Talk:2006 Malagasy presidential election

Untitled

Vandalism report: The name of one candidate (Monja Roindefo) was changed to "Salman Khan" and have link to a hiw wikipedia page which had nothing to do with the Malagasy election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.112.189 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No-one who is not a Madagascar specialist knows the word "Malagasy". This article should be called Madagascar presidential election, 2006, and I will move it shortly unless someone can give me a good reason not to. Adam 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's incorrect, period. We have naming conventions for a reason. —Nightstallion (?) 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the tone was inappropriate. Let me rephrase it: "Because there is a widely used demonym, "Malagasy", which is already widely used on Wikipedia as it is (for instance in the article on Madagascar itself). I'd kindly suggest to use the demonym for the article on the election as is the current standard with all other elections. —Nightstallion (?) 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly do not take that tone with me. You need to explain why you think it is incorrect. It's the same convention used for dozens of other elections. (French presidential election, 2002 etc). The only difference is that there is no recognised adjectival form of Madagascar in English. I would accept "Madagascan", but Malagasy is totally foreign to most English-speakers. Adam 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adam - plus this person has on their page a charming little rant against the policy on common names and as such their opinion can be safely discarded. PMA 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. What about Malagasy language, Malagasy people, Malagasy franc, Malagasy ariary, the fact that "Madagascan" appears not a single time in Madagascar but "Malagasy" appears twenty-seven times and the fact that "malagasy -madagascan" beats "madagascan -malagasy" hands down at Google? I'm afraid the two of you might very well be wrong in the assumption that common names are always correct. Just because many people don't know the correct adjective form of "Madagascar" doesn't change the fact that it is "Malagasy". —Nightstallion (?) 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted proper results at my website. Adam 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• For Wikipedia's purposes the common name is the correct name. I have no brief for "Madagascan", I suggested it only as a possible adjectival form. My preference is still for Madagascar presidential election, 2006.
• I don't dispute Malagasy as a linguistic or ethnic term - I dispute it as a recognised adjectival form in English of the name of the state of Madagascar. The people of the US are Americans but we don't say American presidential election, 2004, we say U.S. presidential election, 2004. It is the name of the state that counts. The state is the Republic of Madagascar (Repoblikan'i Madagasikara), not (any longer) the Malagasy Republic.
• This was not a general election, because the legislature was not up for re-election, it was purely a presidential election. Adam 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My mistake on the general/presidential issue. The other facts remain: There's no reason not to use the correct demonym "Malagasy" when it's widely used on Wikipedia already. The cases of the United States (ambiguity of "American"), DR Congo (ambiguity of "Congolese"), Burkina Faso (next-to-unusedness of "Burkinabé") are quite different in this regard. —Nightstallion (?) 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The only relevant point is, what adjectival form of the name Madagascar will be recognised by the average literate English-speaker? And the answer to that is not Malagasy. In the absence of a common English adjective form, the default is to use the noun - and Burkina Faso parliamentary election, 2007 is indeed an excellent analogy. I am not going to have a revert war with you, so I am now referring this matter for arbitration. Adam 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now looked at the section on your user page mentioned by PMA above. I see you are one of those who think that the English Wikipedia ought to be made to conform to the linguistic and orthographic conventions of every language other than English for the gratification of everyone except the English Wikipedia's intended readership. I am strongly opposed to this. The English Wikipedia must conform to English usages and no others. I had the pleasure of visiting your beautiful city in May, so I know what it is called in German. But here it will always be Vienna. Adam 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point of the question in this case -- the English adjective of "Madagascar" is "Malagasy". If there were a study which stated that more speakers of English would use "Nepalian" than "Nepalese", would you be in favour of shifting all grammar to the incorrect form? I'm not quite certain whether a *majority* of English native speakers would be able to correctly employ the difference between "it's" and "its", or "then" and "than", and so on. An encyclopedia must, above all, be *correct*; that we should also use common names generally is something which I do not question in this matter. —Nightstallion (?) 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wouldn't per se be opposed to using "Madagascan" instead (m-w.com recognises it as the demonym for Madagascar), but then we would also have to change *all* other instances of "Malagasy" to "Madagascan", and I'm not quite sure whether that would be correct in the cases of Malagasy people and Malagasy language... —Nightstallion (?) 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah the mind of the pedant revealed. If the majority of English speakers said "Nepalian", that would be the correct usage. The language belongs to the people, not to grammarians. Unlike French (I'm not sure about German), English is not policed by an Academy. Usage determines correctness, not the other way around. Adam 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to settle for Madagascan. It would not entail changing Malagasy people and Malagasy language, because I accept that Malagasy is the correct ethnic and linguistic term, just as we have Cambodian elections but the Khmer people and language. Adam 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do not like to be referred to as a "pedant" when the correct and neutral term is "prescriptivist" (I do not call descriptivists like you "ignorant", either, just because they would accept incorrect language if the majority thinks it's correct, do I? ;)), I can accept "Madagascan" as well. —Nightstallion (?) 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And let me just finally add that I hadn't considered the Madagascan-Malagasy discrepancy as an anologous case to Cambodian-Khmer up to now, but now that you mention it -- of course, you're right. My mistake. —Nightstallion (?) 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Madagascan it is. Peace on earth and goodwill to prescriptivist pedants. Adam 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace on earth and goodwill back to all ignorant descriptivists, too. :) —Nightstallion (?) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam's results table

