The real news here is that GNIS has been updated with the name. It doesn't seem that Google made an independent decision to change the name. Resistance to this change would really have to happen at the government level, not the tech level. Which really seems to be the point that's being made with this whole ordeal. It's a symbolic move to demonstrate to everyone that what they say goes and that the system isn't resisting their power.
One detail I've not seen mentioned in these discussions is that the EO specifically identifies "the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba". I'm not sure exactly what that looks like on a map, but it's clearly focused on US coastal waters. (Which kind of makes sense, because GNIS has no naming authority outside of US borders.) But it also makes the implementation by Google Maps wrong, since a large part (a majority, I think) of the gulf is still the Gulf of Mexico. It seems like the area should be drawn as two adjacent gulfs, the Gulf of America to the North and East, and the Gulf of Mexico to the South and West.<p>(Not debating the merits, just pondering mapping details.)
I was surprised to learn when living in Bahrain that what I knew of as the "Persian Gulf", is there known as the "Arabian Gulf". Only tangentially relevant, but kind of interesting.
I get "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" on a Japanese connection.<p>This stuff is obviously pointless and silly but it's nothing new. I'm sure Google Maps shows UK and French users different names for what I would call the English Channel.
I think every country should call it "Gulf of <i>country</i>", in France they direct all map providers to call it the Gulf of France, in Australia, they call it the Gulf of Australia, and so on.
Discussion of this issue on OpenStreetMap forum: <a href="https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571" rel="nofollow">https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-o...</a>
I really enjoyed the "joke" the other day where some standup guy said that we have the tech now to make everyone happy: just show this part on Google Maps as China to this set of people and Taiwan to this other set of people etc etc
Related:<p>Just searched Google Maps for Mt. Denali, Alaska only for it to return results for Mount McKinley immediately. Note I'm not really sure if that's anything to do with an executive order or that it was Alaskans wanting it called Denali while many elsewhere in the country incl at the Federal level called it McKinley.
Someone's already made a chrome extension to search+replace "Gulf of America" to "Gulf of Mexico" in online text I don't think it works for google maps place titles but no doubt someone will fix that.<p>It's a new level of public-but-divided space when we all start running client side software to reinforce our world view. I'm certainly not criticizing that chrome extension I think that is funny, but it's also something to think on.
A question, does the executive order (if it was actually signed by the President) have the "law power" to actually oblige Google Maps to make this change?<p>If not, is this correct following USA law? Also is this matter being questioned in superior Justice instances?
I mean this is all dumb chest thumping. But, doesn’t it make us look smaller to name the gulf after us?<p>When it was the Gulf of Mexico, it was named from our point of view. It was the gulf, among our many gulfs, that we share with Mexico. Now, by the same logic it is named from their point of view.
So many points of interest have been renamed in the past 20 years. I'm expecting the same level of endorsement for those renamings to carry over to this one.
Gulf of America is a more inclusive name anyway since both USA and Mexico are part of North America, but since it's Trump everyone hates it. People can't really even articulate what's wrong with it in a vacuum without mentioning Trump.<p>I don't even like Trump, but this "renaming" is neutral at worst, inclusive at best.
I find the reaction to this to be interesting, because it's obviously arbitrary, and there are thousands of geographical features whose names vary widely between countries, and not only for the obvious language reasons. So, each country clearly has the right to call international water bodies whatever they want. Personally, I don't care what it's called, but the new name is fine.<p>But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, in a way I doubt anyone would have if that had happened to be the name given 300 years ago. And I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate.<p>If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen.