I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time if we don't start aggressively clerking this page. An RfC generally has a shelf-life of minimum six months. Can we please have a moratorium on discussions of American nicknames for the Gulf of Mexico for the next six months so that we have the clarity of consensus necessary to clerk these repetitive arguments promptly? Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense is from those fighting so hard to pretend like the American government doesn't have the authority to name things. It's hilarious to see how quickly Wikipedians tripped over themselves to change Mount McKinley to Denali, and how hard they're ignoring the same arguments to change it back, same with this page. Ortizesp (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn the heat down on this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denali is within the United States. The Gulf of Mexico is not within the United States. America does not own the world. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A significant portion of the Gulf is American territorial waters, so we actually do own a fair bit of it and are well within our rights to rename it. MrJ567 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJ567 Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say about things, not what "owners" or governments say. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on whatever anyone decides to post on it any given day. There's a reason no college/university professor accepts the site as a source on papers. It's the Gulf of America in America, might as well acknowledge it. MrJ567 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJ567 If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the place to hold that discussion is Wikipedia's village pump, not on an article Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen fit to do it here. MrJ567 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJ567, insisting on continuing to discuss this is wp:disruptive editing. We understand: you disagree with consensus. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:talk, this talk page is not for such discussions, it does not matter what you choose we have WP:RULES you must obey. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason no college/university professor accepts the site as a source The main reason why citing a Wikipedia article in a college essay isn't advisable is because Wikipedia is a dynamic source, not a static source. It's also not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, but it is not itself a source of novel information.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ask Grok to tell you whatever you want to hear. Orocairion (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason no college professor accepts Wikipedia as a source is because it isn't one. It's an aggregator of sources. If you're writing a college paper, you should really be going to actual sources. Wikipedia can help you find them, but that's it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the territorial waters of almost all countries, including the United States, extend only 12 nautical miles from shore. What people keep referring here to is the exclusive economic zone, which only gives a country the right to control the exploration for and extraction of resources in the zone. And, as the Wikipedian community, we do not have the right to name anything, but we do have the obligation to use names that are used by most English-language reliable sources. Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know how far territorial waters extend to, and 12 nautical miles out along several hundred miles of US coastline is quite a bit of area. MrJ567 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico covers more, if you want to go there. Orocairion (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other government, the US one has the authority to name things anything it wants. What it doesn't have is the authority to say that Wikipedia must follow suit. There are plenty of other examples outside the US, for example Turkey/Türkiye, Liancourt Rocks, the Sea of Japan, Danzig/Gdańsk etc.ad nauseam. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Biden changed the name of Clingmans Dome, Wikipedia changed it literally the same day (yeah, that's a redirect). Ahh, but now that the shoe is in the other foot, things are different. XavierItzm (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because an editor changed it and no one objected to it at the time. A move that was not controversial versus a move discussion that was controversial are not equal subjects. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm If you read the executive order, it's pretty clear that the entire Gulf is not renamed. Only the parts that are contiguous to the U.S. FPTI (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm, please assume good faith about the motivation of other editors. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see the difference between a mountain entirely within the territory of the US and a body of water shared between multiple countries? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regardless there should be a note many major international corporations now recognize it as the gulf of america. I agree the name should stay the same. But there needs to be a note Bamaboi445 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean major American corporations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I personally find irritating in this discussion is the multitude of editors who weigh in here without observing that enwiki actually has policies and practices about essentially this scenario. WP:COMMONNAME says, In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. - we base article names not on editors' feelings, but on what sources out in the world actually do. WP:NAMECHANGES says, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, and the policy also warns against making assumptions about the future.

Meanwhile, WP:PLACE recognizes the US BGM but warns: Be aware of the conflict between what is widely accepted and what is official in several contexts. The reality is that enwiki does not implement changes in geographical names based on "official" name changes until there is clear evidence that the "new name" had become the common name. "Czechia" (2016) is still the Czech Republic; "Türkiye" (2021) is still Turkey. And those are cases where the thing being named is the nation-state doing the naming.

The idea that an international body of water should be renamed more promptly than a country, due to the actions of one nation-state bordering it, shows a complete ignorance of wikipedia policy and practice - as does the equally farcical idea that wikipedia refuse to do a name change because it is promoted by people we don't like or don't respect. The latter situstion is also irrelevant to our policies. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this is well and good but what I'm saying is: there's a recent RFC; there is a consensus interpreted coming out of it. There are a small number of dissatisfied editors who want to continue relitigating the RFC and who are welcome to request a closure review if they haven't already done so. There are also a large number of drive-bys who don't know or care about the extant consensus. This is leading to a talk page with 10 (including this) topics out of 12 that are about the settled matter of whether to put the American nickname into the lede. This clutters up article talk and diverts editors into pointless arguments since they will all end the same way: gesturing to a recently closed RfC. So let's just all agree that the RfC is closed, a closure review will need to go to WP:AN and that these multiple conversation topics are a time-waster and just archive the lot of them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do mention this, we have a section about it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I support a moratorium on consensus or re-opening an RFC or any sort of these "change it to GoA" comments for at least the next few weeks; I'll argue it should wait until at least one month after the RFC closed (so until 3 March 2025). The discussion going on in this thread that doesn't directly concern the topic at hand and isn't going to change the established consensus isn't helping anyone. I'm tired of seeing this page pop up in my watchlist (not going to remove it, don't ask) and I don't think it's healthy that this talk page got 16,000 page views in one day and just yesterday cracked 3500. The discussion is over. We can restart discussion at a later date, but respectfully, nobody benefits from starting it back up right now less than two weeks after we established a consensus. Wikipedia has no deadline for this. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a moratorium would be a good thing. The reality, however, is that the previous RfC closed "no consensus" and without establishing a moratorium in the close. I am well aware that in this instance "no consensus" means "no change", and I support that as the correct outcome in the present situation. However, without clear consensus of some kind - at least policy-based or procedural consensus for a moratorium - this Talk page will be a continued venue for low-information editors to demand changes (or demand that things stay the same!) without any clear basis in policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could RfC a moratorium? ;-)

