<<On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:31:07 -0500, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> said:
Guy Harris wrote:
Bryan J Smith wrote:
3) What historical precedents are there on this matter (I've been trying to look through the change logs), to further validate justification (of #1)? Perhaps Calcutta -> Kolkata, although that one may not have been as politically sensitive as this one.
Which brings me to ...
Paul.Koning@dell.com wrote:
The TZ names are by convention derived from the English language designations for the place names in question.
So this is yet another consideration, because I understand it (again, insert possibly ignorance on my part) ... - Linguistical: Anglicized
This is an important point, but it cannot go unstated that if the standard had been French, or Finnish, or Mandarin (as romanized in hanyu pinyin without tone marks), this question would likely not be coming up over and over again. The database is maintained in English for good historical reasons, but it is inescapable that English is the national language of a global hegemon and a colonial power, as well as the international language of media and diplomacy. People in some non-English-speaking countries may well feel that English-language exonyms are being "imposed" on them as a part of some broader neocolonial project.[1] tzdb is far from the only place these sensitivities have been brought to bear. -GAWollman [1] They would be wrong to think that, but it's not the sort of thing most people are inclined to consider deeply.