Talk:Gulf of Mexico: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 39: Line 39:

== November 8, 2025 Moratorium Ended: Proposal to Resume Naming Discussion ==

== November 8, 2025 Moratorium Ended: Proposal to Resume Naming Discussion ==

{{discussion top |result=””‘Not moved”’ and moratorium on discussions re-enacted for 12 months in a later section. — [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)}}

I want to offer a perspective that supports including the term “Gulf of America” more visibly, while still keeping Gulf of Mexico as the primary name.

I want to offer a perspective that supports including the term “Gulf of America” more visibly, while still keeping Gulf of Mexico as the primary name.

Line 104: Line 105:

”’Oppose a rename”’ but support adding , “also known as Gulf of America” to the lead. We do this for most articles even when the main name out numbers the alternate by 10-1. It has another name that people hear in the news and in the press so why not acknowledge it simply and quickly and move on. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 20:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

”’Oppose a rename”’ but support adding , “also known as Gulf of America” to the lead. We do this for most articles even when the main name out numbers the alternate by 10-1. It has another name that people hear in the news and in the press so why not acknowledge it simply and quickly and move on. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 20:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Oppose”’ any change to the status quo. There’s been little change in the sources in regards to “Gulf of America” versus “Gulf of Mexico”. There shouldn’t be any changes here. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 21:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Oppose”’ any change to the status quo. There’s been little change in the sources in regards to “Gulf of America” versus “Gulf of Mexico”. There shouldn’t be any changes here. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 21:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2025 ==

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2025 ==

Somebody please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection requests belong to WP:RFPP. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a “What” tag to the map caption that says “English nautical chart dated 1775 labels “the Bay of Mexico”, now glossing “Mexico” as an alternative name for New Spain” because I had no idea what “glossing” meant in that context. It was reverted by User:EF5 with an Edit summary of “Cambridge defines “glossing” as “to provide an explanation for a word or phrase”. I thank EF5 for that information, but I still don’t think the caption makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to offer a perspective that supports including the term “Gulf of America” more visibly, while still keeping Gulf of Mexico as the primary name.

I fully agree that Gulf of Mexico is the overwhelmingly common name in reliable sources and should remain the base title. However, I think there is room for the article title to reflect alternate terminology—particularly since “Gulf of America” is used in some U.S. contexts, even if not yet dominant in major international sources.

My suggestion is a compromise format like:
Gulf of Mexico (America)

This allows the established, widely sourced name to remain first while still acknowledging the existence of the alternate name. Wikipedia uses this parenthetical approach in other situations where a widely recognized alternative or regional name exists, even if it isn’t the global common name.

I also think the lead should include a short, neutral note that:
“In some U.S. contexts, the body of water is also referred to as the Gulf of America.”
This doesn’t imply it’s the primary name, but it does reflect that the term exists and avoids the impression that Wikipedia is ignoring it entirely.

I understand and respect the points made about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. I’m not arguing that “Gulf of America” is the common name in the strict policy sense. Instead, I’m proposing:
keep Gulf of Mexico as the main name (in line with reliable sources),
acknowledge the alternative term, and use a parenthetical in the title to reflect both names in a balanced, non-promotional way.

My overall goal is clarity for readers: many might have heard “Gulf of America” and search for it, so representing both names upfront seems helpful while still respecting policy.
Happy to hear other thoughts on this approach.

Since the moratorium is now over, I believe it’s appropriate to rehash this and continue the discussion.