RfC question : Should there be a moratorium on discussion of use of the moniker "Gulf of America" in the title or lead of this article for the next <insert period of time>? NickCT (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We had a RfC already and there's no indication that "Gulf of America" is going to become the common name of the Gulf any time soon. Cortador (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have indication, the vast majority of page views in the last couple days are because of the name change, and major websites are shifting the name. Ortizesp (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no way of proving page viewership is the same as support for the change. Some might just be checking to see what the nonsense is about. Some might be checking to see if it has turned into a freak show. We already know a larger portion of those clicks are from those that "oppose" the change. King Lobclaw (talk) King Lobclaw (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell I am one of them, yes I came here over this issue, but as far as I know only Americans are making this change, and not even all of those. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but..., what would we do to actually enforce this?LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess closing any premature RFCs and just removing the driveby "change the page title" comments. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also by archiving existing open conversations that infringe upon the moratorium. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see the example of Clingmans Dome, which was changed by Wikipedia the very same day Biden changed it. Funnily, all these scruples about COMMONNAME and all those "voices of concern" were nowhere to be seen. XavierItzm (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a comment for the RFC that isn't open right now. Comparing a relatively obscure mountain in Tennessee to an internationally important body of water isn't doing this argument any favors, politically motivated or otherwise. Departure– (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is in opposition to the arbitrary moratorium being proposed, providing an example of how inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent the moratorium is.XavierItzm (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clingman's Dome is within the United States. The Gulf of Mexico is not within the United States. Most non-Americans don't much care what names Americans give to their landmarks. This, however, is not an American landmark. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support of temporary moratorium as long as the idea of doing another RfC in about a month is still on the table. Let cooler heads revisit this. I'm a supporter of including "Gulf of America" as an alternate name in the lede, but no hurry. At the same time, could the folks implying that those of us questioning the 'consensus' decision should be sanctioned also tone it down? Threatening the banhammer over disagreement is uncivil. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the sanctions talk, there has been a decent number of disruptive edits made to the article with one edit summary threatening people with arrest. Over 50+ reverts have been made to the article so far in 2025. Even the talk page has had disruption with over 80 discussions started this year with 24 of them having some portion of them closed or hatted. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd proposed 6 months before. Certainly not forever. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to suggest just this. In six months things should be pretty well established one way or another. We’ll have a better idea of where things stand, and hopefully, most of the emotion will have died down.

  I can see legitimate arguments for both sides of this debate and because of personal opinions both sides are going through major mental gymnastics to keep their position.

  Let’s all take a breath and come back to this in six months.

  Leave a redirect for the new name up. Then, come back and review the whole issue later. Vandersontx (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peter G Werner, if you (or anyone) would like to challenge the closure, there are instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Continuing to reject consensus here by opening multiple re-RfCs, declaring there was no consensus, etc., is not what an article talk page is for and is WP:disruptive here. I don't see anyone 'threatening the banhammer over disagreement'. You can disagree with the consensus. Harping on and on about it here instead of taking that disagreement where it's appropriate is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reject the accusation that I'm being in any way WP:disruptive, nor am I "harping on", and I consider that kind of talk to be at least mildly WP:uncivil. I'm asking you nicely to dial that back. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, one other thing. I'm not even opposing consensus. The last RfC (Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico#RfC_about_Gulf_of_America_change) resulted in "No Consensus". I'm fine with no change based on that, but please don't imply that I represent a fringe opinion. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear there's canvassing going on here. That "no consensus" looks like it was manufactured on Truth Social or somewhere similar. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The accusation that I'm over here from Truth Social is both false and WP:UNCIVIL. Please cut it out. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the above comment does sound uncivil, but please be aware that many editors may be on edge, as we do have an admission from another editor that this discussion has been at least lightly canvassed. I don't believe by any means you yourself were among the canvassed editors in this discussion. Departure– (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I never actually noticed this comment but I owe you an apology - I wasn't saying you came here from Truth Social but was instead referring to an incident of admitted canvassing elsewhere on this talk page. That case ended up being a bit more serious than I'd originally believed as the canvassed editor was threatened by a long-term disruptive editor with a history of sock-puppetry into commenting. Apologies for the lack of clarity. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it was closed (by me, actually) as "no consensus to include GoA in lead", which is not the same as "No consensus". A "no consensus" close means there is no consensus for anything. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, @Peter G Werner, I didn't intend to indicate you, alone, were harping on and on, and I shouldn't have stated that in that way. We have multiple editors coming in, over and over again, to try to reopen this again. To those of us trying to deal with that, it feels like harping on and on. But of course if it's the first time you personally have said it, it's the first time you brought it up so how could it be harping on and on.

