Other
Fascism and ideology
5 confirmed rewrite episodes; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 60.7% durable-spine drop. 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 ↗Largest by persistence-weighted mass: 60.7% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 36 → 36. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Did editors fight over it?
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: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
5 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 1358688575).
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 41 interval rows and sent 6 candidate windows to exact checking: 5 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 · 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 scoring41 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.5 rewrite episodes confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2006-07-01 → 2007-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 63.4% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2006-10-06T19:52:39Z → 2006-10-14T00:10:29Z · 172.3 hours | coarse interval · 71% persistence-weighted loss · 11,103 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2008-07-01 → 2009-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 28.1% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2008-11-21T03:51:51Z → 2008-11-21T05:06:49Z · 1.2 hours | coarse interval · 26% persistence-weighted loss · 11,503 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2011-01-01 → 2011-07-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 99.4% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2011-04-29T00:39:31Z → 2011-04-30T16:54:16Z · 40.2 hours | coarse interval · 61% persistence-weighted loss · 46,358 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2012-01-01 → 2012-07-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 56.7% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2012-05-06T21:36:11Z → 2012-05-16T01:49:08Z · 220.2 hours | coarse interval · 53% persistence-weighted loss · 28,481 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2020-07-01 → 2021-01-01Redline unavailable | Rejected: 18.2% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2020-07-23T11:18:07Z → 2020-07-23T11:28:29Z | coarse interval · 27% persistence-weighted loss · 116,530 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2026-01-01 → 2026-07-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 60.7% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2026-05-28T19:03:21Z → 2026-05-28T20:03:02Z · 59 minutes | coarse interval · 66% persistence-weighted loss · 450,944 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 1356597241 → 1356606621
41,537 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · BlueberryA96 was associated with 100.0% of removals.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 426479421 → 426748277
8,622 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · 65.95.129.220 was associated with 100.0% of removals.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 491069344 → 492797521
4,095 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 20,192 surviving replacement tokens · R-41 was associated with 100.0% of removals · R-41 was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 253124444 → 253133592
1,481 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 1,005 surviving replacement tokens · Spylab was associated with 100.0% of removals · Spylab was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 79902939 → 81311146
3,403 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 2,548 surviving replacement tokens · Nikodemos was associated with 100.0% of removals · Nikodemos 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?
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 79902939 -> rev 81311146 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 3,679 → 3,404. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- governments0 → 10
- inequality0 → 4
- allow0 → 3
- debate0 → 3
- description0 → 3
- enough0 → 3
- fell0 → 3
- information0 → 3
- though1 → 5
- whether1 → 5
- fascists6 → 20
- countries3 → 10
Used less afterward
- controls4 → 0
- differences4 → 0
- argues3 → 0
- consider3 → 0
- dictatorships3 → 0
- extensive3 → 0
- mean3 → 0
- rhetorical3 → 0
- similarities3 → 0
- arendt5 → 1
- leader5 → 1
- marxist5 → 1
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 253124444 -> rev 253133592 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 3,528 → 3,560. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- land1 → 3
- mean1 → 3
- community3 → 6
- people8 → 15
- act1 → 2
- aim1 → 2
- alfredo1 → 2
- alles1 → 2
- appleton1 → 2
- claim1 → 2
- higher1 → 2
- identical1 → 2
Used less afterward
- definition5 → 1
- hand4 → 1
- austrian3 → 1
- economists3 → 1
- kind3 → 1
- thus3 → 1
- opposed5 → 2
- example4 → 2
- instance4 → 2
- armed2 → 1
- claims2 → 1
- commentators2 → 1
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 426479421 -> rev 426748277 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 3,223 → 3,276. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- ashéri2 → 4
- princeton5 → 9
- cultural3 → 5
- maia3 → 5
- mario3 → 5
- rebellion3 → 5
- sznajder3 → 5
- system2 → 3
- birth5 → 7
- zeev6 → 8
- revolution7 → 9
- sternhell7 → 9
Used less afterward
No standout down terms after filtering markup noise.
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 491069344 -> rev 492797521 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 5,483 → 11,191. Overall: wording shifted a little.
Used more afterward
- poland0 → 13
- pursued0 → 11
- south0 → 11
- rss0 → 10
- yugoslavia0 → 9
- coalition0 → 8
- formed0 → 8
- king0 → 8
- president0 → 8
- regimes0 → 8
- adolph0 → 7
- athism0 → 7
Used less afterward
- philosophy8 → 0
- spengler8 → 0
- abuses7 → 0
- godfather7 → 0
- golomb7 → 0
- uses7 → 0
- wistrich7 → 0
- hegelianism5 → 0
- proletariat4 → 0
- rocco4 → 0
- becoming3 → 0
- focuses3 → 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.
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 1356597241 -> rev 1356606621 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 11,281 → 11,276. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
No standout up terms after filtering markup noise.
Used less afterward
- religious6 → 5
- nationalism29 → 27
- racial16 → 15
- including28 → 27
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 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 often | before → after |
|---|---|
| orwell.ru | 0 → 1 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| mises.org | 7 → 0 |
| lewrockwell.com | 2 → 0 |
| thecorner.org | 1 → 0 |
| econlib.org | 2 → 1 |
| 64.233.161.104 | 2 → 1 |
| lamar.colostate.edu | 1 → 0 |
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 253124444 → rev 253133592 (exact confirmation, 2008-11-21 → 2008-11-21): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 46 → 45. Different websites: 14 → 14.
Mix of citation types: book 100% → book 100%.
| 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 426479421 → rev 426748277 (exact confirmation, 2011-04-29 → 2011-04-30): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 56 → 58. Different websites: 13 → 13.
Mix of citation types: book 100% → book 100%.
| 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 491069344 → rev 492797521 (exact confirmation, 2012-05-06 → 2012-05-16): 3 websites were cited more (or newly), 1 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 215 → 396. Different websites: 14 → 15.
Mix of citation types: book 100% → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| jstor.org | 1 → 3 |
| iht.com | 0 → 1 |
| webcitation.org | 0 → 1 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com.au | 1 → 0 |
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 1356597241 → rev 1356606621 (exact confirmation, 2026-05-28 → 2026-05-28): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 193 → 193. Different websites: 36 → 36.
Mix of citation types: book 74%, news 13%, journal 7%, web 6% → book 74%, news 13%, journal 7%, web 6%.
| 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.
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
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nationalism subtypes mentioned in common fascist themes | difference persisted | Before: 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.
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.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Fascism and ideology | open version 1358156368 | 2026-06-06T23:24:52Z | 2,705 |
| en | after | Fascism and ideology | open version 1358346972 | 2026-06-08T03:29:46Z | 2,705 |
| sr | before | Фашистичка идеологија | open version 31004564 | 2026-06-04T14:51:11Z | 2,666 |
| sr | after | Фашистичка идеологија | open version 31013059 | 2026-06-08T19:56:55Z | 2,666 |
| ko | before | 파시즘의 이념 | open version 41815100 | 2026-05-20T20:30:22Z | 1,268 |
| ko | after | 파시즘의 이념 | open version 41967864 | 2026-06-21T05:42:55Z | 1,268 |