I apologize for stirring the pot by contributing to one of our longer-running topics of late, however: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:08:09 -0000 From: "The Definitive Source: <author>" Subject: An update on AP style on Kyiv X-RSS-Feed: https://blog.ap.org/feed.rss X-RSS-ID: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-TAGS: Kyiv,Kiev,Ukraine,AP Style,AP Stylebook,Announcements,featured,Definitive-Source We are making a significant change in our style for the Ukrainian capital city Kiev. It will henceforth be written in text, captions and datelines as Kyiv. URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv
The Wall Street Journal has today followed the AP on Kyiv over Kiev: https://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2019/10/03/vol-32-no-9-kyiv/ "After careful consideration, we have joined Associated Press and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (5th) in using the spelling Kyiv for the capital of Ukraine, rather than the more-familiar Kiev." (it continues) At this point, I think it's appropriate for tz to change. (I had missed when that one particular Webster's dictionary changed; it is not the same as m-w.com) Because of its...unique project management challenges, I expect Wikipedia will probably be the last thing to switch. (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming/Archive_14#The_time_has_come:...). I don't think we should wait that long. If it doesn't seem like we're ready yet, I would ask how we'll feel when the New York Times or the Washington Post switch (this seems predictable events). -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> wrote on Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:32:27 EDT in <20190814143227.GB20551@alum.mit.edu>:
Subject: An update on AP style on Kyiv
I apologize for stirring the pot by contributing to one of our longer-running topics of late, however: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv
-- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:08:09 -0000 From: "The Definitive Source: <author>" Subject: An update on AP style on Kyiv X-RSS-Feed: https://blog.ap.org/feed.rss X-RSS-ID: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-TAGS: Kyiv,Kiev,Ukraine,AP Style,AP Stylebook,Announcements,featured,Definitive-Source
We are making a significant change in our style for the Ukrainian capital city Kiev. It will henceforth be written in text, captions and datelines as Kyiv.
URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv
I'm comfortable with the TZDB being one of the last to switch as well. I feel it's crucially important that time zone data stay as far from politics as practical, especially on such a charged issue. David Braverman America/Chicago -----Original Message----- From: tz <tz-bounces@iana.org> On Behalf Of John Hawkinson Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 12:30 To: tz@iana.org Subject: [tz] WSJ follows AP to Kyiv The Wall Street Journal has today followed the AP on Kyiv over Kiev: https://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2019/10/03/vol-32-no-9-kyiv/ "After careful consideration, we have joined Associated Press and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (5th) in using the spelling Kyiv for the capital of Ukraine, rather than the more-familiar Kiev." (it continues) At this point, I think it's appropriate for tz to change. (I had missed when that one particular Webster's dictionary changed; it is not the same as m-w.com) Because of its...unique project management challenges, I expect Wikipedia will probably be the last thing to switch. (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming/Archive_14#The_time_has_come:...). I don't think we should wait that long. If it doesn't seem like we're ready yet, I would ask how we'll feel when the New York Times or the Washington Post switch (this seems predictable events). -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> wrote on Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:32:27 EDT in <20190814143227.GB20551@alum.mit.edu>:
Subject: An update on AP style on Kyiv
I apologize for stirring the pot by contributing to one of our longer-running topics of late, however: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv
-- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:08:09 -0000 From: "The Definitive Source: <author>" Subject: An update on AP style on Kyiv X-RSS-Feed: https://blog.ap.org/feed.rss X-RSS-ID: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv X-RSS-TAGS: Kyiv,Kiev,Ukraine,AP Style,AP Stylebook,Announcements,featured,Definitive-Source
We are making a significant change in our style for the Ukrainian capital city Kiev. It will henceforth be written in text, captions and datelines as Kyiv.
URL: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv
On Oct 3, 2019, at 1:29 PM, John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
The Wall Street Journal has today followed the AP on Kyiv over Kiev: https://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2019/10/03/vol-32-no-9-kyiv/ "After careful consideration, we have joined Associated Press and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (5th) in using the spelling Kyiv for the capital of Ukraine, rather than the more-familiar Kiev." (it continues)
At this point, I think it's appropriate for tz to change. (I had missed when that one particular Webster's dictionary changed; it is not the same as m-w.com)
I don't think so. The article you quote gives the justification: it refers to "Kiev" as "more familiar". By the TZ rules, that means "Kiev" remains the name we should use. paul
It still may be a bit early to change. For what it's worth, news sources I read (New York Times, the Economist, the BBC) mostly use "Kiev". I lack time to do a survey and there's no rush, anyway.
On 2019-10-03 14:01, Paul Eggert wrote:
It still may be a bit early to change. For what it's worth, news sources I read (New York Times, the Economist, the BBC) mostly use "Kiev". I lack time to do a survey and there's no rush, anyway.
