Cross-domain
Climate change
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 ↗L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.
Different websites cited: 143 → 157. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
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 26,791 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 5.3 years old or newer. 30.6% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 70.5% of what is there now (a fairly small group of accounts wrote much of the current text; 502 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: Rewrite (no candidate found), Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
Not available in this export: Vocabulary. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
No candidate rewrite window was confirmed
The exact L1 check ran, but no candidate showed the required durable-spine drop. This is a completed negative result for that detector, not a claim that the article never changed.
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 24 interval rows and sent 3 candidate windows to exact checking: 0 confirmed, 3 rejected. A candidate window can span multiple interval rows, so rows marked as candidates do not equal the rewrite episode count.
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.Candidates rejectedRevision-level checking did not find the required durable replacement.
- 2003-01-01Loss 45.9%1,305 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 47.4%2,679 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 40.3%3,442 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 81.1%11,868 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 36.2%4,033 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 73.4%19,360 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2007-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2009-01-01Loss 12.8%3,715 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 42.1%21,705 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2011-01-01Loss 36.8%20,320 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2012-01-01Loss 26.9%17,106 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2013-01-01Loss 11.3%9,517 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 13.7%15,794 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 11.7%16,876 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 9.1%15,613 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 3.7%7,567 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 6.1%15,067 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 26.0%74,441 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2020-01-01Loss 68.4%181,475 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2021-01-01Loss 47.4%77,677 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2022-01-01Loss 15.6%25,154 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2023-01-01Loss 6.4%13,521 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 3.1%8,507 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 13.4%46,409 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 1.3%5,072 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
Exact candidate decisions
Every coarse lead and its revision-level decision, including rejected candidates. RedlinesA before-and-after view showing wording removed and added. compare the full candidate window.
| Candidate window | Exact outcome | Coarse signal |
|---|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 → 2008-01-01View redline | Rejected: 0.0% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2007-01-01T01:00:02Z → 2007-01-01T01:00:58Z | coarse interval · 73% persistence-weighted loss · 19,360 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01View redline | Rejected: 0.0% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2009-01-05T15:45:38Z → 2009-01-07T08:16:37Z | coarse interval · 42% persistence-weighted loss · 59,131 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01View redline | Rejected: 0.0% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2018-01-19T12:31:54Z → 2018-01-19T23:24:25Z | coarse interval · 68% persistence-weighted loss · 358,747 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
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 2018-01-01 → 2026-01-01 (across the L1 pivot ~2018-01-01): 137 websites were cited more (or newly), 119 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 311 → 484. Different websites: 143 → 157.
Mix of citation types: journal 40%, web 27%, book 21%, news 10%, press 1%, report 1% → journal 35%, web 27%, book 26%, report 6%, news 6%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| carbonbrief.org | 0 → 17 |
| archive.ipcc.ch | 0 → 13 |
| books.google.com | 2 → 13 |
| history.aip.org | 4 → 15 |
| science2017.globalchange.gov | 1 → 12 |
| climate.nasa.gov | 4 → 14 |
| climate.gov | 3 → 9 |
| link.springer.com | 0 → 4 |
| iea.org | 0 → 4 |
| nap.nationalacademies.org | 0 → 4 |
| worldweatherattribution.org | 0 → 4 |
| ourworldindata.org | 0 → 4 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| grida.no | 33 → 0 |
| ipcc.ch | 84 → 56 |
| ipcc-wg2.gov | 22 → 0 |
| report.mitigation2014.org | 10 → 0 |
| nap.edu | 11 → 3 |
| globalchange.gov | 8 → 2 |
| climatechange2013.org | 6 → 1 |
| gallup.com | 4 → 0 |
| pnas.org | 4 → 0 |
| rrcap.unep.org | 4 → 0 |
| science.sciencemag.org | 4 → 0 |
| realclimate.org | 4 → 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.
The English lead text is identical between the BEFORE and AFTER revisions in this short window (2018-05-12 to 2018-05-15), showing no substantive change. The Gujarati article also shows no textual change between its BEFORE (2017) and AFTER (2018) revisions, remaining anchored to older IPCC Fourth Assessment Report content (2005/2007 statements) rather than the Fifth Assessment Report cited in English, so the divergence between English and Gujarani content persisted across the window rather than changing. The Chinese entry is merely a redirect in both revisions, but the redirect target itself changed from 'climate change' (氣候變遷) to 'climate variability and change' (氣候變率與變化), a structural/title change with no comparable content to assess against English's stable lead. No genuine convergence or divergence in substantive content can be established from these snapshots beyond the persistence of the Gujarati/English gap and the Chinese redirect retargeting.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2018-01-01 to 2022-01-01.
Languages compared: en, gu, zh.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · gu: gu before / gu after · zh: zh before / zh after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| English lead text unchanged; Gujarati and Chinese versions remain outdated or are redirects rather than parallel articles | difference persisted | Before: Global warming...is the observed century-scale rise...In 2013, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report concluded that 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” After: Global warming...is the observed century-scale rise...In 2013, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report concluded that 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” | Before: પૃથ્વીના તાપમાનમા થઇ રહેલા સતત વધારાને વૈશ્વિક ઉષ્ણતા કહેવામાં આવે છે...IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...2005ના નિવેદનમાં...2007ના નિવેદનમાં “no quotation” After: પૃથ્વીના તાપમાનમા થઇ રહેલા સતત વધારાને વૈશ્વિક ઉષ્ણતા કહેવામાં આવે છે...IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...2005ના નિવેદનમાં...2007ના નિવેદનમાં “no quotation” | gu, zh |
| Chinese article status: redirect target changed from 'climate change' to 'climate variability and change' | unclear change | Before: Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects. “Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects.” After: Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects. “Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects.” | Before: 重定向 氣候變遷 “重定向 氣候變遷” After: REDIRECT 氣候變率與變化 “REDIRECT 氣候變率與變化” | zh |
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: Q125928.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Climate change | open version 840836880 | 2018-05-12T14:00:31Z | 3,000 |
| en | after | Climate change | open version 841297450 | 2018-05-15T00:34:18Z | 3,000 |
| gu | before | વૈશ્વિક આબોહવા પરિવર્તન | open version 534833 | 2017-11-21T11:02:32Z | 3,000 |
| gu | after | વૈશ્વિક આબોહવા પરિવર્તન | open version 642901 | 2018-11-23T15:14:23Z | 3,000 |
| zh | before | 氣候變化 | open version 38888995 | 2016-01-29T03:25:53Z | 8 |
| zh | after | 氣候變化 | open version 77405052 | 2023-05-24T23:01:21Z | 16 |