Politics & ideology
Democratic Socialists of America
3 confirmed rewrite episodes; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 87.0% durable-spine drop. Wording shifted a little.
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: 87.0% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 152 → 87. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 0.6 years old or newer. 88.4% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 69.7% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 219 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.
3 confirmed rewrite episodeA bounded window in which established wording was substantially replaced.s
Events bounded by stable revisions where long-lived wording was substantially replaced.
Snapshot corpus through 2026-07-01 (revision 1362095016).
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 46 interval rows and sent 3 candidate windows to exact checking: 3 confirmed, 0 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 scoring46 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.3 rewrite episodes confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 2004-01-01Loss 12.2%, Gain 19.8%, Replacement lead 12.2%40 removed · 65 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2004-07-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 3.3%, Replacement lead 0.5%3 removed · 21 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 46.7%, Gain 32.8%, Replacement lead 32.8%471 removed · 331 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2005-07-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 12.6%0 removed · 135 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 43.4%, Gain 11.5%, Replacement lead 11.5%754 removed · 200 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2006-07-01Loss 24.4%, Gain 31.0%, Replacement lead 24.4%363 removed · 460 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2007-01-01Loss 4.0%, Gain 43.5%, Replacement lead 4.0%80 removed · 862 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2007-07-01Loss 1.5%, Gain 5.0%, Replacement lead 1.5%54 removed · 178 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 1.7%, Gain 7.1%, Replacement lead 1.7%91 removed · 380 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-07-01Loss 1.3%, Gain 2.5%, Replacement lead 1.3%94 removed · 183 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 13.1%, Gain 3.5%, Replacement lead 3.5%1,262 removed · 336 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-07-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 0.6%, Replacement lead 0.4%47 removed · 66 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 21.2%, Gain 18.9%, Replacement lead 18.9%2,744 removed · 2,450 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2009-07-01 → 2010-07-01
- 2010-07-01Loss 28.8%, Gain 22.3%, Replacement lead 22.3%4,179 removed · 3,230 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2009-07-01 → 2010-07-01
- 2011-01-01Loss 0.6%, Gain 0.7%, Replacement lead 0.6%96 removed · 118 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-07-01Loss 0.3%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%66 removed · 32 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 9.6%, Gain 4.6%, Replacement lead 4.6%2,633 removed · 1,251 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-07-01Loss 1.4%, Gain 0.8%, Replacement lead 0.8%423 removed · 242 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.7%, Replacement lead 0.1%19 removed · 274 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 1.5%, Gain 0.2%, Replacement lead 0.2%661 removed · 88 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%205 removed · 50 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 0.7%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%412 removed · 230 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 0.7%, Replacement lead 0.5%323 removed · 427 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 2.4%, Replacement lead 0.1%53 removed · 1,632 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 3.8%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%2,964 removed · 279 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 2.0%, Gain 1.0%, Replacement lead 1.0%1,646 removed · 862 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 0.9%, Gain 0.3%, Replacement lead 0.3%806 removed · 285 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 1.1%, Replacement lead 0.4%374 removed · 1,035 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 3.4%, Gain 3.0%, Replacement lead 3.0%3,591 removed · 3,127 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 6.0%, Gain 7.9%, Replacement lead 6.0%6,778 removed · 8,994 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 5.4%, Gain 3.7%, Replacement lead 3.7%6,833 removed · 4,704 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 3.1%, Gain 1.7%, Replacement lead 1.7%4,379 removed · 2,430 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 0.6%, Gain 1.5%, Replacement lead 0.6%984 removed · 2,382 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 33.5%, Gain 3.7%, Replacement lead 3.7%61,516 removed · 6,747 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2020-01-01 → 2020-07-01
- 2021-01-01Loss 7.0%, Gain 4.8%, Replacement lead 4.8%10,172 removed · 6,946 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 6.3%, Gain 1.1%, Replacement lead 1.1%10,156 removed · 1,864 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 5.1%, Gain 1.1%, Replacement lead 1.1%9,162 removed · 1,926 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.8%, Replacement lead 0.2%462 removed · 1,520 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.3%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.3%741 removed · 936 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 5.0%, Gain 4.6%, Replacement lead 4.6%12,675 removed · 11,708 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 16.6%, Gain 4.4%, Replacement lead 4.4%46,480 removed · 12,379 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2024-07-01Loss 22.3%, Gain 3.1%, Replacement lead 3.1%62,004 removed · 8,642 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2025-01-01Loss 2.5%, Gain 1.2%, Replacement lead 1.2%6,553 removed · 3,004 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 16.1%, Gain 2.5%, Replacement lead 2.5%47,069 removed · 7,164 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-01
- 2026-01-01Loss 85.1%, Gain 5.5%, Replacement lead 5.5%243,165 removed · 15,792 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-01
- 2026-07-01Loss 13.7%, Gain 9.6%, Replacement lead 9.6%8,789 removed · 6,169 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2009-07-01 → 2010-07-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 41.9% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2009-11-05T17:11:27Z → 2009-11-05T18:51:24Z · 1.7 hours | coarse interval · 29% persistence-weighted loss · 6,923 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2020-01-01 → 2020-07-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 34.1% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2020-04-19T22:56:43Z → 2020-04-19T23:12:16Z · 15 minutes | coarse interval · 34% persistence-weighted loss · 61,516 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 87.0% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2025-11-11T17:36:50Z → 2025-11-11T18:17:24Z · 40 minutes | coarse interval · 85% persistence-weighted loss · 290,234 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 1321624877 → 1321630141
24,741 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 2,046 surviving replacement tokens · Goszei was associated with 100.0% of removals · Goszei was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 951975376 → 951977396
2,120 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 1 surviving replacement tokens · Wikieditor19920 was associated with 100.0% of removals · Wikieditor19920 was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 324111042 → 324127928
330 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 503 surviving replacement tokens · Trust Is All You Need was associated with 100.0% of removals · Trust Is All You Need 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?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
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 rev 951975376 -> rev 951977396 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 3,829 → 3,384. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- democratic68 → 65
- convention12 → 11
- national22 → 20
- office10 → 9
- socialists19 → 17
- statement9 → 8
Used less afterward
- vol18 → 1
- milestone5 → 0
- reached5 → 0
- date8 → 1
- align120 → 33
- style120 → 33
- text120 → 33
- just5 → 1
- center122 → 35
- wikitable3 → 1
- july4 → 2
- published4 → 2
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.