Most of the English speaking world is unaware of the AP, NYT, WSJ, or what those initials stand for, and the NYT and others are paywalled. US Dictionaries have little distribution except as US references, lacking British spellings used around the world: Collins is the usual inexpensive standard elsewhere, Chambers the alternative: both Scottish publishers until recently, and both unabridged have been the *global* Scrabble standard; Oxford is the major English and more expensive option; Cambridge also publishes some. OTOH the BBC is free and open, the OED is paywalled, but both have global reach and authority: the latter appears to define /Kyiv/ as the *Ukrainian* name for /Kiev/; so Ukrainians should feel free to use it. ;^> -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
Hi, Brian: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote on Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:44:48 EDT in <660107a6-a439-7dd1-5586-9d53e2ae1257@SystematicSw.ab.ca>:
On 2019-10-03 14:01, Paul Eggert wrote:
It still may be a bit early to change. For what it's worth, news sources I read (New York Times, the Economist, the BBC) mostly use "Kiev". I lack time to do a survey and there's no rush, anyway.
Most of the English speaking world is unaware of the AP, NYT, WSJ, or what those initials stand for, and the NYT and others are paywalled.
I apologize for writing my email in a way that may not have been clearly understood by non-US residents. Although I think of tz as a US-authored project and generally imagine my audience is Paul Eggert, your implicit criticism that the message should be easily understood by all (especially, say, Ukranian or Russian speakers in this context) carries a lot of weight. (I also think that anyone who is seriously concerned with English lexicography would be familiar with the abbreviations used, and that was really the audience of that email. But again, it should be understandable by all, without having to Google.) The AP is the Associated Press (although that was made clear in the first quoted sentence of my Oct. 3 email). I didn't actually use the NYT or WSJ abbreviations for The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (although you did). Although I have have since early childhood been somewhat of an OED (Oxford English Dictionary) fanboy, it's a horrible choice for questions of contemporary usage. Because of its mammoth scope, it is generally the last to gain modern words and usage, at least out of the major dictionaries used in the US. I wouldn't generally have raised dictionaries at all, and don't think we should bind ourselves to any of their choices, but because the WSJ blog post I quoted referenced Webster’s New World College Dictionary, I thought it was important to be clear about what that meant (and what it did not). I expect the dictionaries will fairly longly lag major news organizations; they are generally descriptive not prescriptive (at least in this kind of analysis). (I don't think the paywall status of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal have much to do with the conversation at hand. When the New York Times switches, it will be a significant moment for the American English writing and speaking world, independent of whether or not one is a subscriber.) I would be wary of statements about what other should feel free to do. It has the danger of being read as condescension, although I'm sure you meant it humorously. Best not to go there, I think. Thanks. -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson +1 617 797 0250
US Dictionaries have little distribution except as US references, lacking British spellings used around the world: Collins is the usual inexpensive standard elsewhere, Chambers the alternative: both Scottish publishers until recently, and both unabridged have been the *global* Scrabble standard; Oxford is the major English and more expensive option; Cambridge also publishes some.
OTOH the BBC is free and open, the OED is paywalled, but both have global reach and authority: the latter appears to define /Kyiv/ as the *Ukrainian* name for /Kiev/; so Ukrainians should feel free to use it. ;^>
Kyiv Not Kiev. Officially in the United States and internationally! The United States Board on Geographic Names considered the appeal of Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States Valeriy Chaly and unanimously decided to remove "Kiev" as a conventional name and to recognize only one official spelling - "Kyiv", as the correct name for the capital of Ukraine. The position expressed by the Ambassador was also supported by the appeals of members of the US bipartisan Congressional Ukraine Caucus, as well as the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America. The new data will be available on the GEOnet Names Server of the United States Board on Geographic Names since coming Monday, June 17th. This decision is extremely important and gives impetus to correct the official name of the Ukraine's capital inside and outside the United States, in particular on international flights and in airports around the world, because many international organizations, including the International Air Transport Association (IATA), refer specifically to official names in the database of the United States Board on Geographic Names. https://www.facebook.com/ukr.embassy.usa/photos/a.437547496288488/2315684948... сб, 5 окт. 2019 г. в 01:46, John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu>:
Hi, Brian:
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote on Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:44:48 EDT in <660107a6-a439-7dd1-5586-9d53e2ae1257@SystematicSw.ab.ca>:
On 2019-10-03 14:01, Paul Eggert wrote:
It still may be a bit early to change. For what it's worth, news sources I read (New York Times, the Economist, the BBC) mostly use "Kiev". I lack time to do a survey and there's no rush, anyway.
Most of the English speaking world is unaware of the AP, NYT, WSJ, or what those initials stand for, and the NYT and others are paywalled.
I apologize for writing my email in a way that may not have been clearly understood by non-US residents. Although I think of tz as a US-authored project and generally imagine my audience is Paul Eggert, your implicit criticism that the message should be easily understood by all (especially, say, Ukranian or Russian speakers in this context) carries a lot of weight.
