← Back to all analyses

Other

Ainu people

Language openings emphasize different things.

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 ↗
Rewrite
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.

Footnotes
109 sites grew · 0 shrank

Different websites cited: 1 → 109. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.

How openings sound
6 clear differences

Compared around the rewrite window. See Framing.

How this page turned up. Large deletions on Zionism pointed investigators here. This article was then checked on its own history — being on that trail does not, by itself, mean anything is wrong.

Did editors fight over it?

How much did editors fight over it?
little edit fighting

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: 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. 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
  2. 2 · Interval scoring49 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
  3. 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
  • 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 PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 19.6%99,085 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 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

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 oftenbefore → after
books.google.com0 → 35
japantimes.co.jp0 → 10
ainu-museum.or.jp1 → 9
ainu-assn.or.jp0 → 7
archive.org0 → 6
2kamuymintara.com0 → 4
cais.hokudai.ac.jp0 → 4
asahi.com0 → 4
pbs.org0 → 4
ghostarchive.org0 → 4
ff-ainu.or.jp0 → 4
demoscope.ru0 → 4
cited less oftenbefore → 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

topichow they compareEnglish saysother language(s) saylanguages
origin/ethnogenesis of Ainumissing in EnglishDescribes Ainu as indigenous group occupying regions since before arrival of Yamato and Russians, without specifying Jomon ancestry theoryStates 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 peoplemissing in EnglishDoes not mention specific 2019 legislation by nameCites 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 institutionsmissing in EnglishMentions 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 historymissing elsewhereDetails forced assimilation during Japanese colonization of Hokkaido since 18th century, land dispossession, banning of religion and language in schoolsKA omits colonization/assimilation history entirely; JA only briefly implies assimilation via Jomon/Yayoi cultural absorption framing, not explicit policy historyKA, JA
population statisticsmissing elsewhereGives 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 statisticsKA, JA
subsistence lifestyle characterizationdifferDoes not emphasize hunting/fishing/agriculture as defining featureEmphasizes that Ainu practiced hunting, fishing and agriculture, distinguishing them from neighboring Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese only in that others focused solely on agriculture for millenniaKA

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.

languagecomparison pointarticle titleversionwhentext used (chars)
ensavedAinu peopleopen version 13607706332026-06-23T13:58:05Z72,110