Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias

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

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

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

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

Image of the "Watershed"

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

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

Impact origin?

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 Was not peer reviewed and seems a speculative search for new ideas rather than a report on researched data.

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

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

The AAPG essay / commentary about the Gulf of Mexico being an impact crater is not only very speculative, but it is also very badly flawed and sloppy in terms of its scientific content and interpretations. It relies too heavily on very dated, if not antiquated, reference material, including a 1979 textbook. This essay either overlooks or ignores a considerable number of more recent peer-reviewed publications that contain geophysical and geological data and research that readily refute specific interpretations made by it and its proposal that Gulf of Mexico is an impact crater. For example, the research that can be easily found in the published literature readily refutes claims that the fold belts of the Ouachita trend and the metamorphism of associated Paleozoic rocks was caused by an impact event. Also, there is enough published geophysical and geological data that demonstrate that the central uplift claimed to exist in the center of the Gulf of Mexico is completely imaginary. The commentary is very, very poorly researched and thought out to the point that provides an extremely weak case for the Gulf of Mexico being an impact crater.Paul H. (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed the lone statement about the Chicxulub Crater that was at the end of the lead section because (A) it didn't tie its subject to the article subject; (B) it was not further discussed anywhere in this article; and (C) nothing in the current version of Chicxulub Crater ties it to the Gulf itself (other than incidental location). If this is truly a subject worth pursuing in either article, the connection should be made clearer. If it's a controversial subject, it should also have more sources and a broader range of professional opinions. Either way, the single sentence was just too tangential and jarring in the current context. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenth largest body of water

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

The article gives its size as "about 1,600,000 km2". The link above says 1,507,476 km2, and lists the 9 larger "bodies of water" (whatever that means): Bering Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Caribbean Sea, South China Sea, Arctic Ocean, Southern Ocean, Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. But what about the Arabian Sea (3,8620,000 km2) 1; Weddell Sea (2,800,000 km2); Bay of Bengal (2,172,000 km2); and Sea of Okhotsk (1,583,000 km2)? Also, since "bodies of water" is rather vague, do things like the Sargasso Sea count?
There are also a number of sources that give the size of the Gulf of Mexico as something around 600,000 km2. I am guessing these are an error as that seems to be the approximate size in square miles, not km. Nevertheless, that top ten list link seems dubious to me, since it leaves out some rather obvious larger bodies of water, most notably the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Fixed gulf map.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fixed gulf map.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of America

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

No. Its WP:COMMONNAME is Gulf of Mexico. Nobody calls it Gulf of America. Bazonka (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
At the time that it was named, Texas, Florida, and the coastal parts of Alabama and Mississippi all belonged to Mexico. As a result, it was named the Gulf of Mexico. This still is the officially recognized and common name for this body of water. Go see Geographic Names Information System and Gulf of Mexico for more information Paul H. (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Location on world map - and maximum depth

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

That seems fair enough to me.

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gulf of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gulf of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulf of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulf of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico/Archive_1&oldid=1182754602"