  However, it absolutely is disruptive for an editor to keep discussing this here, now that you know there's an appropriate place. Please if you want to disagree, take it to WP:AN or some other board. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Currently, other than mostly American news sources and websites, there is little reason to think the common name for the Gulf is going to change to 'Gulf of America' anytime soon in common conversation, until the waters are referred to as the "Gulf of America" more commonly than "Gulf of Mexico" there's no reason to rush changing the name, especially if it's not changed on a more global scale in common reference materials. I also support featuring "Gulf of America" as an alternate name, after the initial fervor about the executive order has died down. Stickymatch 04:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am loathe to comment here, and would not had I not been directed to, but I think any moratorium would be counter-productive. The duly-elected and mandate holding President of the United States issued the requisite orders to make the change. Saying that we need to wait is just foot-dragging. Furthermore, some of us have concerns about the manner in which the last RFC was handled and closed. I also want to reiterate my support for the duly-elected and mandate holding President of the United States. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No trolling, please; see the WP:TPG. Newimpartial (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not trolling. It's a sincere vote. I'm not happy about being dragged into this, but it is a legit vote. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The president of the united states is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt either the sincerity of your vote or the sincerity of your obesiance to your President. But the Wikipedia community does not belong to the US, and displaying your personal affiliation to your Supreme Leader is hard to interpret as anything other than trolling, in the context of this particlar discussion. Surely you can confine such ritual gestures to your User page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I interpret that oppose vote as something along the lines of "there must be no moratorium, because the consensus you've built is wrong". Also, saying you've been directed to comment here doesn't help the trolling or other COI concerns. Departure– (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's lower the heat on things like obeisance and Supreme Leader. Valereee (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And on accusations of foot-dragging, while we're at it. :D Let's assume the people we're disagreeing with are acting in good faith. Valereee (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose you already know this, but Wikipedia isn't part of the execute branch of the US government. We have specific article naming guidelines, and presidential decrees aren't part of that. Cortador (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Who "directed" you to !vote? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. @King Lobclaw, who directed you to comment here? Valereee (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee "Let's assume the people we're disagreeing with are acting in good faith." Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lincoln2020, being directed by someone to come here means the person has been wp:canvassed here. They may have come here in good faith, but canvassing is against the rules. Valereee (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see their comment stating they were directed to - apologies @Valereee Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, long complicated discussion. Assume good faith. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted via my inbox. I don't know if their handles match their email. King Lobclaw (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there is canvassing involved. — E_F⁵ 00:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your transparency, @King Lobclaw. No need to connect the handle to the email here, which could out someone. It's enough to know that it's happening. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 23% of the population is not a mandate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (in case it is not clear), when (and if) the rest of the world accepts this so can we. Untill then we shouldn't give the American perspective wp:undue emphasis. It does not matter what Trump signs, or what he says, he (and the USA) are not the world. So we can't keep relitigating this every week or so. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm of the opinion americans should be banned from making edits on this article. They are the only ones trying to force and railroad the US's President nonsense onto the rest, like the Gulf is some sort of internal US sea they only get to decide on. Orocairion (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't generalize large groups of editors. E_F⁵ 17:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mostly americans the ones trying to force the Gulf of America renaming regardless of parties involved or requirements for international recognition of the switch. Orocairion (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We never disallow comments from people of certain nationalities on Wikipedia. Arguments for or against any particular proposal can be evaluated on their own merits on a case by case basis. I don't recommend directing comments against any particular nationality under any circumstances. Editors who make a habit of doing that tend to end up at WP:AN/I eventually.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I'm not against them voicing their opinion here, thats kind of the point of the Talk page. Just them being able to make edits to this article in general until things settle. Orocairion (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - We don't do do-overs because some don't like a result. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a 6 month moratorium. That is the earliest we might expect sufficient secondary sources could be referring to this by that name - and it seems unlikely that sources outside of the US will do so, as it stands. WP:COMMONNAME pertains. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support six months - This will be an endless battle of RfCs and edit warring. Nothing significant has changed since the last RfC besides Google changing the name in Google Maps, something they told the public they'd do in advance. — E_F⁵ 19:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months. There is too much emotion and churn around this topic right now, and a moratorium would give a clearer view of consensus time to emerge. While US-based organisations may be obligated to acquiesce quickly, international ones aren’t. I note in particular that the OpenStreetMap, which Wikipedia uses heavily and which is IMO a FAR more reliable and up-to-date source than Bing, Google and Apple maps are, also has a very healthy discussion around the name, and being "fact on ground based" has correctly tagged node 305639190 (Gulf of Mexico) on OpenStreetMap with the official_name:en-US while leaving the English name:en alone (and all the OTHER languages), but that is it ... which is really all that has happened. Finally, is the new – almost certainly at best geoboxed – name transient or permanent, given that the incumbent president's fixed-term contract ends in just 1415 days? Elrondil (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose, moratoriums are only used when there is evidence that there is a disruptive level of Requested Moves or discussions to the point of attempting to override consensus. This is very clearly not the case, and making requests for blocking good-faith civil discussion "so that we have the clarity of consensus necessary" is not a very good case, if it even is one. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very clearly not the case? About 85% of the first archive is about the name change. The second and third archives are about the name change. You might want to expand on what you mean by it "clearly" being not the case. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the gulf is not an exclusively American entity, which might be expected (but not guaranteed) to change its name at the whim of the American government. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes can we please comment on content, not users. If there is an issue we have wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a six-month moratorium on this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. This attempt to artificially halt debate reveals a concerning pattern of selective policy enforcement that undermines Wikipedia's collaborative foundation. When other geographical name changes occurred (Denali, etc), these same advocates rapidly implemented updates, citing WP:COMMONNAME as justification. Now, faced with a naming convention that doesn't align with their preferences, they're attempting to manipulate process controls to prevent legitimate discourse, misusing the term "consensus" in the process. It's clear there isn't one. "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely."^[1].

