As far as I can tell, the sources of information are users of the English language, of course.
That's what the MoS requires.
Well, excepting encyclopedias, since for some reason encyclopedias don't count.
US Enclopædias follow different MoS rules to WP which are based on their need to sell product in target markets in the country in question. We don't have to base our conduct on someone else's MoS, nor do we need to take business strategy into account in naming. And as we are not American we do not have to reflect American attitudes on the issue.
Or people who, in their professional life, deal with the names of countries, since they're diplomats and diplomats call countries by the name they ask people to use, which shouldn't count.
Diplomatic usage is not the standard the MoS sets. That is most common uage. Even diplomats would not claim that their professional uage is aimed at communication with the mass market but that their own grouping. If one followed diplomatic usage then EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ARTICLE on wikipedia would have to be renamed.
Or the Economist, because, well, they're the Economist and a bit funny in the head.
No. Their target is not mass usage but business usage.
Or anyone who also speaks French.
They are irrelevant under the MoS.
Or anything produced by the US Government.
This encyclopædia is not American, must less owned by the US government.
Or, indeed, regional sources.
Wikipedia is not a regional source a worldwide one. Worldwide usage is what is required to be followed under the MoS.
Or English-speaking Ivorians.
English readers around the world, not just English speaking Ivorians, read Wikipedia.
Or the United Nations.
Uses diplomatic language.
Or any result from a google search, because they're horribly unreliable except when they get the right answer.
Complete garbage. Google searches have proved themselves unreliable on thousands of pages. Targeted samples of independent worldwide, English-speaking communication sources provide more accurate answers.
Or any "myths" about what people may use.
The standard is professional statistical analysis, not 'well I only use 'x' so obviously I am typical of the rest of the world.'
So, basically, any major source except the ones which use Cote d'Ivoire, since we've just proven they don't count, use Ivory Coast.
Not so. Independent factual sources, reviewed statistically, are used to set standards. There was no way of knowing what they would prove until they were analysed.
Case closed! It has been for weeks. The evidence from sources worldwide is so conclusive as to be overwhelming. Worldwide, most common usage is Ivory Coast by a mile. Cote d'Ivoire is restricted to narrow target markets in regional areas and is not worldwide and much of the world it is not used at all.
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail