Other
Genocide of indigenous peoples
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 ↗No current rewrite result is available for this article. This is missing coverage, not a finding that no rewrite occurred.
Different websites cited: 0 → 135. 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 2,702 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 4.1 years old or newer. 38.1% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 57.0% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 353 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, Versions.
Not available in this export: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Facts. 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 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
- 2 · Interval scoring28 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.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
- 2013-01-01Loss 0.4%3 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 0.3%4 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 69.3%1,577 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 2.9%453 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 1.0%351 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 0.4%203 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 0.8%650 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 2.9%2,882 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 2.6%3,107 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 3.4%4,849 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 1.1%1,807 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 1.1%2,115 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 0.3%690 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 1.4%3,388 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 3.9%10,666 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 3.7%11,034 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 6.8%21,592 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 1.9%6,243 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 0.6%2,105 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 1.5%6,686 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 5.7%27,897 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 3.7%19,233 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 3.9%22,543 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 5.6%34,883 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 11.8%78,881 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.3%1,973 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 11.2%83,293 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 1.1%8,277 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
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 2012-07-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 135 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 6 → 334. Different websites: 0 → 135.
Mix of citation types: book 100% → book 51%, journal 18%, web 17%, news 12%, report 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com | 0 → 128 |
| archive.org | 0 → 24 |
| theguardian.com | 0 → 14 |
| tandfonline.com | 0 → 8 |
| nytimes.com | 0 → 8 |
| aljazeera.com | 0 → 7 |
| news.bbc.co.uk | 0 → 6 |
| historynewsnetwork.org | 0 → 6 |
| thediplomat.com | 0 → 6 |
| archive.today | 0 → 6 |
| academic.oup.com | 0 → 5 |
| un.org | 0 → 4 |
| 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.
The EN and TR (and BN, which closely mirrors EN) leads diverge mainly in scope and emphasis. TR omits EN's detailed discussion of criticisms of the 1948 Genocide Convention's definition, while EN omits TR's citations of Patrick Wolfe and David Maybury-Lewis and TR's specific modern examples of alleged cultural genocide (Uyghurs, Tibetans, Native Americans, First Nations). The editions also differ slightly on which continents/regions are cited as sites of colonial genocidal violence, and TR presents a more direct quote attributing to Lemkin the view that colonization was 'essentially genocide,' whereas EN frames this more abstractly as a two-stage process. BN is essentially a direct translation of EN with no substantive divergences found.
Languages compared: en, bn, tr.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continents/regions affected by genocidal violence | differ | Colonial genocidal violence occurred against indigenous groups in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania “acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania” | Genocidal violence occurred against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Asia “Amerika, Avustralya, Afrika ve Asya'daki yerli gruplara yönelik soykırımcı şiddet eylemleri” | EN, TR |
| Patrick Wolfe's theory on settler colonialism | missing in English | Not mentioned; EN only says other scholars view genocide as associated with but distinct from settler colonialism, without naming Wolfe | Explicitly cites Patrick Wolfe arguing genocide of indigenous populations is especially likely in cases of settler colonialism, with some scholars calling settler colonialism inherently genocidal and others disputing the term's applicability “Patrick Wolfe'a göre yerli nüfusun soykırımı özellikle yerleşimci sömürgecilik vakalarında muhtemeldir” | EN, TR |
| David Maybury-Lewis on mechanisms of colonial genocide | missing in English | Not mentioned in the lead | Cites David Maybury-Lewis describing two main mechanisms: deliberate clearing of land's original inhabitants for resource extraction/settlement, or forced labor of indigenous peoples in colonial/imperial resource extraction projects “David Maybury-Lewis'e göre, soykırımın emperyal ve sömürgeci biçimleri iki ana yolla hayata geçirilir” | EN, TR |
| Cultural genocide/ethnocide and specific modern examples | missing in English | Not mentioned in the lead; EN discusses cultural vs physical/biological destruction only in context of the 1948 Genocide Convention's narrowing of Lemkin's definition, without citing modern examples “he narrowed his definition to physical and biological destruction (as opposed to cultural genocide)” | Discusses cultural genocide (ethnocide) as a form scholars argue should be recognized, and gives specific modern examples: treatment of Tibetans and Uyghurs by the Chinese government, treatment of Native Americans by the US government/citizens, and treatment of First Nations by the Canadian government “Çin Hükûmeti tarafından Tibetlilere ve Uygurlara yapılan muamele, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri vatandaşları ve Birleşik Devletler hükûmetinin ajanları tarafından Yerli Amerikalılara yapılan muamele ve Kanada hükûmeti tarafından Birinci Milletler halklarına yapılan muamele” | EN, TR |
| Criticism of the Genocide Convention's definition | missing elsewhere | Details the specific criticisms of the Convention's definition: overemphasis on intent, imprecision of 'destruction in whole or in part', and narrow exclusivity of protected groups “criticized [it] as a highly flawed law for its overemphasis on intent, the imprecision of a key phrase 'destruction in whole or in part', and the narrow exclusivity of the groups protected” | Not mentioned; TR lead omits discussion of criticisms of the Genocide Convention's legal definition | EN, TR |
| Framing of colonization as 'inherently genocidal' | differ | States Lemkin saw genocide as a two-stage process without directly quoting him as calling colonization itself genocidal “Lemkin saw genocide as a two-stage process: (1) the destruction of the targeted group's way of life, followed by (2) the perpetrators' imposition of their own national pattern” | Directly attributes to Lemkin the phrase that colonization was in itself 'essentially genocide' “Lemkin'e göre, kolonizasyon kendi içinde "özünde soykırım" idi” | EN, TR |
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: Q5533462.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Genocide of indigenous peoples | open version 1362915400 | 2026-07-07T00:03:30Z | 98,302 |