  The core issue here isn't just about one article - it's about the systematic misapplication of Wikipedia's governance framework. In the last 48 hours, the largest global map source renamed the body of water in question. Things are developing, changing, and at a pace that is consistent with previous Wiki changes. Rather than imposing restrictions that will only mask underlying disputes, we should maintain open channels for evidence-based discussion while ensuring consistent policy enforcement across all naming conventions, and seek true "consensus". Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closer: this appears to be gaming of autoconfirmed by an account that was created in 2020 but made no edits before yesterday, made eleven edits, then appeared here. Valereee (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please let me know which of my points are illogical or invalid, otherwise let's perhaps stop with the ad hominems. Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't care whether your points are valid or logical. I don't care whether GoA appears in the lead or not. It's purely about whether someone has gamed the system, which is against policy. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again Denali is an American landmark housed within the united states. The Gulf of Mexico is an international body of water that is bordered by the united states. The United States has no jurisdiction to make such changes. And the decision of google to acquiesce to the current regime is not something that has any bearing on Wikipedia policy here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore a good reason for a moratorium would be to give the swathes of new users who are here, apparently having been canvassed, to actually learn about Wikipedia policy so that we don't have to respond to the same erroneous argument a hundred times. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You make some valid points, which should be debated (for example, we could argue that the French Jesuits who came here had no authority to name it the Mexican Cove/Gulf/etc., when, I'm sure, the Native Americans had their own name for it). Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This LLM-sounding response also misses the point. We're proposing a moratorium because consensus will not magically appear just because some editors disagree with the outcome of the RFC. If we re-open an RFC, it's clear that we won't get a consensus now either. Why else did we extended-confirmed protect this article and others vaguely Gulf-related? Because it was being disrupted by editors that don't respect the consensus we've made, which is understandable, but consensus is a vital part of Wikipedia. If a moratorium is put in place, consensus will be made, just at a later date. Departure– (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If debate were 'allowed', we would, perhaps, be able to more clearly see that one side of this debate has been engaging in abuses of the process to make it appear as though there are valid reasons for their points on the RFC, when in fact they were thinly veiled partisan attacks. A few people speaking loudly against something with illogical arguments does not 'consensus' make, or break. I've thoroughly read through the points which were made and, in sum, almost none of them are valid, although some are, and there is most definitely a compromise and consensus to be made amongst reasonable people. Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia isn't debate club. Tendentious argument about a closed RfC is disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And also, the entire point is that a consensus hasn't been made. A consensus would look like "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" with some acknowledgement of the fact that the largest map source in the world, all official sources of the government with the largest population and control of the body of water, and the only English-speaking nation bordering the body of water, all call it "Gulf of America".

  There's obviously a ton of people (and official agencies) which are calling it one thing. The Google trends for Gulf of America the past month surpasses all previous search volume for the Gulf of Mexico. It's clear something has to give, and some compromise has to be made ... the inability to make any compromise at all is the antithesis of "consensus". Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A consensus hasn't been made, so we're maintaining the status quo until a consensus can be made. If an RFC opens now, assuming it isn't canvassed to oblivion, it will also lead to no consensus. This is the whole point of the moratorium. Luckily Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. Departure– (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is incorrect. "No consensus to include GoA in the lead" is not the same as "No Consensus". Valereee (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A consensus would look like "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" I think you're confusing "consensus" with "compromise." Though that also wouldn't be a compromise because that'd just be adding exactly what was proposed and slapped down by an oppose consensus.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise" Wikipedia:Consensus

  Also, there very clearly is no consensus to do nothing. Just saying it doesn't make it true; there was not vote, poll, or otherwise, just a pretty typical ultra-political push from Wikipedians void of logic or actual efforts to find consensus which destroys people's trust in the platform. Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Also, there very clearly is no consensus to do nothing. Just saying it doesn't make it true; there was not vote, poll, or otherwise" Actually, there was. And it was one of the biggest discussions I've seen on a regular article talk page in a very long time. Scroll to the top of the article and check out the FAQs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - 2 to 6 month Moratorium - Honestly, 6 months seems a little long to me. It strikes me that concensus and RS's may change after a 2 month period. I don't oppose going as far as 6 months though. NickCT (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unless something changes. This is a dead horse that has been beaten into a pulp. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's an argument not to put an artificial moratorium on this. Nobody is requiring people to come and check this and take the time to do so. But things are changing. Fast.

  In the past week, Gulf of America brings up 8.3 million search results on Google compared to nearly 4.6 million for Gulf of Mexico.

  Just this week Google and Apple changed it on their #1 and #2 map platforms, respectively.

  Things are changing too quickly to table this for 6 months. Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unless any major changes to the consensus happen. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 6 months. The section immediately above attempting to circumvent an RFC closure, the premature RMs, the unrequired MRV, the persistent IP-trolling (even at unrelated articles), and the opposes above attempting to oppose using the same whataboutisms OP mentioned, indicate that people are not reading all the disclaimers on top of this page and they just want to follow what Fearless Leader says mindlessly. Since they don't waste their time attempting to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia and its purpose, then why should the rest waste their time going in circles. If after 6 months these WP:IDHT attempts persist, a new moratorium should be requested. There is no evidence that "Gulf of America" will be a name used consistently, not only during the ruling of the Republican Party, but also during the Democratic Party rulings, or international bodies calling it as such, and those have no reason to use it, especially if their international relations with Mexico result affected. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's turn the heat down on things like Fearless Leader and mindlessly. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose on a moratorium, it's obvious to anybody but Wikipedians that they are in the wrong.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a policy based reason for your oppose vote? The way you've phrased it makes it sound a bit like a personal attack on all editors that opposed the change, and also sounds like you're opposing a moratorium because you think the consensus was wrong, which is not a good reason to oppose a moratorium based on disruption. Departure– (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, by disruption I mean driveby comments here that relate to the executive order and general disregard of our loose consensus here on other articles that led the otherwise-uncontroversial Gulf Coast of the United States article to receive a blue lock, and the obvious lack of community consensus in general. I perceive there to be a partisan bias on this issue too, perhaps on the other side of the aisle, but I definitely would prioritize using policy-based reasoning instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and there just hasn't been one cutting it for me and many other editors for a lot of the suggestions being made. Departure– (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly a case of WP:COMMONNAME.

  As far as English-speaking sources go, Gulf of America is now the standard. Google and now Apple have both updated (or are in the process of updating) their map services.

  Even CNN is acknowledging "formerly known as" the Gulf of Mexico.https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

  We don't have to like something to acknowledge it as true. I think it's fairly obvious to most that commonname makes sense here.

  Further in Official Names, it says we should defer to official names if "if it is actually the name most commonly used".

  This shows a fairly different approach than counting sources and checking them 1 by 1 (anyone can make a 'reliable' source these days): usage, here, is key, and usage, by FAR, is outweighed now toward Gulf of America with both Apple and Google using it. Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are still litigating a closed RfC. I think this has reached the point of disruptive editing now. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this doesn't clear up the fact consensus will not be made by re-opening an RFC. The wind's blowing heavily in your sails, as is it in mine, but we aren't headed the same way, and until we do, there is good reason to keep a moratorium. Departure– (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I get that. But for how long? In just the last week "Gulf of America" has 2x more publications on Google than "Gulf of Mexico" (filter: past week, search for each. Over 8.3m results for America vs 4 for Mexico).

  Like it or not, a moratorium seems to be a desperate attempt to delay the inevitable. We're going to have to come to a consensus, so why is one side of this argument so unwilling to make any compromise? Lincoln2020 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No deadlines. Please reread the closing statement, which I've revised to clarify that this was a consensus. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Google still has it as Gulf of Mexico where I am located. Let's not exaggerate. King Lobclaw (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a moratorium of 30 days and no longer. Let all of the news on this subject die down and see where we are at that point in regards to COMMONNAME / “official” name and other issues brought up here. I think everyone needs to cool down. Frank Anchor 19:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly support a 6 month moratorium on new attempts to create consensus. This discussion is filled with a lot of people saying that the outcome of the last RFC was bad, but that avoids the point that if we re-open another RFC, there will still be no consensus. That's the whole reason we're !voting on a moratorium to begin with. There is no deadline. Repeat, there is no deadline. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline because there is no deadline as to when consensus needs to be made. I don't care what Google says, I don't care what Trump says, and I don't care what these drive-by editors say, the status quo works. The last RFC was a dumpster fire and this discussion is becoming an active volcano. As for the specifics, I ask that we wait until 3 August 2025, six months from the last RFC's closure. By then, we'll likely have a shot at getting some consensus one way or the other. Departure– (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 month moratorium — World place names are not changed by the President of the United States by fiat. This is not United States Wikipedia, even if one were to support the preposterous notion that unilateral renaming of geographical places falls within the purview of the President of the United State in any event — this is English-Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months This is a very normal amount of time to wait after a major discussion like an RfC or AfD. We've already been in a sort of de facto moratorium ever since the RfC + move discussions + move review all closed, as we all understand that starting another discussion about the same thing immediately after it's already been discussed extensively is disruptive and defeats the purpose of having those discussions in the first place. By adding a note that this can be revisited in 6 months or so, we'd just be making that de facto moratorium "more official" and making the amount of time we should wait between discussions less ambiguous. There's a problem of editors (mostly new editors acting in good faith) showing up every time the term "Gulf of America" gets used in the news or by the POTUS in some new, insignificant way that materially changes nothing and suggesting that this one new development necessitates redoing the whole discussion. Given just how long the recently closed RfC lasted, and how clear it was that a consensus in favor of putting GoA in the lede just won't develop any time soon, the best thing to do is to just give it some time. There is no rush, and common names can't change overnight. If this discussion doesn't produce a consensus for a 6 month moratorium, I'd prefer a minimum of 3 as a compromise if necessary. Considering we're trying to track something like a change in actual usage, I don't think 30 days is nearly enough time.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 month moratorium — Wikipedia must represent a level of stablity, and with this guy in office he is all over the place with his madness. Its a shame he is POTUS and carries weight with it but this is clearly nonesense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a 6 month moratorium, or even longer if necessary. I share the stability concerns that many other editors have brought up, and quite frankly, I'd wait at least two whole years to see if Gulf of America becomes prominent enough to meet our common name guidelines. Given that there has been a ton of edits by both IPs and registered users across many other articles by people seemingly following Trump's order, I'd say that a moratorium is needed, and I would go as far to suggest we create an edit filter that triggers whenever Gulf of America is mentioned in an edit. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for any long moratorium - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. One of the most common !votes among opposers in the last RfC was (paraphrasing) this is premature, wait until US government sources are changed. The USGS officially recognizes "Gulf of America" now, so it's entirely possible the RfC would have a different outcome now. Let's quote some opposers:
  • If it reaches sustained usage such that a nontrivial number of people use that as their primary name for it, or the entire US government uses it regularly, or this is in fact how it ends up being taught in US schools... then it should be included in the lead from Rusalkii
  • There is an actual formal process that needs to be gone through to rename a geographic feature under the sovereignty of the United States, and this is certainly premature until that process is complete. from Cullen328
  • Oppose because a) it has not happened yet from Surtsicna
  • So far, the only major sources that I've seen to use "Gulf of America" are the US Coast Guard and the state government of Flordia. More reliable sources and public usage are needed before this alternate name can be mentioned in the lead section. from Zero Contradictions
  • This could change in the future, if school textbooks, atlases, etc. start using the "Gulf of America" name. from Helvetica
  • Additionally opposed as GNIS has not adopted this formally yet. Once they do I will remain a weak oppose from DJ Cane
  • Also worth mentioning that the American NOAA/National Weather Service continues to use Gulf of Mexico... As of right now, not even the entire American government is adopting the name; it's way too early to even say "also known as the Gulf of America" or "officially known in the United States as the Gulf of America." from Vanilla Wizard
  • Until and unless the proposed new name enters common usage (at least in US government publications) there is no need to mention it in the lead from Eluchil404
  • Just because Trump declares it doesn't make it the OFFICIAL name by the US Government or by the individual states. from Avanu
  • Trump can say whatever he wants but as far as I can tell, an executive order isn't even enough to officially rename it under American law from LokiTheLiar
  • Not only per RECENTISM, but because this Executive Order only affects how Federal agencies refer to the body of water. It's not "officially" changing the name of anything, just what the Feds call it when referring to it. from HandThatFeeds
• If one of the major rationales for oppose !voters is no longer valid, it is fair to rerun the RfC. A ton of people thought we should rerun this when the name change was made official, and now that it is, we should do so. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstood the argument: government agencies being forced to use the term does not constitute WP:COMMONNAME among published sources, nor international sources. Rerunning the RfC again right now is just smacking a hornet's nest and will not accomplish anything besides more infighting. Let it rest for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, let's wait and see how common use settles out once the news cycle related to this change dies off. It's probably reasonable to wait a few months, at which point it should be obvious if the common name has changed or not. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 22:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't speak for anyone else, but my reason for emphasizing that even the government wasn't using the term yet was to make the point that if even they're not using it, then no one is, and it'd be absurd to change to a name that no one uses. While it was the most straightforward reason for opposing at the time, it was far from the only commonly cited reason for opposing. At this time, a support outcome still seems unrealistic despite the government slowly making the switch, because many editors would still like to see some evidence of actual usage in independent, secondary sources, and there just hasn't been enough time since the executive order for us to be able to properly evaluate if a change in language is actually occurring. I do think there's at least a 50/50 chance that it could be added to the lede 6 months from now. Not a snowball's chance in Hell right this moment, and the actual title of the page is never changing, but the lede RfC could be revisited after enough time has passed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This, of course, is spot on, and far too rational for this discussion. Lincoln2020 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for short pause only, strongly oppose long pause. This is a rapidly changing situation, and it seems totally plausible to me that in, say, a month or two all conservative newspapers in the US, government agencies, etc, will be using the new term - that seems like a sufficiently major change in circumstance to merit revisiting the question of whether it should be included as an alt name in the lead. On the other hand we can't be running RfCs every other day and I don't envy anyone keeping order on this page - I would support a policy that, say, anyone beginning a discussion needs to provide some form of new concrete evidence about usage of the term (so no "Donald Trump said so, obey your glorious leader" or for that matter "Donald Trump said so and we refuse to do anything he says"). Was pinged here by the above comment quoting me Rusalkii (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (This is not serious, but only because enforcing it would be a nightmare: it would also substantively improve the quality of conversation if any comments on Donald Trump not immediately and directly pertaining to policy-based discussion on the name change were immediately removed.) Rusalkii (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and prefer six month moratorium as others have suggested. I think putting this off until after hurricane season starts (begins June 1) should give a clear idea of whether or not the common name has changed and gets us far enough into the future that we will have sources beyond those discussing the name in relation to the name change itself. My preference for waiting until after hurricane season starts is because this should provide a good amount of Gulf-related content that is independent of the name change and related politics. I do not, however, think we need to wait until the end of hurricane season (November 30). DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 22:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.. Honestly I have been wanting not to talk here Futher as it will be fruitless when majority of the people here are opposing from either their political stance or personal feelings and thoughts, but this have gotten long enough...

