America, we should mention that name too. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You treat the United States as a monolith for seemingly no reason. This isn't common usage at all, and unlike somebody who owns a company who has the unilateral authority to change the singular official name of that company where we can at least justify including it in the lead sentence (or the lead at all for that matter), this has effectively zero common usage and thus does not warrant a mention in the lead. If the Argentinian president decided to rename the Atlantic Ocean to the Argentinian Ocean, would we give the lead sentence "The Atlantic Ocean, also known as the Argentinian Ocean..."? No. At that point, we're actively misleading readers that this name is in common usage and abusing our position in order to platform that name into common usage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, but if the Argentine president decided to rename the Falkland Islands as the Islas Malvinas, then I'd reckon Wikipedia might mention that in the lead ;) DecafPotato (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(In all seriousness, I think the best option for now is an {{efn}} footnote next to "Gulf of Mexico" in the lead that reads "Since 2025, the sea's official name in the United States has been the Gulf of America".) DecafPotato (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned it in a section above, but as far as I can tell, there are zero sources saying the name has actually been changed yet. The EO says As such, within 30 days of the date of this order, 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, and that 30 day time is also mentioned in RS, for example [2]. So nothing in our article should say that Gulf of America is the official name in the US, at least not yet. Skynxnex (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your linked source also mentioned that's it's already been used by Florida's state government, so I'd argue it's already official in some sense. But I'd agree that it might be a bit misleading to describe it as an "official" name before the 30-day timeframe has passed, and presumably the name goes from official to officially official. Would "In 2025, the United States government began a process of changing the sea's name to the Gulf of America" be acceptable? (Keep in mind, this would be in only a footnote unless common usage for the name emerges in secondary sources.) DecafPotato (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the DeSantis emergency declaration really impacts it enough by itself. This is a place it'd be nice if Wikipedia could stay a bit slower and follow sources. I don't have any objection to a similar footnote (or similar minor addition to the lead about the process) at this time but I think waiting for a few other editors to agree at this point reduces the risk of editing warring. Skynxnex (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I figured somebody was going to bring up the Falklands as a tongue-in-cheek sort of "gotcha", and I specified Argentina on purpose for this reason: the name Islas Malvinas has an extensive, centuries-long history and is in such common usage that all UN documentation has it listed in parentheses. It's so wildly, fundamentally different from this form of WP:RECENTISM that it only serves to starkly contrast the proposal to add this alternative name to the lead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the significance of Islas Malvinas, but my goal was to caution against making an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument based on an entirely hypothetical scenario with your Argentinian Sea example. DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If the point comes that multiple reliable sources use the term "Gulf of America", we would need to include it, but for now, literally the only source that uses it is Trump's executive order. We are not anywhere near the point where this name should be given as an alternative name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. There is certainly enough reliable source usage, as well as usage by notable figures, to support the Gulf of America name. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is all moot at this point since any renaming hasn't actually happened (yet). The ececutive order simply directed those federal departments in charge of such things to start their process for renaming. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not true as it is already in progress and underway, due it being made official. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Care to cite any reliable, independent sources which refer to this as the 'Gulf of America'? And I don't just mean news reports on Trump's executive order; I mean reliable, independent sources which either state plainly that this is currently in common usage or that treat 'Gulf of America' as its de facto name rather than just the de jure one used by the US executive branch. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Also, the government of Florida is already using "Gulf of America" independently now. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Again: 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. The fact that certain politicians sold this to their base as something that it wasn't is besides the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a politician's propaganda arm. DemianStratford (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Never Jfrimpong945 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 No its not similar. The OWNERS of Twitter renamed it to X. The OWNERS of the Gulf of Mexico have not renamed it. Dimspace (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am NOT suggesting the title be changed to "Gulf of America". I am requesting that the article introduction to say "The Gulf of Mexico, called the Gulf of America in the United States,...". And this is because some Arabian countries decided to offically change the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf and Wikipedia said Persian Gulf OR Arabian Gulf, but it's not being done here for whatever reason. This was actually done but reversed for whatever reason. And there should be a formal RFC not 5 different discussions about the topic. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't to raise an issue as much as it is to clearly provide a place to outline what renaming could look like moving forward.

