4 ms·

Recently it was Israel's Independence Day. I was looking for something about Israel's War of Independence and I saw these Wikipedia articles https://en.m.wikipe

Recently it was Israel's Independence Day. I was looking for something about Israel's War of Independence and I saw these Wikipedia articles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_Wa... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931949_Palestine_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931949_Palestine_... . Imagine if the article on the American Revolutionary War was renames to the First British American War. I've come to simply expect that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything somewhat political.

Gare 4y ago
English Wikipedia is written from PoV of English sources (and therefore English-speaking countries). It should use a name that is most common in those countries.
morpheuskafka 4y ago
A quick search for "1948 Arab Israeli War" shows several links from US and pro-Israel sources using the term, which seems to be a relatively neutral way to refer to it: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-... https://israeled.org/the-arab-israeli-war-of-1948-a-short-history/ https://israeled.org/the-arab-israeli-war-of-1948-a-short-hi... While the term British-American War is not in active use, I don't think either side would have any problem with it. It's not like there is any secret the Americans were fighting against the British.
assttoasstmgr 4y ago
My favorite example of this is when Apple renamed Mac OS X to "macOS", someone went around and retroactively renamed nearly every mention of "OS X" on Wikipedia to "macOS" even in situations where it makes absolutely no sense, as "macOS" did not exist during the topic/time period which the article references.
noobermin 4y ago
No offense, as long as the titles match what is used in English media (for English wikipedia) and even lists other common names in the lede, then that's fine. Also redirect from other known names. Being offended by lack of content is one thing, being offended by a different title than you expect is a bit much.

Gare 4y ago

English Wikipedia is written from PoV of English sources (and therefore English-speaking countries). It should use a name that is most common in those countries.

morpheuskafka 4y ago

A quick search for "1948 Arab Israeli War" shows several links from US and pro-Israel sources using the term, which seems to be a relatively neutral way to refer to it: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-... https://israeled.org/the-arab-israeli-war-of-1948-a-short-history/ https://israeled.org/the-arab-israeli-war-of-1948-a-short-hi... While the term British-American War is not in active use, I don't think either side would have any problem with it. It's not like there is any secret the Americans were fighting against the British.

assttoasstmgr 4y ago

My favorite example of this is when Apple renamed Mac OS X to "macOS", someone went around and retroactively renamed nearly every mention of "OS X" on Wikipedia to "macOS" even in situations where it makes absolutely no sense, as "macOS" did not exist during the topic/time period which the article references.

noobermin 4y ago

No offense, as long as the titles match what is used in English media (for English wikipedia) and even lists other common names in the lede, then that's fine. Also redirect from other known names. Being offended by lack of content is one thing, being offended by a different title than you expect is a bit much.