Several San Antonio Express-News and MySA.com readers have called regarding the name of the city in India where a series of rush-hour railway explosions killed 200 people Tuesday.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio, to name three media, say it happened in Mumbai, India, with NPR adding, “formerly Bombay.” The Express-News, MySA.com, the Washington Post and the Associated Press are among the many media that refer to the city as Bombay.
In this case, the Express-News is following the lead of AP, which filed the story published Wednesday here in San Antonio.
Here’s a recent question (from an editor at the Tampa Tribune) about the Bombay/Mumbai confusion and AP’s answer (posted on an AP Web site):
Q: “The only reference to Bombay or Mumbai, India, found in searching the online AP Stylebook is the Air India entry, which says the headquarters is in Mumbai. Webster’s (New World College Dictionary 4th Edition) says Mumbai was formerly Bombay. Yet AP continues to move stories with a Bombay dateline. Could you please clarify?”
A: “AP is staying with Bombay for the time being. The Air India entry reference to Mumbai will be corrected.”
I think a better question is: Why is AP resisting the new name? If it’s good enough for the city fathers of Mumbai, it should be good enough for AP.
Bombay was the city’s name for most of the past 400 years. The origin of the name is thought to have come from the Portuguese “bom bahia,” or “good bay.” But Mumbai is the historical name for the place, and the name of the city was officially changed to Mumbai by the Indian Parliament in 1997.
AP should get with it and update its stylebook. The AP dateline should by Mumbai, not Bombay.