(I also think that anyone who is seriously concerned with English lexicography would be familiar with the abbreviations used, and that was really the audience of that email. But again, it should be understandable by all, without having to Google.)
The AP is the Associated Press (although that was made clear in the first quoted sentence of my Oct. 3 email). I didn't actually use the NYT or WSJ abbreviations for The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (although you did).
Although I have have since early childhood been somewhat of an OED (Oxford English Dictionary) fanboy, it's a horrible choice for questions of contemporary usage. Because of its mammoth scope, it is generally the last to gain modern words and usage, at least out of the major dictionaries used in the US.
I wouldn't generally have raised dictionaries at all, and don't think we should bind ourselves to any of their choices, but because the WSJ blog post I quoted referenced Webster’s New World College Dictionary, I thought it was important to be clear about what that meant (and what it did not). I expect the dictionaries will fairly longly lag major news organizations; they are generally descriptive not prescriptive (at least in this kind of analysis).
(I don't think the paywall status of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal have much to do with the conversation at hand. When the New York Times switches, it will be a significant moment for the American English writing and speaking world, independent of whether or not one is a subscriber.)
I would be wary of statements about what other should feel free to do. It has the danger of being read as condescension, although I'm sure you meant it humorously. Best not to go there, I think.
Thanks.
-- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson +1 617 797 0250
US Dictionaries have little distribution except as US references, lacking British spellings used around the world: Collins is the usual inexpensive standard elsewhere, Chambers the alternative: both Scottish publishers until recently, and both unabridged have been the *global* Scrabble standard; Oxford is the major English and more expensive option; Cambridge also publishes some.
OTOH the BBC is free and open, the OED is paywalled, but both have global reach and authority: the latter appears to define /Kyiv/ as the *Ukrainian* name for /Kiev/; so Ukrainians should feel free to use it. ;^>
Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote on Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 16:01:10 EDT in <25fed242-3dab-5143-2f63-19cbc3d53420@cs.ucla.edu>:
It still may be a bit early to change. For what it's worth, news sources I read (New York Times, the Economist, the BBC) mostly use "Kiev".
The New York Times appears to have flipped late night Monday, and now uses Kyiv. See postscript for the BBC. I think there's real value in getting on the bandwagon now, rather than waiting for some other later point in time where the point of inflection clearly in the past, and the fact that we're subtly promoting something that is offensive to the nationals of the county in question who are fighting a pretty serious war that arguably is symbolized by this question (that's an absurd reduction of course; but that's the nature of symbols) is even more sharply in relief. The NYT's transition was presaged by an article last week by Karen Zraick, "Wait, How Do You Pronounce Kiev?", https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/kiev-pronunciation.html , which focused on pronounciation but touched on spelling: Back to Kiev: There is also debate over how to spell it. The official State Department biography of George P. Kent, who testified on Wednesday, spells it Kyiv, which reflects the transliteration from Ukrainian. The New York Times still spells it Kiev, which is the transliteration from Russian. (Mr. Kent, a senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy, used a pronunciation closer to the Ukrainian version.) But it would appear that as of Monday Nov. 18, the Times has actually shifted. See especially the David Sanger story that runs on p. A20 today, "How Not to Plot Secret Foreign Policy: On a Cellphone and WhatsApp," https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/giuliani-cellphone-hacking-ru... , with its: A former senior American intelligence official speculated that one explanation is that Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Sondland were essentially doing the Russians’ work for them. Holding up military aid — for whatever reason — assists the Russian “gray war” in eastern Ukraine * and sows doubts in Kyiv, also known as * Kiev in the Russian transliteration, that the United States is wholly supportive of Ukraine, a fear that many State Department and National Security Council officials have expressed in testimony. (The Kyiv spelling recurs in other stories today, albiet without the same gloss alluding to Russian vs. Ukranian issues, e.g. Charlie Savage's A1 story this morning "Impeachment Investigators Exploring Whether Trump Lied to Mueller," https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-mueller-impeachment.htm... as well as the ensemble contribution from the Washington bureau, "Ex-Envoy to Testify He Didn’t Know Ukraine Aid Was Tied to Investigations", https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html. The latter does have "Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital also known as Kiev" though.) I realize it undercuts the idea that our decision should be based solely on English language usage, but it's difficult to read the news and watch the House hearings that focus on Ukraine without thinking about the elements of Western/NATO statecraft that come here (including the recent letter from the Chargé), and the US efforts to support Ukraine as an independent country struggling to rebuild itself anew after the Revolution of Dignity. What would we say if diplomats in the US State Department reached out privately to Paul and asked him to accellerate the change and made an argument that doing so was to promote Ukrainian sovereignty and that was a preeminent national security interest of the United States? I imagine that the struggle there would be a difficult one for Paul to handle. Wouldn't it be convenient if we made the decision prior to such pressures being brought to bear? :) [ I have no reason to think that they have been, nor do I have any inside information to suggest that they would be. ] Note to people searching nytimes.com for evidence, don't be tripped up by the stories from wire services, which the Times runs on its website without altering the Kyiv/Kiev spelling, and which appear with quite some frequency, especially given Ukraine's relevance to US news. After the Associated Press transitioned, AP stories would appear with Kyiv on nytimes.com (and my fuzzy memory is that's true with other wire services?). At present, Reuters seems to still use Kiev, so there are recent stories with that spelling to be found. And Tom Friedman's column for print on Wednesday was online now prior to the change, so appears to still use Kiev (assuming it is site-wide shift and not a news-side shift, which I think is a fair presumption). Also, for some time there have been stories that quote directly from hearing and deposition transcripts that used Kyiv, even when the Times still used Kiev, so there are peculiar hybrids. p.s.: I read neither the BBC nor the Economist with any regularity so I can't speak to them as a knowledgable reader like I can for the NYT, but the Economist appears to remain with "Kiev" and the BBC seems to have plenty of Kyiv refereneces, most recently with https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50458521, "Russia returns Ukrainian boats seized off Crimea" dated Nov. 18. -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson
On 19 Nov 2019, at 08:42, John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
p.s.: I read neither the BBC nor the Economist with any regularity so I can't speak to them as a knowledgable reader like I can for the NYT, but the Economist appears to remain with "Kiev" and the BBC seems to have plenty of Kyiv refereneces, most recently with https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50458521, "Russia returns Ukrainian boats seized off Crimea" dated Nov. 18.
The BBC now favours Kyiv. The BBC Academy page about names at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133537> now says "Kyiv not Kiev". This is a recent change. I looked at this page after one of John's earlier postings, either the 3 October or 14 August one, and at that point it still said "Kiev not Kyiv". I don't read The Economist, and they sell their syle guide as a printed book so I couldn't find it online, but a quick search suggests they still prefer Kiev. Hits for Kyiv seem mainly in the comments. Of the four "quality" newspapers in the UK, The Times and the Independent (the ones I read) use Kiev. The Times sell their style guide as a book. I could't find an Independent style guide but I did find this, from this January: <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editors-letter/independent-articles-hou...> That confirms they use Kiev, but may be open to changing at some point. The Telegraph style guide (<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/style-book/>) has nothing about Kiev/Kyiv. A search shows the website uses Kiev, except for names, like the football club Dynamo Kyiv. Another example is a hotel review at <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukraine/kiev/hotels/>. They name the hotel as InterContinental Kyiv but use Kiev everywhere else in the text. Unfortunately it is undated, so isn't good evidence of current usage. The final one of the four, the Guardian (and its Sunday stablemate the Observer) use Kyiv. Their style guide at <https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-k> says "Kyiv not Kiev; but chicken kiev". -- Peter Ilieve
Peter Ilieve via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
The BBC Academy page about names at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133537> now says "Kyiv not Kiev". This is a recent change.
The "searchable version" of the BBC News style guide says explicitly: | Kyiv (Updated October 2019) | | is our preference for the capital of Ukraine and not Kiev or other | variations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20131010112740749 -- Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
On 2019-11-19 04:29, Peter Ilieve via tz wrote:
The Telegraph style guide (<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/style-book/>) has nothing about Kiev/Kyiv. A search shows the website uses Kiev, except for names, like the football club Dynamo Kyiv. Another example is a hotel review at <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukraine/kiev/hotels/>. They name the hotel as InterContinental Kyiv but use Kiev everywhere else in the text. Unfortunately it is undated, so isn't good evidence of current usage.
The article appears to be a year old: <meta name="DCSext.articleFirstPublished" content="2018-10-02 17:26"/> [I still maintain that spelling is too new to change in general content, and most English readers will not recognize, but will ignore anything using it. So the Ukraine may win in using Ukrainian transliteration, but will lose in interest in anything using that in a subject or headline. Use of Kyiv in a subject or headline would be better replaced by Ukraine for the foreseeable future to attract eyeballs; use Kyiv if you want the content ignored by English readers. Seems like the kind of campaign that could have been initiated by Fancy Bear, to increase the possibility that future moves will be ignored by English readers: Ukraine wins a point but loses a campaign!] Kind of irrelevant to tz identifiers, which should remain immutable. I would go so far as to suggest reversion of all time zone id name changes that correspond to the historical mistake of changing time zone id spelling only, not because of differences found in time zone content. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
* John Hawkinson:
What would we say if diplomats in the US State Department reached out privately to Paul and asked him to accellerate the change and made an argument that doing so was to promote Ukrainian sovereignty and that was a preeminent national security interest of the United States?
Should the U.S. government really be the arbiter of how the citizens of Kyiv call themselves? I've changed my mind about this: Ignoring their request denies them one of the most basic aspects of self-determination. I don't see much of a difference anymore compared to, say, referring to transgender people using their pre-transition pronouns, against their explicit wishes.
