3 ms·
Why would you consider this bias? Every country has its own viewpoint on history. The details of the American war for Independence are hardly interesting for ev
by jkscm 13y ago
Why would you consider this bias? Every country has its own viewpoint on history. The details of the American war for Independence are hardly interesting for every other country.
Spanish historians know more about spanish battle commanders.
- mogrim 13y ago> Why would you consider this bias? Because it quite patently is. The English language article about the battle makes little mention of any Spanish contribution, and portrays it as basically Wellington and the British vs. the French; the Spanish article highlights the Spanish contribution, almost describing the battle as a Spanish victory with some help from the other allied forces. My gut feeling is that the English language article is more reliable - it includes a numerical breakdown of the allied army which (if correct) shows the relative unimportance of the Spanish contribution, the map of the battle shows the commanders were all British, etc. But of course, I'm English, and I bring my own bias to the table...
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoIs it bias of the article or of the sources (or both)? Are both articles well cited?
- mogrim 13y agoA good question, and one for a historian to answer - not me! The example I picked shows bias, but as I stated earlier I'm unsure as to which article is closer to the truth. Just for the record, though, the English article includes 9 citations, including a primary source (Wellington's notes), while the Spanish article mentions 4 history books (and 3 novels and a comic) yet doesn't specifically cite them in the text. Again, I suspect the English article is probably more accurate, but as use of citations is also a characteristic of fraudulent scientific papers this difference certainly isn't a completely dependable indicator.
- judk 13y agoWikipedia has language versions, not national versions.