It is obvious that this particular issue is going to be _contentious._ I don't know what proportion of Wikipedia users or Wikipedia editors live in the United States, but it is large enough to matter. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, the existence of Georgia, the SSR was almost unknown. Frankly, the only thing I knew about it was that it was the Stalin's birthplace, and even that was only because of a joking reference I'd heard to some politician: ("He's from Georgia? So was Stalin.). Given that this issue is contentious, it's going to be hard to settle. Straw polls are just one of a number of techniques for trying to reach stability in an article. Unless it is clear that some other technique _would_ have produced a clear, stable consensus and that the straw poll is _preventing_ a consensus that would otherwise have gelled, it doesn't prove polls are evil. And since, no matter what the outcome is, anyone who types in "Georgia" will quickly find what they are seeking, it doesn't matter what the outcome is. Many of these article-naming debates seem to me just to be arenas for people who enjoy trying to win arguments, and, unlike edit wars, they are relatively harmless because the results _do not matter_. If Steve Bennett's argument is that polls are evil because ignorant idiots who voted in the poll came up cast a majority of votes for what is "obviously beyond words" the wrong answer, I don't buy it. A majority vote for George W. Bush in a national U. S. election when it is obvious beyond words that that is the wrong answer does not prove that voting is evil. How's that for U.S.-centric for you? Pffpplsfft! Our naming policy calls for the "most common" name, not the most correct or most appropriate name. Arguments on geographic names are always difficult to resolve because "most common among _whom_" is somewhat undefined for Wikipedia. Unless you are going to suggest that polls should be weighted to reflect what the outcome would be if participation included proportional representation by every English- speaking person in the world... that is, that Wikipedia should serve what is ideally its potential audience rather than its real audience. Non-rhetorical question: does the national makeup of readers differ in proportion from the national makeup of active editors?