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
Should the U.S. government really be the arbiter of how the citizens of Kyiv call themselves? I've changed my mind about this: Ignoring their request denies them one of the most basic aspects of self-determination. I don't see much of a difference anymore compared to, say, referring to transgender people using their pre-transition pronouns, against their explicit wishes.
If I were to be so bold (if not annoying) ... I don't think that's the argument.** I think the arguments are, to even be more bold (even I'm possibly too ignorant to post) ... 1) What are the thresholds to change the official Zoneinfo Path, not just an alias or other name, but the Path, of a Zone? 2) How to handle any alias to the old name(s), when the official Path is to be changed (per #1)? 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)? 4) How do we prevent this precedent of 'self-determination,' if implemented, from being used for other regions, that are 'contested'? I don't think anyone is against the wishes of anyone, but just trying to find the point where we 'overcome inertia.' It's the 'inertia' we're interested in, even if it seems 'common sense' to change among everyone. And then there's #4. I'm thinking of various things from the Middle East to the American South Atlantic, let alone in east Ukraine itself, which aren't as 'clear cut,' when 'self-determination' is used. Even the UN is still arguing over them, and many things are left unresolved. We have to make sure this decision fits in ways that #4 isn't suddenly an issue. - bjs **P.S. I think everyone, by default (ignoring the conflict-driven, advertising-based, for-profit US media, of course ;) ), practices what we, even if more isolated, North Americans call "The Golden Rule" -- i.e., "treat/consider others as you would want to be treated/considered." I will always remember one of our Jewish-American broadcasters who spoke of our fellow, African-American, Muslim convert when he began with these words, even a supermajority of the sports media refused to see it the same way, "The man wants to be alled Muhammad Ali ..." -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me
On Nov 19, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
1) What are the thresholds to change the official Zoneinfo Path, not just an alias or other name, but the Path, of a Zone?
theory.html doesn't appear to address this. On 2008-03-18, some name changes were made: Calcutta -> Kolkata Saigon -> Ho_Chi_Minh Both reflect changes made well before 2008; for example, the respelling of Kolkata occurred in 2001: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/02/492447039/tk The first of those changes is the one closest to Kiev vs. Kyiv - the latter isn't just a respelling, it's a renaming, and apparently also corresponded to the incorporation of some other districts outside what was Saigon into the city.
2) How to handle any alias to the old name(s), when the official Path is to be changed (per #1)?
Presumably, the same way that those other changes were made; a Link line is added to the "backward" file, so the old name remains for backwards compatibility, as a link to the new name (at least if you're using a file system that supports links).
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.
I'd like to add two data points to the discussion: 1) CLDR 35 added Kyiv as a formal alternative name. This is the first time that has been done in CLDR. The English (en.xml) file now has the following: <zone type="Europe/Kiev"> <exemplarCity>Kiev</exemplarCity> <exemplarCity alt="formal">Kyiv</exemplarCity> </zone> See: https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-11416 https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/commit/7d19b8ab566f42882da9cccddc145b4b9... 2) The English display name given by Windows for this zone is: "(UTC+02:00) Helsinki, Kyiv, Riga, Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius". It's a different data set, and is influenced by Microsoft's decision-makers, but is indeed a label that has been applied to a time zone with the Kyiv spelling. Given these as precedent, I would not be in favor of renaming the Zone but I would be in favor of a Link entry added for Europe/Kyiv (with Europe/Kiev remaining the Zone entry for now). I get this is backwards from the usual approach, but seems to be a reasonable compromise. Also, I notice that theory.html doesn't discuss Link entries at all. Perhaps that should be rectified? -Matt ________________________________ From: tz <tz-bounces@iana.org> on behalf of Guy Harris <guy@alum.mit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:01 PM To: Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> Cc: Time Zone Mailing List <tz@iana.org>; John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> Subject: Re: [tz] WSJ follows AP to Kyiv On Nov 19, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
1) What are the thresholds to change the official Zoneinfo Path, not just an alias or other name, but the Path, of a Zone?
theory.html doesn't appear to address this. On 2008-03-18, some name changes were made: Calcutta -> Kolkata Saigon -> Ho_Chi_Minh Both reflect changes made well before 2008; for example, the respelling of Kolkata occurred in 2001: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/02/492447039/tk The first of those changes is the one closest to Kiev vs. Kyiv - the latter isn't just a respelling, it's a renaming, and apparently also corresponded to the incorporation of some other districts outside what was Saigon into the city.
2) How to handle any alias to the old name(s), when the official Path is to be changed (per #1)?
Presumably, the same way that those other changes were made; a Link line is added to the "backward" file, so the old name remains for backwards compatibility, as a link to the new name (at least if you're using a file system that supports links).
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.