Thanks,
-Annon ~2025-34850-32 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might cause people to think the page is just about those bits of the Gulf controlled by the USA Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Unneeded and trivial, in my opinoin. It is fine in the section its at. Anywhere else is WP:UNDUE. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 14:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the title to “Gulf or Mexico (America)” makes “America” look more like a disambiguator than an alternate name. I can support an addition like you propose to the lede, but I can’t support renaming the article. A redirect from “Gulf of America” to “Gulf of Mexico” is surely sufficient for those who search for the “Gulf of America” name. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 14:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheses are used in article titles as disambiguators to distinguish multiple articles with the same subject name – compare Orange (fruit) and Orange (color). Putting parentheses in this article title would imply that there is another Gulf of Mexico somewhere else. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I understand the concerns raised about the title and how adding “(America)” could imply a geographic limitation or look like a disambiguator. I’m happy to concede on the page title and keep Gulf of Mexico as-is.
What I still think is reasonable, though, is a brief, neutral mention in the lead noting that “Gulf of America” is an alternate name used in some U.S. contexts. I don’t believe that rises to WP:UNDUE, since it’s not giving the alternate name equal weight—only acknowledging that it exists and is sometimes used. Especially with a redirect already in place, a short sentence in the lead would help readers who encounter or search for the term understand the relationship.
I’m open to phrasing suggestions, but I think including a simple line such as:
“In some United States contexts, the gulf is also referred to as the ‘Gulf of America.’”
would be a fair compromise that improves clarity without implying any change to the common name. ~2025-34850-32 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already is acknowledged. In its own section. Hell, “name” is the first section in the article. Donald Trump thinks he owns something, and so he named something he wants to name it. That isn’t on the same level of importance as the Gulf of Mexico’s oil importance and size in the lede. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we must (I am unsure it is needed, this may change again when Trump is no longer president) it should be “The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México, USA: Gulf of Amercia) is an oceanic basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean” or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me that implies “Golfo de Mexico” translates to “Gulf of America”. The brackets are meant for the original language version, no? Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAybe, how do we deal with similar situations? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC Adam’s Bridge has “alternatively known as Rama Setu” or something like that. I wouldn’t argue against “(Golfo de Mexico) known federally in the United States as the Gulf of America…” or something similar. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That almost works. Why not just “known in the United States as the Gulf of America” Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase it isn’t known everywhere as the GoA, only on the federal level. From what I see, sources either use both, or just GoM, so its not the common name, nor the official one. Only recognized on a federal level by the U.S. government. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But not only on the federal level. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before the president decided to call it the Gulf of America, there is Nakhodka Bay which was historically known as Gulf of America. Based on sources and talking with people in person, if someone said Gulf of America, I would expect them to mean Nakhodka Bay. The suggestion to rename the article or stating in the lead paragraph is WP:undue as this is just a fringe idea that was ordered by one person. I would say to wait until the next presidential administration to see if the renaming actually sticks. EulerianTrail (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that we should put Gulf of Mexico (known federally in the United States as the Gulf of America)…
Markalexander47 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC) Markalexander47 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I think “In some United States contexts, the gulf is also referred to as the ‘Gulf of America.’” in the lede is a good compromise. “Some contexts” recognizes that is only official for U.S. federal agencies, and is also used by a small portion of its citizenry. I can see sympathy for the WP:UNDUE argument: contrary to the typical slow, organic development of language, this change is by fiat by an administration which will inevitably change. Perhaps if it survives another few years the changed name may carry more due weight. But some may know it as “Gulf of America” and not be aware of the restricted regional nature of the name, so a brief mention in the lede (as above) could be helpful. The current redirect for “Gulf of america” (not sure why the minuscule “a”) is to “Gulf of Mexico naming controversy”; I think it should redirect here. Between brief mention in lede, a pointer in the first section to the controversy article, and the redirect, I think we’d have helpful improvements for readers who know it as “Gulf of America” and are unaware of the controversy. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying “in some United States context” still seems to be WP:UNDUE. I think it will be more proper to state that the United States federal government uses the name “Gulf of America” instead of the common name “Gulf of Mexico.” EulerianTrail (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I meant to add: at some point, somewhere, I thought I read that many/all of the maps/search apps return “Gulf of America” only to queries coming from the U.S., not the rest of the world. [citation needed] signed, Willondon (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, if you type Gulf of Mexico into Google and go to maps it changes your search bar to say Gulf of America. EulerianTrail (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Executive orders are only binding on the executive branch. Do the legislative and judicial branches also refer to the GoA? —User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still the Gulf of Mexico outside of sources that we have already deemed generally unreliable [1]. Phrasing like “in some United States contexts” is unhelpfully vague. Referring to U.S. federal agencies specifically is much better. Moreover, a topic that only gets one short paragraph within one section is not a good candidate for prominent placement in the lede, per MOS:LEDE (which is WP:DUE on steroids, as it were). