← Back to all analyses

Politics & ideology

Elizabeth Warren

Only mild change shows up in the checks that were run.

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 scan
No candidate window confirmed

L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.

Wording
wording barely shifted

Which words grew or shrank is listed under Vocabulary.

Available evidence: Rewrite (no candidate found), Vocabulary.

Not available in this export: Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions. 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 45 interval rows and sent 1 candidate window to exact checking: 0 confirmed, 1 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. 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. 2 · Interval scoring45 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.Candidates rejectedRevision-level checking did not find the required durable replacement.
  • 2004-07-01Loss 100.0%6 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2005-07-01Loss 10.8%25 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-01-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-01-01Loss 1.4%24 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-07-01Loss 7.2%157 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-01-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-07-01Loss 0.6%20 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-01-01Loss 2.0%82 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-07-01Loss 6.5%385 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-01-01Loss 13.8%1,235 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-07-01Loss 12.0%1,427 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-01-01Loss 9.4%1,563 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-07-01Loss 6.6%1,479 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-01-01Loss 24.1%6,757 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-07-01Loss 13.8%4,425 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-01-01Loss 44.2%18,560 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-07-01Loss 6.4%2,242 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-01-01Loss 0.2%79 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-07-01Loss 8.2%4,761 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-01-01Loss 2.1%1,455 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-07-01Loss 3.3%2,766 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-01-01Loss 2.1%2,073 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-07-01Loss 3.5%3,995 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-01-01Loss 0.9%1,198 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-07-01Loss 4.0%6,100 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-01-01Loss 4.3%7,105 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-07-01Loss 0.5%859 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 14.1%29,129 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 0.8%1,612 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-07-01Loss 7.8%17,340 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-01-01Loss 10.4%24,195 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-07-01Loss 0.6%1,451 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-01-01Loss 41.1%114,022 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2020-07-01 → 2021-01-01
  • 2021-07-01Loss 1.7%3,219 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-01-01Loss 0.4%1,426 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-07-01Loss 1.6%6,494 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-01-01Loss 0.5%2,249 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-07-01Loss 0.1%745 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-01-01Loss 0.3%1,517 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 0.3%1,776 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-01-01Loss 0.4%2,664 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-07-01Loss 0.7%5,148 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-01-01Loss 0.2%1,423 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-07-01Loss 0.1%803 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 windowExact outcomeCoarse signal
2020-07-01 → 2021-01-01View redlineRejected: 1.3% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2020-11-22T11:29:17Z → 2020-11-26T02:58:15Zcoarse interval · 41% persistence-weighted loss · 114,022 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost.

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 2020-07-01 -> 2021-01-01 (around L1 candidate date 2020-07-01; exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite). Rough word count: 3,726 → 3,784. Overall: small vocabulary change.

Used more afterward

  • tax0 → 4
  • wealth0 → 3
  • harris1 → 4
  • descent1 → 3
  • administration1 → 2
  • americans1 → 2
  • announcement1 → 2
  • donors1 → 2
  • kamala1 → 2
  • officially1 → 2
  • politico1 → 2
  • primaries1 → 2

Used less afterward

  • beleaguered2 → 1
  • house2 → 1
  • leaders2 → 1
  • meme2 → 1
  • phrase2 → 1
  • ran2 → 1
  • views2 → 1
  • becoming3 → 2
  • days3 → 2
  • economics3 → 2
  • hard3 → 2
  • internet3 → 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.