Guy Harris wrote:
Bryan J Smith wrote:
1) What are the thresholds to change the official Zoneinfo Path, not just an alias or other name, but the Path, of a Zone? theory.html doesn't appear to address this.
I was hoping someone would state this (thank you), as I felt the same after re-reading the theory file. Again, I could be very ignorant as 'lurker' of around 13+ years now. Guy Harris wrote:
On 2008-03-18, some name changes were made: Calcutta -> Kolkata Saigon -> Ho_Chi_Minh Both reflect changes made well before 2008; for example, the respelling of Kolkata occurred in 2001: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/02/492447039/tk The first of those changes is the one closest to Kiev vs. Kyiv - the latter isn't just a respelling, it's a renaming, and apparently also corresponded to the incorporation of some other districts outside what was Saigon into the city.
2) How to handle any alias to the old name(s), when the official Path is to be changed (per #1)? Presumably, the same way that those other changes were made; a Link line is added to the "backward" file, so the old name remains for backwards compatibility, as a link to the new name (at least if you're using a file system that supports links).
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. This is why we have a zone named Europe/Rome and not Europe/Roma, or Europe/Moscow rather than Europe/Москва́.
So this is yet another consideration, because I understand it (again, insert possibly ignorance on my part) ... - Linguistical: Anglicized - Technical: Historically UTF-7 US/NIST ASCII (again, circa '86) The former addresses ... - Roma, which fits in UTF-7 Plus, now ... - Kyiv, which fits in UTF-7 But we could clarify further, historically. So maybe it's time to put something, even if just further clarifications, in theory.html, as this comes up and I could see it this way, as others do. Then, _after_ that, only could the project (not saying so) start the debate of (and this is just what I could think) ... A) If it fits in UTF-7, should we allow it to be changed? B) If it fits in some Latin set, will it be allowed to be changed? C) And if now Latin ISO, then how far do we go? Although "A" could have merit, it's going to launch a lot of issues, whereby if Kyiv is adopted, others will argue yet others, and then Latin ("B"), and then non-Latin ("C"). I.e., I don't see this as Kyiv only, but being a project-wide change to Roma, possibly others ... and then the 'rolls downhill' after that. Then again, for the hypothetical question about the State Department, my
inclination would be to say that this isn't relevant either. While the TZ database operates in the English language, and a number of its contributors are based in the USA, it is not an activity of the US government nor affiliated with it nor controlled by it.
I always forget this as an American, that most people will look at US entities involved with these as US Federal, when they are often private, possibly not even publicly subsidized (or not much at all), and there is no US Federal authority. I.e., the common default that no control or power is granted until law, let alone Supreme (Constitutional), or asserted as such in the courts -- and pre-emption over private (or even State/Local) is not the default of the US Federal, and that's a very, very foreign concept to many non-Americans.
And more importantly, the database doesn't operate on political considerations, that is VERY clear from the theory file. If it were to change to do so, all hell would break loose -- we already have way too many people pushing changes for political reasons but fortunately at the moment we can dismiss those.
Ergo, my comment about Middle East, American South Atlantic, let alone eastern Ukraine. The problem is things like Kyiv (or Roma), that fit in UTF-7. We probably could use further clarification in the theory file on the historical standard of US/Anglicized. Just a suggestion. It may be unwarranted. - bjs P.S. I also wanted to post again to DISCLAIM my comments as 100% my own, made as a peer professional, and 0% representative as myself associated with any other entities or organizations. Simply put, I'm an [often ignorant] American engineer-technologist that does his best to be aware of global considerations, but also respects historical inertia and resistance to change for very sound, documented reasons of sustainability and maintainability (even if seemingly US or English-based).
On Nov 19, 2019, at 2:31 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
So this is yet another consideration, because I understand it (again, insert possibly ignorance on my part) ... - Linguistical: Anglicized - Technical: Historically UTF-7 US/NIST ASCII (again, circa '86)
The items in theory.html that might correspond to those would presumably be: * Use only valid POSIX file name components (i.e., the parts of names other than '/'). Do not use the file name components '.' and '..'. Within a file name component, use only ASCII letters, '.', '-' and '_'. Do not use digits, as that might create an ambiguity with POSIX TZ strings. A file name component must not exceed 14 characters or start with '-'. E.g., prefer Asia/Brunei to Asia/Bandar_Seri_Begawan. Exceptions: see the discussion of legacy names below. and * Use mainstream English spelling, e.g., prefer Europe/Rome to Europa/Roma, and prefer Europe/Athens to the Greek Ευρώπη/Αθήνα or the Romanized Evrópi/Athína. The POSIX file name restrictions encourage this guideline. We should probably *exclude* UTF-7, as +{modified Base64-encoded UTF-16}- 1) is ugly and 2) makes it more likely that we'd hit the 14-character limit. Admittedly, the 14-character limit is *probably* not an issue on most UN*Xes and isn't an issue on modern Windows ("modern" as in "post-1995" :-)), but we may want to continue it for compatibility with any other software that has that limit wired in. So it's historically "POSIX portable character set": https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap06.html and probably "printable characters in the POSIX portable character set, and no spaces, either". I'll leave it up to Paul to give the justification for why we prefer mainstream English spelling even if that can be done with printable ASCII.
