← Back to all analyses

Other

Fascism and ideology

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
0 sites grew · 0 shrank

Different websites cited: 36 → 36. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.

How openings sound
1 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 1,625 recorded revisions in the measure.

Who wrote today’s text?

Half of the wording still on the page is about 5.9 years old or newer. 19.5% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 75.4% of what is there now (a fairly small group of accounts wrote much of the current text; 133 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.Candidate signal foundThe coarse scan found a deletion-heavy window worth exact checking.
  2. 2 · Interval scoring41 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.
  • 2006-07-01Loss 11.3%, Gain 88.0%, Replacement lead 11.3%663 removed · 5,150 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
  • 2007-01-01Loss 71.5%, Gain 47.8%, Replacement lead 47.8%11,103 removed · 7,426 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2006-07-01 → 2007-01-01
  • 2007-07-01Loss 6.0%, Gain 4.5%, Replacement lead 4.5%867 removed · 647 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-01-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 0.6%, Replacement lead 0.4%104 removed · 142 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-07-01Loss 2.3%, Gain 1.9%, Replacement lead 1.9%792 removed · 636 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-01-01Loss 26.3%, Gain 3.3%, Replacement lead 3.3%11,503 removed · 1,443 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2008-07-01 → 2009-01-01
  • 2009-07-01Loss 9.3%, Gain 2.9%, Replacement lead 2.9%3,853 removed · 1,216 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-01-01Loss 0.7%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%313 removed · 13 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-07-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.5%, Replacement lead 0.2%139 removed · 309 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-01-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.0%26 removed · 70 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-07-01Loss 60.5%, Gain 11.5%, Replacement lead 11.5%46,358 removed · 8,807 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2011-01-01 → 2011-07-01
  • 2012-01-01Loss 3.4%, Gain 5.6%, Replacement lead 3.4%1,434 removed · 2,370 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-07-01Loss 52.6%, Gain 39.8%, Replacement lead 39.8%28,481 removed · 21,577 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2012-01-01 → 2012-07-01
  • 2013-01-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%244 removed · 238 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-07-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%155 removed · 37 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-01-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.7%, Replacement lead 0.2%277 removed · 790 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-07-01Loss 1.1%1,457 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-01-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%273 removed · 13 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-07-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%1,036 removed · 699 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-01-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%365 removed · 26 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-07-01Loss 0.8%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%1,861 removed · 384 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-01-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 1.9%, Replacement lead 0.4%1,038 removed · 5,224 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-07-01Loss 0.8%, Gain 1.7%, Replacement lead 0.8%2,359 removed · 5,285 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-01-01Loss 4.7%, Gain 0.6%, Replacement lead 0.6%16,048 removed · 1,919 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-07-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 0.1%14 removed · 247 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%461 removed · 150 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-07-01Loss 20.8%, Gain 0.7%, Replacement lead 0.7%90,514 removed · 3,069 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
  • 2020-01-01Loss 0.6%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%2,318 removed · 250 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-07-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%614 removed · 520 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-01-01Loss 26.7%, Gain 3.2%, Replacement lead 3.2%116,530 removed · 14,029 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2020-07-01 → 2021-01-01
  • 2021-07-01Loss 0.3%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%985 removed · 139 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-01-01Loss 1.2%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%4,568 removed · 529 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-07-01Loss 5.5%, Gain 1.1%, Replacement lead 1.1%22,850 removed · 4,637 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-01-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%1,910 removed · 166 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-07-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%618 removed · 502 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-01-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 0.5%, Replacement lead 0.0%142 removed · 2,491 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.0%177 removed · 808 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-01-01Loss 1.2%, Gain 0.2%, Replacement lead 0.2%7,100 removed · 1,205 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-07-01Loss 1.3%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%7,887 removed · 2,305 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-01-01Loss 1.2%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%7,730 removed · 862 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-07-01Loss 65.5%, Gain 0.3%, Replacement lead 0.3%450,944 removed · 2,355 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2026-01-01 → 2026-07-01
Confirmed event
Event 1 of 5

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 79902939 → rev 81311146 (exact confirmation, 2006-10-06 → 2006-10-14): 1 websites were cited more (or newly), 6 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 1 → 6. Different websites: 25 → 22.

Mix of citation types: news 100% → book 50%, news 50%.

cited more oftenbefore → after
orwell.ru0 → 1
cited less oftenbefore → after
mises.org7 → 0
lewrockwell.com2 → 0
thecorner.org1 → 0
econlib.org2 → 1
64.233.161.1042 → 1
lamar.colostate.edu1 → 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.

No genuine temporal divergence emerged in this window: the EN before/after texts are identical, as are the KO and SR before/after texts. The only cross-edition difference found—KO and SR specifying 'nationalism (including racial nationalism and religious nationalism)' versus EN's plain 'nationalism'—predates and persists through the entire comparison window, with no edits made to either side during this period.

Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2026-01-01 to 2026-07-01.

Languages compared: en, sr, ko.

Version receipts: en: en before / en after · sr: sr before / sr after · ko: ko before / ko after

topichow they compareEnglish changeother language(s) changelanguages
Nationalism subtypes mentioned in common fascist themesdifference persistedBefore: authoritarianism, nationalism, hierarchy, elitism, and militarism
“Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism, hierarchy, elitism, and militarism.”
After: authoritarianism, nationalism, hierarchy, elitism, and militarism
“Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism, hierarchy, elitism, and militarism.”		Before: национализам (укључујући расни национализам и верски национализам)
“национализам (укључујући расни национализам и верски национализам)”
After: национализам (укључујући расни национализам и верски национализам)
“национализам (укључујући расни национализам и верски национализам)”		KO, SR

Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.

Confirmed event
Event 1 of 5

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: Q4481592.

languagecomparison pointarticle titleversionwhentext used (chars)
enbeforeFascism and ideologyopen version 13581563682026-06-06T23:24:52Z2,705
enafterFascism and ideologyopen version 13583469722026-06-08T03:29:46Z2,705
srbeforeФашистичка идеологијаopen version 310045642026-06-04T14:51:11Z2,666
srafterФашистичка идеологијаopen version 310130592026-06-08T19:56:55Z2,666
kobefore파시즘의 이념open version 418151002026-05-20T20:30:22Z1,268
koafter파시즘의 이념open version 419678642026-06-21T05:42:55Z1,268