Let's be clear - the U.S. president cannot unilaterally rename an international gulf which was named 400 years ago. However, if a dispute does arise in the future, then I recommend that ANY attempt to rename this page follows rulings/statements of the International Hydrographic Organization, in which both the U.S. and Mexico are members of.

This should hopefully provide a simple solution and prevent any renaming attempts in the future. Wait for the only international body recognized on issues like this to rename it, or don't rename the page at all. Foxterria (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly support this approach, and would recommend that it is adopted as the standard for the naming of all international bodies of water. Significant controversies can be noted in body text where appropriate, and where alternative names have widespread acceptance, noted in the lead*, but no-one has the right to rename international waters unilaterally.

• 'Lede' is apparently just a widely repeated variation on 'lead'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

See News style#Lead. Donald Albury 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/note-press-executive-order-number-25-13-emergency-management-gulf-winter-weather TheEmperorAnt (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  WHEREAS, an area of low pressure moving across the Gulf of America, interacting with Arctic air, will bring widespread impactful winter weather to North Florida beginning Tuesday, January 21, 2025; and  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmperorAnt (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) 

This is partially addressed to @Golikom, who reverted my edit removing the line. But it's also just a general discussion, because I keep seeing this information pop up. Currently, the article says Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. federal agencies to initiate a renaming process specifically designating the northernmost portion of the Gulf within U.S. borders as the Gulf of America (emphasis mine). This phrase — suggesting that the "Gulf of America" does not refer to the same area as the Gulf of Mexico — is not supported by any reliable source (which all say exactly the opposite: that Trump is renaming the Gulf of Mexico, not a part of the Gulf of Mexico), and appears to me to be a violation of WP:No original research (and is also unverifiable and most likely untrue), which is why I removed it. Does anyone have further thoughts? DecafPotato (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a talk page, and policies and quidelines on the content of articles do not apply. Unless a comment on a talk page violates the Talk page guidelines, or is otherwise in violation of a behavioral policy or guideline, you should not have deleted it. Donald Albury 14:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything from the talk page. I was referring only to the bold sentence above, from the article itself, which I removed and it was reinstalled by Golikom, which is why I started this discussion to find consensus. DecafPotato (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@DecafPotato See Talk:Gulf of Mexico#What exactly does the executive order rename? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason to believe that Trump’s EO is referring to an area within or distinct from the Gulf of Mexico. It seems to be a made up argument to reduce weight for a possible future name change. anikom15 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Re the last bit — reduce weight for a possible future name change. No need for to make up reasons to reduce weight, there would be no reason to change it even if the entire American government, media, and public started using it. We wouldn't change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf just because the Saudis use it, or Sea of Japan to Korean East Sea. This article will never be titled Gulf of America.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Who said change the article name? Can you read the OP? It's about content in the article. I know you're hysterical but try to stay on topic. Wikipedia does indeed list the alternative name for the Persian Gulf right in the lead. So what exactly is your point? You don't have one, you're just upset.

I wasn't replying to the OP, silly. Please cool it down and remember to sign your comments.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you guys think of having a FAQ page for name change? Spclmnt (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Beyond referencing WP:COMMONNAME, here's an additional suggested draft point: "The Gulf is an international body of water, and there are many governmental and non-governmental authorities that have the ability to determine its naming for themselves. The U.S. federal government is a major one, but not the only one, and its naming decisions are not binding on other entities." Just a draft and a suggestion, feel free to improve. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can set one up. There's a template at Template:Frequently asked questions. How useful they are is debatable, as most people don't actually read what's on the talk page before posting. But it can make it easier for people to answer the same edit request over and over by saying 'please read the FAQs'. Valereee (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If reading from mobile, the FAQ is hidden. – robertsky (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is this article called "Gulf of Mexico"?

It is the Gulf of America. 2600:1012:B1B9:597B:0:21:1864:2501 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia rules, as discussed previously, the English Wikipedia doesn't just automatically agree with political moves made by the US government. There are other countries bordering this body of water. See previous discussions on this subject for more info. (eye)rizz (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A good parallel is the Wikipedia article "Liancourt Rocks". South Korea adamantly insists this is Dokdo, but Wikipedia has held firm on Liancourt Rocks. Wikipedia only pays attention to what name reliable English 3rd party independent sources use and nothing else. Westwind273 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)