The former addresses ... - Roma, which fits in UTF-7
That's not a component of a former tzdb identifier! We *never* used Europe/Roma - it was *always* Europe/Rome under the new naming scheme. (I'm not sure what we did, if anything, for Italy in the old naming scheme; there's nothing in the "backward" file, as opposed to (the Republic of) Ireland, where we now have Europe/Dublin and previously had Eire.) Calcutta *is* a component of a former address; both it *and* Kolkata fit in printable ASCII.
Plus, now ... - Kyiv, which fits in UTF-7
Or, more to the point, fits in printable ASCII. We could fit both Київ and Киев into UTF-7, but not into printable ASCII. We can, however, fit both Kyiv and Kiev into printable ASCII, so the *character encoding required* is not an issue when it comes to "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev".
But we could clarify further, historically. So maybe it's time to put something, even if just further clarifications, in theory.html, as this comes up and I could see it this way, as others do.
Then, _after_ that, only could the project (not saying so) start the debate of (and this is just what I could think) ...
A) If it fits in UTF-7, should we allow it to be changed?
Only if it also fits in printable ASCII. If it requires anything outside of printable ASCII, no.
B) If it fits in some Latin set, will it be allowed to be changed?
See previous answer.
I.e., I don't see this as Kyiv only, but being a project-wide change to Roma, possibly others ... and then the 'rolls downhill' after that.
"Rome" vs. "Roma" is not equivalent to "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev". "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev" is closer to "Kolkata" vs. "Calcutta". We use "Rome" rather than "Roma" because we want "mainstream English spelling". "Kyiv" and "Kiev" *are* romanized versions of "Київ" and "Киев", respectively. Neither "Київ" nor "Киев" are "mainstream English spelling"; the question is whether "Kyiv" or "Kiev" is the "mainstream English spelling" of the city's name. It appears that "Kyiv" has become more mainstream over time. The "mainstream English spelling" of city names in countries where English is not a (the?) primary language doesn't necessarily match that of the name in the native language. "Berlin" is "Berlin", but "München" is "Munich" and "Москва́" is "Moscow". Perhaps, in some alternate world, the English-language name of the capital of Ukraine could have been "Kiv", which is neither a transliteration of the Ukrainian name nor the Russian name, in which case the tzdb id would have been "Europe/Kiv".
Guy Harris wrote:
Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
- Technical: Historically UTF-7 US/NIST ASCII (again, circa '86)
You're right, I should have said ... - Technical: Historically UTF-7 _printable_ US/NIST ASCII (again, circa '86) -- _hereafter_ merely referred to as UTF-7 I think the rest of this became an issue with my using an abbreviation (UTF-7) after defining it (UTF-7 printable US/NIST ASCII) without adding that last bit. I was also _never_ arguing for/against anything, but what _others_ keep bringing up, that could be 'better clarified' in the theory file. We use "Rome" rather than "Roma" because we want "mainstream English
spelling".
Correct, and people keep bringing up why that should be changed. But, again, if we look at changing things, then we're opening up a huge hole because it will no longer be about just UTF-7. That's the point I was making. That's all. ;) - bjs
On Nov 19, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
You're right, I should have said ... - Technical: Historically UTF-7 _printable_ US/NIST ASCII (again, circa '86) -- _hereafter_ merely referred to as UTF-7
I think the rest of this became an issue with my using an abbreviation (UTF-7) after defining it
UTF-7 is defined as "A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode" by two RFCs: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1642 and its successor https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2152 (I think both co-authors of those RFCs are on this mailing list.) The abbreviation should be used *only* to refer to the mail-safe transformation format of Unicode specified by those RFCs, not for anything *not* a 7-bit transformation format of Unicode. So please don't use "UTF-7" unless you're talking about support for full UTF-7-encoded Unicode city names in tzdb ids; if you're not, just speak of "printable ASCII" or "printable US/NIST ASCII" or whatever, as that will reduce confusion.
We use "Rome" rather than "Roma" because we want "mainstream English spelling".
Correct, and people keep bringing up why that should be changed.
Presumably meaning "why the requirement for "mainstream English spelling" should be changed" (not "why the tzdb ID for that region should be changed to Europe/Roma, as I've seen nobody ask for it to be changed).
Guy Harris wrote:
just speak of "printable ASCII" or "printable US/NIST ASCII" or whatever, as that will reduce confusion.
My error then. And I use UTF-7 as shorthand (incorrectly) too much, and will no longer. Thank you for correcting me. (not "why the tzdb ID for that region should be changed to Europe/Roma, as
I've seen nobody ask for it to be changed).
