Yes, our choice of English is arbitrary, but it is historical and there is a large (although certainly not insurmountable) amount of inertia behind it.  Since it is regarded as a lingua franca, there are a wide body of sources with wide-ranging opinions on matters of geopolitics, which tz can leverage in helping decide how to record things.  We, then, aim only to record rough consensus, much like other international standards organizations do, and attempt to leave the politics themselves to the politicians.

Of course, even this can be regarded as a political stance, and in some sense, it is.  And there are those who will still interpret that as the maintainers taking a side on any given geopolitical issue… but that can't really be helped.  In cases of conflict, even the most meticulously-crafted "neutral" deferential position will naturally reflect the biases of some group of "others" — in our case, the biases of the news organizations and other entities to whom we defer in choosing to source our data.  As long as we are upfront about that (and I think, for the most part, we are), then we are meeting the broader stated goal of being "useful even if not 100% accurate".

And so, we do what we can to be diplomatic when the inevitable arises.  (Which can, as Paul points out, include filtering duplication to ensure quality of discussion.)  But if the necessity of that diplomacy grates on anyone, in either direction, then perhaps this isn't the list for them.  ;)