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Non-US user here: when I type ‘Gulf of Mexico’ into Google and go to maps, the URL and search term remain untouched, the response is titled “Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)”, and the slide-show of different maps shows only one where it’s labelled as “Gulf of America (Gulf of Mexico)”. The results also included a link to a BBC article from February 11, 2025 [2], stating that the changes are only for U.S. users. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does sway me more in favour of WP:UNDUE. There are non-government civilians that refer to it as such. I should amend my comment “not [being] aware of the restricted regional nature of the name”, to “not aware of the extremely tiny percentage of English speakers that call it GoA”. Another argument for WP:UNDUE in lede. I do think a change of the “Gulf of America” redirect to this article would be an improvement, though. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the “Gulf of America” should be directed to a disambiguation page linking Gulf of Mexico, the name controversy, and Nakhodka Bay articles. EulerianTrail (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that idea re the redirect. As for the rest, I’m sensing that the consensus here is that GoA is adequately covered in the body right now, and is undue in the lede. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 OceanGunfish (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show quantitatively how undue this all is, a recent examination of U.S. newspapers shows that as of September, “Gulf of Mexico” outnumbers “Gulf of America” more than eightfold. And again, this is already restricted to U.S. newspapers, where one naturally expects a skew in favor of the latter term. Exactly what segment of the readership are these proposals supposed to cater to? Einsof (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that Gulf of Mexico is the clear common name and most references to the term Gulf of America remain either in U.S. government sources or articles written about the name change itself. There are very few other uses of the name Gulf of America outside of U.S. political discussions. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a rename but support adding , “also known as Gulf of America” to the lead. We do this for most articles even when the main name out numbers the alternate by 10-1. It has another name that people hear in the news and in the press so why not acknowledge it simply and quickly and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose any change to the status quo. There’s been little change in the sources in regards to “Gulf of America” versus “Gulf of Mexico”. There shouldn’t be any changes here. NickCT (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change name from Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America Chrisgarabedian (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per all discussion above. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a month since the last moratorium ended, which was put in place due to previous disruption and already the disruption has returned with no good basis for relitigating this.
Therefore I propose a fresh moratorium for 12 months on all discussion about renaming, retitling, or moving this article, introducing new names into the lead, and discussions about new names.
Pinging @Talmage, @Tbhotch, @Super Goku V, @Chess, @CAVincent, @Chicdat, @Einsof, @Slatersteven, @GN22, @Simonm223, @Feeglgeef, @Sophisticatedevening, @Donald Albury, @SyaWgnignahCehT, @Kowal2701, @SMcCandlish, @Pppery, @Eyer, @Ravensfire, @Mast303, @Frank Anchor, @NickCT, @Departure–, @LakesideMiners, @SarekOfVulcan and @Newimpartial as editors involved in the previous RfC.
Pinging @Babysharkboss2, @OceanGunfish, @EulerianTrail, @Markalexander47, @Willondon, @Khajidha, @Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, @DJ Cane as editors involved in the discussion above and not already pinged.
Pinging @Alsee, @BarrelProof, @Elmidae, @GenevieveDEon, @Myceteae, @Vanilla Wizard, @Wildfireupdateman from the previous moratorium discussion and not already pinged. TarnishedPathtalk 00:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support moratorium of 6-12 months. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve months seems excessive. I am not sure yet what I would support. Donald Albury 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moratorium. We’re not seeing any common usage of the term. The purpose of the last moratorium was to see if we could revisit this if things changed – things have not changed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 01:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moratorium of at least 6 months with a preference for 12. As noted above, the common name has not changed. We’ve done all the revisiting we need to do. We shouldn’t waste community time dealing with this; the disruption is likely to be persistent, with most being trivial drive-bys but also the risk of flares. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a six month moratorium and no longer. The “official” usage of the term by team Trump has died down as they move onto other nonsense, but there are still disruptions on this article. The term did not gain any mainstream traction during the hurricane season (though it was an abnormally quiet season on the Gulf). I strongly oppose a year, that is too long. Frank Anchor 01:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)in[reply]
  • Support moratorium as described above. Prefer twelve months. It seems clear the consensus won’t change unless the term actually gains a lot more traction in secondary sources. I don’t see that happening in less than a year if at all. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moratorium until well after the next Presidential election. We all know the Gulf of America thing is purely a push from the current president and his supporters. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this article is probably unique in needing a longer than usual moratorium. EulerianTrail (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moratorium of at least 6 months and preferably 12. All that’s really changed in the last six months is that supporters of the name change have mostly moved on to other things. I believe part of the logic of choosing six months instead of twelve in the last moratorium discussion was to see if hurricane season saw an uptick in “Gulf of America”, so we may as well let another hurricane season go by. I just reread the relevant part of this article, and it seems satisfactory as it currently stands – just that brief acknowledgment of the issue is all that it merits. I certainly understand that a full year moratorium might feel too long, and in most cases would agree, but this is a topic with a high propensity to generate time-consuming discussion despite little prospect of a new consensus. Better to let editors do other things with their time. CAVincent (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 12 month moratorium; nothing has changed since the last moratorium; if anything, the usage of Gulf of America decreased.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a 12 month moratorium. President Trump hasn’t miraculously gained the ability to rename international waters, nor has his attempt to make it happen had any impact on international usage. And sadly, people who can’t acknowledge this do not seem, collectively, to have found the ability to leave this article alone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as yet again anther waste of everyones time. has been launched. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 12 month no widespread changes in how its been referred to. Forgot this even was a thing except briefly when it shows up on my watchlist.
LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No change to the situation. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support bare minimum 6 months. Trump cannot magically alter reliable sources to fit his narrative. Thanks for the ping, TarnishedPath. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 14:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, I missed an RFC on this? (I wasn’t pinged *sadface*) Support, obviously. I anticipate this being added to WP:LAME before 2028; Sea of Japan and Lake Michigan–Huron are already there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a moratorium until January 21, 2029. There is no indication of growing recognition of the proposed rename at all; as WFUM notes it seems to be trending in the opposite direction. Any editor who wants to reopen this debate again during the present United States federal administration needs to demonstrate a good reason, such as official recognition by the government of any other English-speaking nation, to believe that any of that has changed before wasting everyone’s time with another destined-to-be-snow-closed move proposal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 12 months, just another time-waste for everyone involved here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 6 months. No longer. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 12 month moratorium. I would settle for 6. My sense is that “Gulf of Mexico” has not been widely adopted by independent, reliable sources and the push for official usage has waned. A full 12-month moratorium will give ample time for sources to accumulate to properly assess stable usage long after the initial controversy. (I doubt there will be support for a change after 12 months but that’s beside the point 🔮) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not the way Wikipedia moratoriums are supposed to work… like an automatic drivers license renewal. The moratorium ended, people give their case for new changes for awhile, especially for wording rather than article name change. You can’t have a new moratorium extension on a subject that hasn’t even been discussed… that’s totally unfair to our Wikipedia editors and readers. It looks like only one serious topic has started since the moratorium ended. While I would agree that to bring about a title change the arguer would need to show a shift in public usage with sources that have changed (which I don’t see has happened), but small discussions on tweaks to lead and stuff need to be able to be discussed. Just slapping continual moratoriums because we don’t like to discuss things is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work and I’m actually shocked that so many would want to expunge talk on the subject with such a broad pen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fyunck(click) has a point, but I would suggest taking a leaf out of the Sega Genesis article – accepting that the two subjects are different in scale, but both are based on geographical namings.
The talk page is frequently beset with requests to change the article name – so much so that it was decided that unless new arguments could be put forward, simply regurgitating the same refuted arguments without checking talk/archives first was disruptive and would be dismissed out of hand.
Seems to me a similar process might work here – if the discussions are genuinely new in context, then they can be entertained – otherwise there is precedent to just remove them as disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact we’re having this discussion means the moratorium is not “automatic”. NickCT (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with you on changing the article title, but this moratorium request is extremely broad. I don’t think there should be a moratorium at all on discussing the subject’s placement in the lead or changing other items in prose. Those are legit content discussions that haven’t even taken place yet. Also, Nov 8 and May 8 are days when discussions can again take place and not everyone sets their phone alarms for those dates. You have to allow a bit of time for folks to come in and state their positions and add new info. There is only one small ongoing discussion on the subject other than a flyby ip with no sources. The flybys should just be deleted. But there really isnt enough to warrant a moratorium at this point. Moratoriums are supposed to be serious fixes when a new set of converstions keep going on ad nauseum. That hasn’t happened here that I can see. And certainly not on content rather than a page move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top