  . So frankly speaking, there are a lot of partisanships here by about %90 so how are we going to get a neutral and unbiased result?

  . This is a political issue and is no surprise to have many bias here including people who are conflicted to judge things from rational and neutral point of view, hence we must acknowledge this reality, maybe another approach to solve this will be better because otherwise no concensus will ever be reached even if given two years.

  . So I never expected the number of political opposers to be this enormous in this page, with lots of people with hateful remarks and people telling us why fact shouldn't be fact.. Hence most of the reasons I have seen here so far is nothing short of political bias and partisanship no matter how they coined it to be logical and just..

  . Is no longer like reaching a concensus anymore but more like a vote, but unfortunately GoM won the election in this name change on Wikipedia... I mean no offense singling this out but this is the reality we must acknowledge given the fact that this things must be done neutral on this reality(GoA). Thisasia  ^(Talk) 22:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though I've voted support on this, I will say that we should WP:AGF, no matter who's voting. "majority of people here are opposing from either political stance" has no evidence to back it up, besides maybe a few userboxes, but that's just generalizing the majority of opposers, which we shouldn't do. E_F⁵ 22:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are literally evidence to my claims all over the comments since the executive order... BTW I wouldn't expect someone from countries like Mexico or unfavorable of the US to agree to this reality GoA. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 22:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thisasia, even when an experienced editor is making biased comments on the talk, it absolutely does not mean they're advocating for a biased presentation in the article. We all have biases. Those of us who are experienced at editing don't allow those biases into our editing. (And when our personal biases inevitably do enter into our approach, we rely on others to point that out, and we take that into account.)

  I personally find it helpful not to allow my biases into my discussion posts, and I recommend that to others. But it's not strictly necessary. An editor doesn't have to be personally neutral -- or even to present themselves as strictly neutral -- about a topic in order to be able to edit neutrally. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's absolutely incorrect to assume experienced editors are editing in a political way. I think it's very possible inexperienced editors are doing so, but experienced editors are used to taking their own opinion into account when coming to a conclusion about what should be included and how it should be presented in a contentious topic. For most of them, this is not their first rodeo. Valereee (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: The creator of this discussion said I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 and is accusing multiple people of being disruptive. I wouldn't call that WP:AGF and I think that's setting the standard for the rest of this discussion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess, while I agree the statement shows the editor has an opinion -- and I'd advise every editor to avoid that in all contentious topics, as it's counterproductive -- I don't agree that editors expressing personal opinions here on the talk means we're 'setting a standard' about what should be in the article. We all should try to present our arguments here neutrally because that tends to be more persuasive. Valereee (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of what is right or wrong, wether is rightfully renamed or wrongfully renamed, I believe that anything political are historical facts and reality and we are not meant to be politically correct on Wikipedia but to just write history as it is especially when it comes to nature/geography...

  @Chess, @Valereee

  . Giving the fact that some users did say that the US government have no right to rename geography that encompassed many of the US territorial state. How then was there a separate article for the Philippines territorial water West Philippine Sea named by the Philippines govt which is expanded much into Philippines territory.?

  . Why does China get to claim the entire sea of what they believe it was historicaly expanded much into their country instead of their supposedly territorial water? and why was there an article purposely named South China sea?

  . So why then the Gulf of America can't even be included in the lead talk more of having a separate article..? Let's not forget that Gulf of America was not entirely the whole Gulf of Mexico and they supposed to have their own articles respectively but this would be much to ask for at this point.

  . I believe that any country have the right to rename any of their territorial geography whether is a body of water regardless of who agrees or not..

