Other
Ainu people
1 confirmed rewrite episode; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 31.8% durable-spine drop. The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out).
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 ↗Largest by persistence-weighted mass: 31.8% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 1 → 109. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Did editors fight over it?
The page was not dominated by back-and-forth undoing. A quiet rewrite can still matter — it just means few people fought it on the page. About 4,456 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 2.6 years old or newer. 55.5% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 52.2% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 554 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-07-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
1 confirmed rewrite episodeA bounded window in which established wording was substantially replaced.
Events bounded by stable revisions where long-lived wording was substantially replaced.
Snapshot corpus through 2026-07-01 (revision 1360770633).
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.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
- 2 · Interval scoring49 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.1 rewrite episode confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 2002-07-01Loss 3.1%52 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-01-01Loss 0.0%1 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-07-01Loss 0.3%15 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 38.4%2,621 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-07-01Loss 26.8%1,481 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 8.5%517 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-07-01Loss 5.7%435 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 12.0%1,227 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-07-01Loss 2.0%243 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 5.4%835 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-07-01Loss 4.2%805 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 8.3%1,884 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-07-01Loss 9.7%2,575 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 1.9%610 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-07-01Loss 2.0%767 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 14.0%6,424 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-07-01Loss 2.5%1,230 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 7.7%4,497 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-07-01Loss 2.5%1,683 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 2.4%1,907 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-07-01Loss 4.4%4,140 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 3.9%4,278 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 5.0%6,375 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 5.4%7,570 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 0.7%1,106 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 4.8%8,280 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 1.7%3,102 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 2.6%5,342 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 2.2%4,737 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 4.6%10,901 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 0.7%1,803 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 12.7%34,893 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 0.9%2,356 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.8%5,091 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 2.5%7,680 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 2.8%9,238 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 3.2%11,570 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 7.6%29,132 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 3.4%13,184 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 5.8%24,400 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 0.9%3,770 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.9%4,324 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 0.4%1,912 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 15.2%82,743 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2023-07-01 → 2024-07-01
- 2024-07-01Loss 19.6%99,085 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2023-07-01 → 2024-07-01
- 2025-01-01Loss 2.7%12,036 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 1.6%7,761 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 7.2%37,419 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 11.5%60,901 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
| Before | After | Durable change | PWR mass | Duration | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-02T01:43:44Z | 2024-05-02T02:52:27Z | 31.8% durable-spine drop | 170,246 | 1.1 hours | View redline |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 1221801648 → 1221809882
2,302 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 622 surviving replacement tokens · Eievie was associated with 100.0% of removals · Eievie was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Attribution describes public revision-history associations and origin authorship. It does not establish bias, motive, or misconduct.
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing 2002-01-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 741 → 6,539. Overall: wording changed a lot.
Used more afterward
- called0 → 37
- indigenous0 → 29
- russian0 → 26
- kuril0 → 20
- peoples0 → 20
- traditionally0 → 20
- hokkaido1 → 60
- century0 → 18
- qing0 → 18
- groups0 → 17
- sakhalin1 → 49
- east0 → 16
Used less afterward
- caucasian3 → 0
- whose4 → 1
- worship4 → 1
- eating3 → 1
- exist3 → 1
- much4 → 2
- chiefs2 → 1
- eastern2 → 1
- eat2 → 1
- feet2 → 1
- places2 → 1
- saru2 → 1
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
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 2002-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 109 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 197. Different websites: 1 → 109.
Mix of citation types: — → book 37%, web 27%, journal 25%, news 10%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com | 0 → 35 |
| japantimes.co.jp | 0 → 10 |
| ainu-museum.or.jp | 1 → 9 |
| ainu-assn.or.jp | 0 → 7 |
| archive.org | 0 → 6 |
| 2kamuymintara.com | 0 → 4 |
| cais.hokudai.ac.jp | 0 → 4 |
| asahi.com | 0 → 4 |
| pbs.org | 0 → 4 |
| ghostarchive.org | 0 → 4 |
| ff-ainu.or.jp | 0 → 4 |
| demoscope.ru | 0 → 4 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
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.
The EN edition provides extensive detail on forced assimilation, colonization history, language suppression, and specific population statistics, none of which appear in the KA or JA versions. The JA edition instead emphasizes Jomon ancestry theory and cultural continuity with mainland Japanese and Ryukyuans, and cites specific 2019 legislation and a 2020 cultural institution absent from EN. The KA edition is the briefest, characterizing Ainu primarily through subsistence practices (hunting, fishing, agriculture) and omits nearly all modern political, demographic, and historical assimilation context found in EN and JA. Overall, the editions diverge mainly through omission and differing thematic emphasis rather than direct contradiction, though this reflects distinct editorial priorities in origin narrative versus modern political/historical framing.
Languages compared: en, ka, ja.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| origin/ethnogenesis of Ainu | missing in English | Describes Ainu as indigenous group occupying regions since before arrival of Yamato and Russians, without specifying Jomon ancestry theory | States Ainu are believed to be descendants of Jomon people who were not assimilated into the Yayoi-derived culture, grouped with mainland Japanese and Ryukyuans under 'Jomon cultural sphere' “渡来系弥生人の文化（日本語など）に同化吸収されずに残った縄文人の系統だと考えられている。本土日本人（大和）、琉球人（沖縄）と共に縄文文化圏に含まれる。” | JA |
| legal recognition as indigenous people | missing in English | Does not mention specific 2019 legislation by name | Cites the 2019 'Ainu Policy Promotion Act' which explicitly designates Ainu as indigenous people of northern Japan, especially Hokkaido “2019年5月に施行された「アイヌ施策推進法」では「日本列島北部周辺、とりわけ北海道の先住民族である」と明記されている。” | JA |
| cultural revitalization institutions | missing in English | Mentions general 'increasing efforts to revitalize the Hokkaido Ainu language' without naming institutions “In recent years, there have been increasing efforts to revitalize the Hokkaido Ainu language.” | Names specific 2020 institution: National Ainu Museum and 'Upopoy' symbolic space for ethnic coexistence in Shiraoi, Hokkaido “2020年には文化復興の拠点として国立アイヌ民族博物館を含む「民族共生象徴空間（ウポポイ）」が北海道白老町に開設された。” | JA |
| forced assimilation and colonization history | missing elsewhere | Details forced assimilation during Japanese colonization of Hokkaido since 18th century, land dispossession, banning of religion and language in schools | KA omits colonization/assimilation history entirely; JA only briefly implies assimilation via Jomon/Yayoi cultural absorption framing, not explicit policy history | KA, JA |
| population statistics | missing elsewhere | Gives specific population figures: 11,450 in Hokkaido (2023 survey), 300 in Russia (2021), unofficial estimate 200,000+ in Japan (2002) “Official surveys of the known Ainu population in Hokkaido received 11,450 responses in 2023, and the Ainu population in Russia was estimated at 300 in 2021.” | KA and JA do not provide specific population statistics | KA, JA |
| subsistence lifestyle characterization | differ | Does not emphasize hunting/fishing/agriculture as defining feature | Emphasizes that Ainu practiced hunting, fishing and agriculture, distinguishing them from neighboring Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese only in that others focused solely on agriculture for millennia | KA |
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: Q101828.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Ainu people | open version 1360770633 | 2026-06-23T13:58:05Z | 72,110 |