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 rev 1321624877 -> rev 1321630141 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 5,381 → 2,981. Overall: wording shifted a little.
Used more afterward
- involves0 → 3
- reduction0 → 3
- sometimes0 → 3
- universal1 → 6
- worker1 → 5
- establishing1 → 4
- system1 → 4
- ownership2 → 6
- accountable1 → 3
- broad1 → 3
- document1 → 3
- large1 → 3
Used less afterward
- israeli14 → 0
- nominee8 → 0
- representative8 → 0
- abolition6 → 0
- five6 → 0
- lee6 → 0
- obama6 → 0
- race6 → 0
- biden5 → 0
- funding5 → 0
- jewish5 → 0
- kerry5 → 0
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 rev 324111042 → rev 324127928 (exact confirmation, 2009-11-05 → 2009-11-05): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 0. Different websites: 0 → 0.
Mix of citation types: — → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| 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.
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 rev 951975376 → rev 951977396 (exact confirmation, 2020-04-19 → 2020-04-19): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 4 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 302 → 302. Different websites: 66 → 65.
Mix of citation types: web 76%, news 21%, book 3% → web 76%, news 21%, book 3%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| dsausa.org | 58 → 50 |
| d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net | 5 → 1 |
| dsatesting.info | 3 → 0 |
| democraticleft.dsausa.org | 4 → 2 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
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 rev 1321624877 → rev 1321630141 (exact confirmation, 2025-11-11 → 2025-11-11): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 98 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 413 → 150. Different websites: 152 → 87.
Mix of citation types: web 73%, news 24%, book 3%, journal 1% → web 70%, news 25%, book 5%, journal 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| dsausa.org | 33 → 20 |
| nytimes.com | 16 → 9 |
| program.dsausa.org | 6 → 0 |
| politico.com | 7 → 2 |
| sacdsa.org | 4 → 0 |
| jacobin.com | 8 → 4 |
| thenation.com | 7 → 3 |
| jacobinmag.com | 5 → 1 |
| twitter.com | 7 → 3 |
| inthesetimes.com | 7 → 4 |
| theguardian.com | 4 → 1 |
| dlarchive.dsausa.org | 2 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
How did language editions frame this event?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
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.
Insufficient matched historical content.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2020-01-01 to 2020-07-01.
No comparison result is available for this run.
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 remained textually identical between the BEFORE and AFTER revisions, and the Japanese lead likewise showed no changes across its BEFORE and AFTER revisions in this window. The two editions continue to differ substantially in content: English provides extensive detail on DSA's formation, membership growth, Bernie Sanders' influence, and current elected officials, while Japanese offers a brief, ambiguous characterization mentioning its predecessor ties to the Socialist Party of America and Socialist International. These differences existed before the window and persisted unchanged through it, with no evidence of convergence or divergence occurring in this specific comparison window.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2025-01-01 to 2026-01-01.
Languages compared: en, ja.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · ja: ja before / ja after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of DSA's political status and history detail | difference persisted | Before: The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a political organization in the United States and the country's largest socialist organization... DSA formed in 1982 as a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). “DSA formed in 1982 as a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM).” After: The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a political organization in the United States and the country's largest socialist organization... DSA formed in 1982 as a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). “DSA formed in 1982 as a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM).” | Before: アメリカ民主社会主義者（DSA）は、アメリカ合衆国の政党、もしくは政治団体...旧・アメリカ社会党（SPA）の後継団体の一つとしてかつては社会主義インターナショナルに加盟し “旧・アメリカ社会党（SPA）の後継団体の一つとしてかつては社会主義インターナショナルに加盟し” After: アメリカ民主社会主義者（DSA）は、アメリカ合衆国の政党、もしくは政治団体...旧・アメリカ社会党（SPA）の後継団体の一つとしてかつては社会主義インターナショナルに加盟し “旧・アメリカ社会党（SPA）の後継団体の一つとしてかつては社会主義インターナショナルに加盟し” | EN, JA |
| Mention of electoral politics, elected officials, and membership growth | difference persisted | Before: In 2025, over 250 DSA members held elected public office, with 90% elected after 2019. “In 2025, over 250 DSA members held elected public office, with 90% elected after 2019.” After: In 2025, over 250 DSA members held elected public office, with 90% elected after 2019. “In 2025, over 250 DSA members held elected public office, with 90% elected after 2019.” | Before: No corresponding content present in JA lead. “no quotation” After: No corresponding content present in JA lead. “no quotation” | EN, JA |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Do the languages agree on basic facts?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
Do the languages agree on basic facts?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
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: Q164182.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Democratic Socialists of America | open version 1321624877 | 2025-11-11T17:36:50Z | 2,209 |
| en | after | Democratic Socialists of America | open version 1321630141 | 2025-11-11T18:17:24Z | 2,209 |
| ja | before | アメリカ民主社会主義者 | open version 107143881 | 2025-11-07T13:15:09Z | 181 |
| ja | after | アメリカ民主社会主義者 | open version 107348003 | 2025-11-24T02:36:24Z | 181 |