  . This could be different if the govt have went outside their territory to rename geography of others. Let me not suggest that the name even fits more because it's representing the whole of North America continent but I get the sentiment of the US being specifically called America.

  .Btw: they were indeed people who are accusing people here but there was also many experience editors here that is different too but we have to acknowledge that majority of people here does exactly what I mentioned in my first comment Thisasia  ^(Talk) 00:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW: if this get passed into law by the congress then it will no longer be just including it in this article but creating a separate article named gulf of America. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 01:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...what? That makes no sense. E_F⁵ 01:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tell me what doesn't makes sense from all the points highlighted above? Thisasia  ^(Talk) 01:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we have a separate article, with near identical content, just to have the article title be a different name. We don't do that; we do redirects. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop using this discussion to relitigate the already-closed RfC. For the record, Wikipedia is still not an arm of the US government, and does not have to do any particular thing in response to any Executive Order or Act of Congress. It may do so, of course, and perhaps an explicit Act would clarify the frequently repeated question about the purported extent of the proposed name, which might in turn assist editors in making a decision. But that's all. We're not the USA, and we don't have to do what the US government says. GenevieveDEon (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  you have missed the point of the talk, I never said Wikipedia should be an arm of the US government but Wikipedia should write history/facts as they are regardless. This is what it was all about and not about selective history to write. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 01:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 6 months minimum as others have mentioned we already have policies to deal with names. The gulf has been called “of Mexico” since the 16th century. An executive order by the US president can’t change the common name instantly. This will be a waste of time without a moratorium. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The submitter of this request, who has been using some WP:BATTLEGROUND language in these discussions[1], has seemingly made it clear that his general opposition to a name seeing significant reliable source usage is based on personal politics.

  if nobody can take away the US president's crayons we may have to suffer through four years of nonsense like this. Best to show early on that reality does not bend to the whims of a fool with an army[2]

  The rationale provided for a moratorium is dubious as moratoriums aren't ideal for fast developing topics. I believe moratoriums can be justified for topics where reliable sources are unlikely to change, but for whatever reason arguments are being repeated. This is not one of those situations. As of now, Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Microsoft Bing all reflect "Gulf of America". WP:COMMONNAME arguments to justify a moratorium are also inappropriate, as the scope of discussion is broader than the common name. For geography common name applies to article titles, but it does not apply to alternative designations and lede inclusions which are based on notability, reliable source usage, and of course official names in use. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As of now, Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Microsoft Bing all reflect "Gulf of America".

  I suspect that's only in the US. In Australia, Google Maps only shows "Gulf of Mexico" with Gulf of America in brackets, while Bing shows Gulf of Mexico. I would imagine that it would be the same scenario for other non-US countries.

  As several users have pointed out, the name has been in common use for 500+ years, and one EO does not change that. IMO, this is just a freedom fries-type policy that will be reversed as soon as Trump and the Republicans are out of office and should not affect the English (not United States) Wikipedia. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose The fundamental problem here is that a large number of experienced editors are inexplicably willing to totally eschew policy in favour of politically-based WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing. It is completely unprecedented to not mention in the lede of an article a country's official name for a place which is located partially in the country- even Encyclopedia Britannica includes both names in the lede. I may personally have the opinion that Trump's executive order is pointless nationalistic bravado that may well prove to be a temporary blip, just like Nursultan Nazarbayev's renaming of Astana, but the attempt to challenge the neutrality of Wikipedia and impose an arbitrary standard of treating anything done by Trump differently has to be strongly opposed, or the entire credibility of Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable neutral source of information is under question. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, you're essentially arguing that everybody is acting in bad faith. Multiple unique groups of dozens of editors across multiple discussions at different venues all produced unanimous opposition to your proposals. You were the editor that proposed changing the title of the article to Gulf of America, resulting in a SNOW 14:1 oppose consensus, and initiated a move review when a second move discussion, started shortly after the first one, was rapidly closed after unanimous opposition, only for that move review to also have 11:0 unanimous endorsement of the speedy close. So if time and time again, you're getting met with everyone opposing the change, to claim that those opposed are "totally eschewing policy in favour of politically-based WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing" is essentially claiming that everyone is a bad faith actor. That's not cool. I don't think it's likely that dozens of experienced editors and administrators across multiple discussions are all just bad faith actors who don't care about policy. Less importantly, WP:BRITANNICA isn't considered a generally reliable source. Even less importantly, Nursultan Nazerbayev didn't rename Astana after himself; his successor changed the name, and then that very same successor changed it back.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's intentional bad-faith editing, rather being mistaken, but the impact of it remains the same. The title of the article itself is a reasonable topic to debate (I proposed the RM but would have been satisfied with either outcome had the debate been allowed to last for the full week), but whether to include an official name in the lede at all simply shouldn't even be up for debate. There are enough editors who are treating executive actions and decisions by the Trump administration with a double standard compared to all other official government decisions and that's a serious threat to Wikipedia's credibility. That's why I've been so consistent in trying to make sure our neutrality policy isn't threatened by this deluge of partisan editing on this topic- if Wikipedia ceases to be credibly neutral then any other documentation of the crimes and abuses of power of the Trump administration on here will be implicitly under question, and in my view that is unfortunately a serious risk the way things are going. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need to have an RM play out for the entire 7 days when it's 14:1 opposition. We let the RfC play out for weeks with hundreds of comments from hundreds of people and the result was still an oppose consensus. We don't need that level of time and participation for every discussion when it's already abundantly clear what the result will be. Are you familiar with WP:SNOW? And the move review you initiated lasted long enough that it was relisted at least once, so I'd argue that it's WP:IDHT to still be unsatisfied with the outcome. And if you believe that everyone in every discussion has been !voting purely based on political bias, what good would an nth discussion do?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's blatantly clear that the opposition is politically motivated- see the opening comment at the top of this section. The reality is that there are absolutely no policy grounds for not including the official name of a place at some point in the opening paragraph, even if the official name were to see no common use at all, and this is as far as I can tell this situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of Wikipedia. The issue is that if you have, say, 75% of contributors taking a stance that doesn't align with policy at all, it is very difficult to close a discussion in favour of the stance which only a minority took. And of course opposing the actions of the Trump presidency is something which people are heavily opinionated on, which makes the enforcement of neutral policy-based editing very difficult.

