Cross-domain
Abortion
Language openings contradict each other on something important.
Something to inspect — not a judgment of bias or bad faith.
Overview
Use this briefing to choose what to inspect. The tabs contain the underlying comparisons.
Open the live English Wikipedia article ↗No current rewrite result is available for this article. This is missing coverage, not a finding that no rewrite occurred.
Different websites cited: 70 → 107. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Compared around the rewrite window. See Framing.
Did editors fight over it?
Editors spent a lot of energy undoing each other’s work (lots of reverts). A loud fight does not prove anyone is biased. About 13,570 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 7.8 years old or newer. 15.9% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 41.7% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 469 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-01-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
Not available in this export: Rewrite, Vocabulary. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
Rewrite analysis is not available
No current rewrite result is available for this article. This is missing coverage, not a finding that no rewrite occurred.
Persistence-weighted changeThe share of wording lost, weighted so text that survived more snapshots counts more. by interval
Each row reports established wording lost, standing wording gained, and paired change as a replacement lead. The bar shows loss for continuity with earlier reports. Below-floor anomalies remain descriptive evidence but cannot receive exact confirmation. A coverage gap is shown descriptively but excluded from detector decisions. Candidate-window labels report the exact revision-level decision for the broader window containing that interval.
How the detector reached this state
- 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.Candidate signal foundThe coarse scan found a deletion-heavy window worth exact checking.
- 2 · Interval scoring24 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
- 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
- 2003-01-01Loss 2.0%64 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 94.9%7,128 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 32.6%388 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 74.7%3,011 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 43.5%3,420 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 25.7%5,642 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 39.1%13,346 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 5.7%2,178 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 30.0%17,421 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 46.7%28,720 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 5.6%3,312 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 4.3%3,572 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 3.8%4,177 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 10.5%14,600 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 3.7%5,920 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 11.9%22,848 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.3%2,774 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 8.1%20,070 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 5.1%13,870 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 1.2%3,509 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 13.4%46,329 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 1.6%5,583 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 3.9%15,516 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 5.1%22,068 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at 2010-01-01 → 2026-01-01 (across the L1 pivot ~2010-01-01): 98 websites were cited more (or newly), 46 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 153 → 375. Different websites: 70 → 107.
Mix of citation types: journal 50%, web 22%, book 22%, news 7% → journal 42%, web 27%, book 24%, news 5%, report 1%, press 0%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| guttmacher.org | 9 → 38 |
| who.int | 6 → 24 |
| books.google.com | 13 → 30 |
| archive.org | 0 → 12 |
| apps.who.int | 0 → 9 |
| contraceptionjournal.org | 0 → 8 |
| prochoice.org | 1 → 8 |
| whqlibdoc.who.int | 0 → 6 |
| apa.org | 1 → 6 |
| bbc.com | 0 → 4 |
| pewresearch.org | 1 → 5 |
| theguardian.com | 0 → 4 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| angus-reid.com | 4 → 0 |
| springerlink.com | 2 → 0 |
| news.bbc.co.uk | 2 → 0 |
| nytimes.com | 3 → 2 |
| womensmedcenter.com | 1 → 0 |
| oversight.house.gov | 1 → 0 |
| webcitation.org | 1 → 0 |
| media.mcclatchydc.com | 1 → 0 |
| johnstonsarchive.net | 1 → 0 |
| jstor.org | 1 → 0 |
| emedicine.com | 2 → 1 |
| ohioroundtable.org | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Cross-language lead comparison
How the opening of the article presents the topic in different languages. Disagreement is a reason to read carefully, not a final answer.
No substantive change occurred in either the English or German lead texts between the before and after revisions in this window; both are textually identical across the pair. The two pre-existing cross-edition divergences (differing global abortion statistics and differing conceptual definitions of abortion) persisted unchanged, so no genuine temporal convergence, divergence, or parallel change can be attributed to this edit window.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2010-01-01 to 2012-01-01.
Languages compared: en, de.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · de: de before / de after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global annual abortion statistics figure | difference persisted | Before: Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely. “Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually” After: Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely. “Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually” | Before: jährlich auf 40 Millionen geschätzten Abbrüchen 70.000 Frauen “jährlich auf 40 Millionen geschätzten Abbrüchen” After: jährlich auf 40 Millionen geschätzten Abbrüchen 70.000 Frauen “jährlich auf 40 Millionen geschätzten Abbrüchen” | DE |
| Definition of abortion term scope | difference persisted | Before: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death. “Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy” After: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death. “Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy” | Before: bezeichnet die absichtliche Beendigung einer Schwangerschaft vor der selbständigen Lebensfähigkeit des Menschen “absichtliche Beendigung einer Schwangerschaft” After: bezeichnet die absichtliche Beendigung einer Schwangerschaft vor der selbständigen Lebensfähigkeit des Menschen “absichtliche Beendigung einer Schwangerschaft” | DE |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Versions we used
These are the exact public Wikipedia versions behind the checks on this page. Open any link to read the original. Wikidata item: Q8452.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Abortion | open version 368233003 | 2010-06-15T19:36:58Z | 2,058 |
| en | after | Abortion | open version 368233142 | 2010-06-15T19:37:47Z | 2,058 |
| de | before | Schwangerschaftsabbruch | open version 75614267 | 2010-06-15T15:45:59Z | 3,000 |
| de | after | Schwangerschaftsabbruch | open version 75646182 | 2010-06-16T12:33:09Z | 3,000 |