Adam's results, according to his website, come from the interior ministry, so I have no reason to doubt them, but I have no way of knowing what percentage of votes counted this is supposed to reflect. It doesn't match the latest figures being reported by the AP, which give Ravalomanana 55% and put Lahiniriko in second with over 11%. Everyking 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself. If you won't post results here, you can always provide a link to my website in case any readers actually want to know who won. Adam 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear enough, I have no objections whatsoever to a table—there should definitely be one. But your table doesn't say what percentage of votes it reflects, so it could be misleading. I tend to think it's best only to have a table once all the votes are in and the final totals are officially determined, but if we're going to have one earlier than that, we've got to at least give the percentage of votes it reflects. You can see from the results paragraph I've written that they've fluctuated quite a bit. (And might I add that the article already clearly states at two separate points who won.) Everyking 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have updated my figures. Ravalomanana's percentage has been declining as the count has progressed. The Interior Ministry website says that 96.8% of bureaux de vote have reported, so these are close to final figures. Adam 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Electoral Map

Feel free to use my map of the presidential election http://www.electoralgeography.com/en/countries/m/madagascar/2006-presidential-election-madagascar.html Please, pay the proper respect to the author's rights, of course.

Any date

... for when the court will decide on the complainst? I'd be inclined to remove the {{current}} tag... —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The court has confirmed the results,[1] but the numbers have changed slightly. The official site of the Interior Ministry still has the old numbers, so I'm not quite sure what to do with this... —Nightstallion (?) 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The complaints aren't significant enough to keep the tag; there's no possibility of success. As for the table, I guess we'll leave it as it is unless we can find a source that gives the court's complete final results (the new numbers for the top three are already in the article, although Ravalomanana's figure didn't change). Everyking 07:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "Malagasy"

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is basically just wrong. "Malagasy" is by far the accepted adjective. If we use "American" for the United States, we should certainly be using "Malagasy" for Madagascar.--Pharos 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: We don't use "American". We use "United States presidential election, 2008", in fact... —Nightstallion (?) 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And as we've discussed above, it is indeed true that "Malagasy" is the correct adjective for language, ethnicity, culture, etc. but that "Madagascan" is the adjective for the country. Not all Madagascans are Malagasy; compare Khmer/Cambodian and similar cases. —Nightstallion (?) 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do use American in many other article titles (and I wouldn't be very opposed to using the noun form "Madagascar" here.) "Malagasy" is an ethnic group as well as a nationality, but such is also the situation with "German", "Japanese" and in fact just about all nation-states. "Madagascan" is just wrong; see what Madagascar's Washington embassy has to say.--Pharos 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as this linked text states: "Madagasy is the name of the people and of the language." Many sources (among them M-W, but there are lots of others) state that this is indeed true, and that "Madagascan" is to be used as the adjective for the country... —Nightstallion (?) 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear from the context that they mean the nationality, not the ethnic group. Again, this is no different from "German". The government is explicitly saying that "Madagascan" is only used by ignorant writers, and I think they're basically right.--Pharos 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I'm starting to think you might be right. —Nightstallion (?) 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I move it back now, then?--Pharos 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'd be so kind as to do so for all other affected articles, as well (most notably all election articles, the election template, and the article on the coup d'état attempt), yes, please. —Nightstallion (?) 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done most of it; that is the "Madagascan" titles and the double redirects. I've also incidentally taken care of the "Madagascan"s in the Madagascan articles, but I don't have time to do all the "Madagascan" single-redirects now.--Pharos 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's not *really* necessary, anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Malagasy presidential election, 2006. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061123102509/http://www.jeuneafrique.com/fluxafp/fil_info.asp?reg_id=0&art_cle=33243 to http://www.jeuneafrique.com/fluxafp/fil_info.asp?reg_id=0&art_cle=33243
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220193110/http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=62418 to http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=62418
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68wgZqPpU?url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/20/content_5628465.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/20/content_5628465.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malagasy presidential election, 2006. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-12-07-voa41.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213124721/http://www.mira.gov.mg/election/resultatelection.php to http://www.mira.gov.mg/election/resultatelection.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)