  There aren't any circumstances under which "include the official name of a place somewhere in the lede" should ever be the topic of a discussion at all, let alone subject to an RFC. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's blatantly clear that the opposition is politically motivated. This is a false accusation on your part. It also will not convince anyone, which does not contribute to collaboration. Please read WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's bad-faith editing- I think it's a case of editors subconsciously applying a double standard to decisions made by the Trump administration compared to any other government of any country at any point thanks to their dislike of him. I think every editor who opposes inclusion of the Gulf's official US name in the lede really needs to have a think about whether they would have had the same position had it been the Biden administration renaming a geographical feature located partially in the US, or any other country government making a similar decision.

  And actually... I think this is an interesting question for all of those editors... If you were to write a policy on in which circumstances a country's official name for a geographic location located fully/partially in that country should be excluded from the article's lede- what would that policy be? That would be very interesting to hear. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gulf of Mexico is not within the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think some of the underlying policy for this resides in COMMONNAME; if nobody cares enough to dispute the name, the name will be used. For instance, companies do that all the time. If, however, use of another name is either entrenched how it was or still used by others that don't recognize the change for one reason or another, there is good reason to keep the article where it is. See Twitter, Sea of Japan, North Korea etc. and compare them to Apple Computer Company or Decommunization for instance. Departure– (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an argument against moving the article, not an argument against mentioning the official name in the lede. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant "philosophy" instead of "policy". I think the relevant content policy is Call a spade a spade which is more or less the same thing as COMMONNAME but for prose instead of page titles. COMMONNAME's underlying philosophy is being used many times across this discussion and not to a fault. Departure– (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chessrat for the record, I support a mention of the "official name" in the article lead section; I also, however, sympathize for the desire for a moratorium on the endless, low-information discussions about the new name, especially as an article title/COMMONNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I already stated I would be against this no matter who declared this edict. Assuming that everyone that disagrees with you only does so because it has something to do with Trump is rather obvious assumption of bad faith. Please focus on content instead of editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 6 months, we didn’t have an RfC for the fun of it. Continued discussion on this is getting WP:Disruptive. The Gulf of America section needs to be trimmed too, too much WP:Recentism, it isn’t WP:Due that much coverage and violates WP:Proportion imo. Can we make an automated response that can be linked to when a discussion is closed? Like Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias Kowal2701 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• THis needs saying, this is about move requests, not the lead. So any argument based on "but we have to be able to discuss the lead" are irrelevant, Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The RFC was about the lede, and the moratorium has to do with the RFC. There's a snowball's chance in hell the page gets moved in 6 months, whereas sentiment on the alternate name's inclusion in the lede may very well be to the point we can come to a consensus at the end. Departure– (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose a moratorium on discussions around including it in the lede, but Support a moratorium on move requests. While worldwide (or anglosphere-wide) common usage is unlikely to change in the next six months that would justify a move, notable adoption that would warrant a parenthetical mention in the lede seems much more plausible. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is beneath any encyclopedia. It's an obvious publicity stunt that won't last 4 years at the longest. The United States does not own the Gulf, and no nation beyond the United States (let alone any which holds any stake here) has agreed with the change. If this is the kind of change we're willing to entertain, then we may as well move "Greenland" to "Red-White-and-Blue-Land" already. Intilyc (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We need a break. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's good to wait on renaming the article to Gulf of America seeing that Wikipedia is an international website and the name hasn't been recognized much internationally at this stage. However, as I believe is the consensus here, the renaming by the federal government is still a powerful move that deserves recognition on this page. Therefore, I'd argue that we need sentences recognizing the move, and mentioning the Gulf's recognition as the Gulf of America by the United States. Any other argument, from what I've read, seems politically charged and not based on logic and Wikipedia guidelines. Investor Day (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is about the inclusion of the name in the lede. The #Name section has a paragraph of prose about the rename; much more than a single acknowledgement. Departure– (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we reading the same discussion? What gave you the impression that consensus points toward renaming? The controversy already has its own section in the article: That's enough.

  Also, its ridiculous to pretend that "renaming by the federal government" is somehow not politically charged, but following WP:COMMONNAME is. Intilyc (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on RM only. Oppose moratorium on the lead for anything longer then 2 months as I think it's an open question how we handle a case like this where the name seems to already appear as the primary or even sole name in quite a few sources which refer to the subject of the article, no matter how silly it is that the name appears or how rapidly it may change in the future. The more sources for which this happens, the more merit there may be for appearance in the lead to the extend even 3 months perhaps there will be enough Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I wholeheartedly support this moratorium and oppose the name change. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As per argments made by Symphony Regalia.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for 12 months for both requested moves and to discussions about adding it into the lead unless there is a change in what reliable sources report. I.e, that they verify official global agreement on the change of name for the body of water. This has been discussed to death on this article's talk and editors pushing for change need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a moratorium somewhere between 2 and 6 months. There's an observation above that I like - once the hurrican season rolls round we should be getting a lot of international reporting referring to the large-scale area name. That would seem to be the time to re-assess what is in common use. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 month moratorium. There is no deadline, and going along with a "Freedom Fries" style stunt is not encyclopedic. Eigenbra (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked what we do with the falklands vs islas malvinas (Falkland Islands) which will have been extensively disucssed over the years and it broadly lines up with usage of the gulf of america and the general naming dispute on this article, seems good 👍 DannyDouble (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why Wikipedia won't change the name of the article, however, Wikipedia is designed to be 100% neutral. For these reasons, i think that we should at least write, "also referred to as the Gulf of America". Thank you for your consideration. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion about this above. E_F⁵ 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]