Talk:Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article seems redundant...

Unlike the McKinley/Denali dispute that has been going on for decades, this article's subject is very recent and it seems large parts of it overlaps with Executive Order 14172. I think it would be best to merge this article into the E.O. one. —seav (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have just had a wp:afd it was closed as keep. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closing note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute says it doesn't preclude a followup discussion to merge with Executive Order 14172. Most of the participants in the AfD discussion focused on whether to merge this article into Gulf of Mexico, which has become less and less likely. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, there may be room for an article besides Executive Order 14172 but not one with a scope as narrow as Gulf of Mexico versus Gulf of America. The executive order renamed two things at the same time, which everyone has had to react to at the same time. It's awkward and misleading to pretend that one of the renamings happened in isolation. That's also true of Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, of course, but that article covers much more history before this executive order. The Trump administration has also renamed at least one military base, so a more general Renaming of geographical objects in the second presidency of Donald Trump overview article may be warranted, especially if more things get renamed over time. Another reason this article has seen little development is that it's written in a journalistic style with copious quotes and pull quotes, rather than an encyclopedic style. Removing the quotes reduces this article to a stub that probably can't stand on its own unless there are lots of other developments. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A broader article on renamings by this administration could also touch on the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative statements

"On February 11, the White House chose to not invite an Associated Press (AP) reporter from an event in the Oval Office presumably over the AP's decision to continue using "Gulf of Mexico," which the AP executive editor Julie Pace condemned as a violation of its First Amendment rights. However, it is far more likely the snub was due to the perceived anti-Trump sentiment of the organization."

Since when does Wikipedia engage in speculative reasoning? Even if it does, the statement: "presumably over the AP's decision to continue using "Gulf of Mexico," is discredited by the next sentence: "However, it is far more likely the snub was due to the perceived anti-Trump sentiment of the organization." Even if invalidation is not a cause for deletion, it should at least be mentioned second considering it's a less likely reason. I understand the AP's decision and lack of invitation to an event was a relatively noteworthy event at that time, but speculative statements about it just discredit Wikipedia's objectivity. 31.47.6.68 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, this looks more like an unattributed opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "presumably" and "However, it is far more likely the snub was due to the perceived anti-Trump sentiment of the organization." Thank you. GN22 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“America” in the Cartography of the Age of Discovery

It is interesting how names and history prevail over political (political parties) perspectives. And this, unintentionally, leads us back to them. The name Gulf of America represents the sea of the newly discovered territories by Christopher Columbus’ Spanish expeditions, which actually refers to South America—what cosmographers at the time called “America” and which was later extended to the entire continent.

I added a detail of the Universalis Cosmographia (1507) by Martin Waldseemüller, showing the name “America” for the first time, specifically referring to what is now known as South America. In 1538, Gerardus Mercator expanded the use of the term America to designate the entire continent in his maps. Pipo1955 (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument for the renaming? Citation needed?

So I was considering the following (old) sentence:

Proponents of the renaming argue that it reinforces an "America First" agenda and reflects a renewed emphasis on national heritage.^{[citation needed]}

Now, my difficulty is that I could find proponents, but they were writing for small publications I hadn't seen before, so it didn't exactly scream "reliable source to me." Now, I saw reliable sources trying to explain the motivations, but they were generally opinions against the change, and I thought it better to hear an argument for the change "from the horse's mouth". But the biggest "proponent" of the change seems to be Trump himself. I'm not saying there aren't those who came before. Well, I boldly went ahead and changed it to this (new) sentence:

Proponents of the renaming argue that it ensures the celebration and honoring of the extraordinarily great economic and security contributions of visionary and patriotic American heroes for future generations.

But, honestly, that doesn't really sound right, either, does it? See also: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-19/donald-trump-gulf-of-mexico-gulf-of-america

I just don't know what the honest argument is, given that there's multiple arguments put forward, but I'm unsure which American heroes are being honored, or which security or economic contributions are being celebrated. And would that be the contributions of the US to the Gulf, or of contributions of the Gulf to the US, or both? I've seen it both ways. Ultimately, it's unclear to me what exact argument proponents of the name change are making, and it seems uncharitable just to throw together "visionary and patriotic" buzzwords, as that sounds like a straw man argument. Yet it also seems at least somewhat supported by the sources? Please improve upon my edit by verifying it against the referenced sources. At least make the run-on sentence more concise, maybe? Are the sources I'm using even reliable?

Or, here's a (new new) sentence that's more direct in its use of the sources:

Proponents of the renaming argue that it restores "American pride", "honors the legacy of American greatness", and honors "the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans".

I worry it would still be unclear to readers what that even means, though.

Or maybe just revert 1101 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know what? I think I'll just change it back to the old sentence, but keeping the new citations. I think my verbose sentence was a mistake and a misinterpretation. Do with it what you will. 1101 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some possible sentences:

Proponents of the renaming argue that it restores American pride and honors the legacy of American greatness.
Proponents of the renaming argue that it celebrates the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans who have shaped the nation's history.
Proponents of the renaming argue that it ensures future generations understand and appreciate the sacrifices and achievements that have made America the exceptional nation it is.
Proponents of the renaming argue that it puts "America first" and a renews emphasis on our national heritage.

1101 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to doubt my citations are reliable. The Scientific American one is an apparent repost of "The Conversation US", which I don't know is reliable. And the NBC Chicago citation doesn't list the names of which staff contributed, so I'm not sure the citation is formatted correctly, either. The DOI.gov citation is a citation to the primary source—but isn't that the argument of Trump himself, not necessarily that of his supporters? 1101 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a 'dispute'?

Different countries call the same thing different names all the time. In this case it's called the Gulf of America in the US and the Gulf of Mexico in the rest of the English-speaking world. Do sources refer to this as a dispute? Golem08 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some other examples come to mind

also, there is

and, probably, others.(updated) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, most (around 70%) Americans call it the Gulf of Mexico according to a poll by Marquette University. Most of those who want to call it the Gulf of America (who are not the president or federal employees) are Republican and support Trump, although that same poll found that about 43% of Republicans prefer "Gulf of Mexico". GN22 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Golem08 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome, @Golem08! GN22 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Gulf of Amerika was very far from this one

Reference the wikipedia article on Nakhodka Bay in Russia which was originally named the Gulf of America until 1972. See Reference 1.

Not a regular Wiki Editor but thought I would bring this up. 71.47.244.75 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MIght warrant a see also. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a crime. Going by current performance, the trumpeter should have called it the "gulf of israel" Radler55 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:DUE. Also, before you make an assertion in mainspace citing a source expressing a viewpoint supporting yours, back up and re-read WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]