I should have probably stated that I get the Anglization or English question a lot when dealing with Zoneinfo, and a few other ISOC related standards. I know several vendors do as well, and I've has to deal with non-North American partners often. The theory file has been my answer, and I guess some will always find it insufficient in current form. Not saying it be should be changed, just always answering to others it could be changed, if they have recommendations. As I disclaimed, I could very well be ignorant of many aspects. - bjs
<<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.
Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 17:31:07 EST in <CAH1d5rnBc_XPca0L7QStURnmnXvTcFX68jQEXraPaijMrkw9Fw@mail.gmail.com>:
But we could clarify further, historically. So maybe it's time to put something, even if just further clarifications, in theory.html, as this comes up and I could see it this way, as others do.
To the extent that I'm properly interpreting this, I think this would be a mistake and we should not do so at this time. I read Bryan to be suggesting we should make rules for when a zone should be renamed in theory.html. One thing I think is clear is that renaming does not happen very often, and that we don't have a clear understanding of the criteria, and we really don't have sufficient basis to engage in rulemaking. If we don't even fully understand the criteria for the instant hard case (Kiev/Kyiv), then we're not in a good position to generalize the rule. (If Bryan is suggesting something else, then I apologize). -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson +1 617 797 0250 p.s.: My long message that picked up this thread gave plenty of observational statements about the NYT but not a prescriptive statement from them as to their policy. Turns out there were two (at least) of those, as well. This tweet, yesterday, https://twitter.com/AndrewKramerNYT/status/1196496095184084997 from their Moscow correspondent stating the change. And he also offered a similar comment in the NYT's livechat re this morning's House hearing, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/19/us/politics/trump-impeachment....
On 11/19/19 4:31 PM, John Hawkinson wrote:
I read Bryan to be suggesting we should make rules for when a zone should be renamed in theory.html. One thing I think is clear is that renaming does not happen very often, and that we don't have a clear understanding of the criteria, and we really don't have sufficient basis to engage in rulemaking.
Yes, there doesn't seem to be a need to invent or develop new guidelines. However, there is some precedent and documenting it should be useful, if only to help simplify future discussion (others have already commented on the length of this thread :-). Although I suppose this could be read as a new guideline, I think it's more of an existing guideline that hadn't been written down clearly yet. Proposed patch attached.
On 11/19/19 2:01 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
Perhaps Calcutta -> Kolkata, although that one may not have been as politically sensitive as this one.
Another one is Godthab->Nuuk, a renaming that is long overdue, as the consensus English-language spelling changed years ago. I'd rather follow Calcutta's precedent, which is to change the name with a backwards-compatibility link. Proposed patch attached, and installed into the development version. Kiev->Kyiv could be handled similarly, though two of my three most-used news sources (Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Economist) write "Kiev" so caution is advised. The New York Times switched from "Godthab" to "Nuuk" in the mid-1980s, so if it switches from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" later this year and we follow a similar timetable, we could rename Europe/Kiev in the year 2053 or so. (I'm not seriously proposing this; just giving a little perspective.) For what it's worth, the mid-1980s spelling change was in response to what the New York Times called "militant Eskimos, and everybody who wants to avoid offending them". See: Borders W. Eskimos are showing new militancy. New York Times. 1982-03-07. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/07/world/eskimos-are-showing-new-militancy.h...
That would really settle the issue, and end this rather irrelevant discussion.
Am 20.11.2019 um 00:36 schrieb Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>:
I'd rather follow Calcutta's precedent, which is to change the name with a backwards-compatibility link.
On Nov 19, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
* John Hawkinson:
What would we say if diplomats in the US State Department reached out privately to Paul and asked him to accellerate the change and made an argument that doing so was to promote Ukrainian sovereignty and that was a preeminent national security interest of the United States?
Should the U.S. government really be the arbiter of how the citizens of Kyiv call themselves?
That isn't the question. The TZ names are by convention derived from the English language designations for the place names in question. This is why we have a zone named Europe/Rome and not Europe/Roma, or Europe/Moscow rather than Europe/Москва́. Then again, for the hypothetical question about the State Department, my inclination would be to say that this isn't relevant either. While the TZ database operates in the English language, and a number of its contributors are based in the USA, it is not an activity of the US government nor affiliated with it nor controlled by it. And more importantly, the database doesn't operate on political considerations, that is VERY clear from the theory file. If it were to change to do so, all hell would break loose -- we already have way too many people pushing changes for political reasons but fortunately at the moment we can dismiss those. paul
participants (14)
-
Adam Sampson -
Alois Treindl -
Brian Inglis -
Bryan J Smith -
David Braverman -
Florian Weimer -
Garrett Wollman -
Guy Harris -
John Hawkinson -
Matt Johnson-Pint -
Oleg O.Pashin -
Paul Eggert -
Paul.Koning＠dell.com -
Peter Ilieve