One would expect articles not in the anglosphere to not have much input from the anglosphere, but it ain't so.

One common feature is the credit given for the origin of words, even when it contradicts itself.

For a rather silly example, take the word 'achar', which means 'pickle' in many south asian languages. It is labeled as persian in origin. The fact that old avestan is bastardized sanskrit aside, articles linked on the same page contradict this. One such is as follows:

The article on 'acar', the south-east asian version of pickle, clearly states that it is directly descendent from the south-asian terminology. The time of spread is in the 200-800AD period, much before Persian spread to the Indian sub-continent with the Islamic invasions in the 1000-1300AD period.

I have identified more than a dozen such cases of glorifying invaders from just a cursory search. Apparently, the west has trouble coming to terms with the fact that civilization can evolve natively, without contributions from disruptive external forces.