← Back to all analyses

Israel–Palestine

Palestine

2 confirmed rewrite episodes; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 72.8% durable-spine drop. Wording shifted clearly.

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 ↗
Confirmed rewrite episodes
2 confirmed

Largest by persistence-weighted mass: 72.8% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.

Wording
wording shifted clearly

Which words grew or shrank is listed under Vocabulary.

Footnotes
235 sites grew · 79 shrank

Different websites cited: 111 → 247. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.

Basic facts across languages
2 compatible differences · 1 agree

3 configured questions checked in more than one language. See Facts.

How openings sound
3 clear differences · 2 contradict

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 5,673 recorded revisions in the measure.

Who wrote today’s text?

Half of the wording still on the page is about 2.3 years old or newer. 67.5% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 64.2% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 472 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.

2 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 1362384011).

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 scoring43 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.2 rewrite episodes confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
  • 2004-01-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2004-07-01Loss 2.0%10 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2005-01-01Loss 7.0%59 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2005-07-01Loss 40.0%691 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-01-01Loss 5.7%172 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-07-01Loss 24.2%1,179 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-01-01Loss 17.2%939 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-07-01Loss 12.6%983 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-07-01Loss 18.0%1,865 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-01-01Loss 30.0%3,483 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-07-01Loss 12.5%3,210 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-01-01Loss 32.7%17,798 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2010-07-01 → 2011-07-01
  • 2011-07-01Loss 17.0%10,850 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2010-07-01 → 2011-07-01
  • 2012-01-01Loss 13.0%10,562 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-07-01Loss 0.4%435 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-01-01Loss 4.3%5,818 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-07-01Loss 5.0%8,358 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-01-01Loss 2.4%4,797 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-07-01Loss 7.6%17,735 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-01-01Loss 0.5%1,322 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-07-01Loss 3.4%10,426 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-01-01Loss 70.2%238,535 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2015-07-01 → 2016-01-01
  • 2016-07-01Loss 0.9%1,100 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-01-01Loss 0.6%875 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-07-01Loss 1.8%2,945 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-01-01Loss 0.8%1,392 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-07-01Loss 1.0%2,084 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 0.3%672 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-07-01Loss 0.3%717 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-01-01Loss 1.5%4,112 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-07-01Loss 2.1%6,366 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-01-01Loss 2.4%7,860 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-07-01Loss 2.4%8,328 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-01-01Loss 14.4%53,798 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-07-01Loss 0.2%810 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-01-01Loss 3.3%12,472 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-07-01Loss 3.5%13,885 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-01-01Loss 1.8%7,556 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 21.9%97,190 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-01-01Loss 7.3%31,005 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-07-01Loss 2.1%9,860 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-01-01Loss 2.7%13,946 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-07-01Loss 2.9%16,388 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
BeforeAfterDurable changePWR massDurationEvidence
2015-09-24T22:12:56Z2015-09-24T22:15:04Z72.8% durable-spine drop238,5352 minutesView redline
2010-11-21T10:20:39Z2010-11-21T22:26:06Z38.2% durable-spine drop28,64812.1 hoursView redline

Exact-event attribution: revisions 682622162 → 682622387

2,685 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · Onceinawhile was associated with 100.0% of removals.

Exact-event attribution: revisions 398030599 → 398133907

6,955 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 7 surviving replacement tokens · Alinor was associated with 100.0% of removals · Alinor 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 2015-07-01 -> 2016-01-01 (around L1 pivot ~2015-07-01). Rough word count: 9,068 → 2,438. Overall: wording shifted clearly.

Used more afterward

  • severe0 → 3
  • travel0 → 3
  • water1 → 7
  • tourism1 → 5
  • million1 → 4
  • resources1 → 4
  • controlled1 → 3
  • natural1 → 3
  • balah1 → 2
  • canada1 → 2
  • communications1 → 2
  • data1 → 2

Used less afterward

  • rights23 → 0
  • says15 → 0
  • africa14 → 0
  • king14 → 0
  • self14 → 0
  • determination13 → 0
  • arabs12 → 0
  • asia12 → 0
  • department12 → 0
  • report12 → 0
  • secretary12 → 0
  • south12 → 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 2014-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (across the L1 pivot ~2015-07-01): 235 websites were cited more (or newly), 79 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 288 → 489. Different websites: 111 → 247.

Mix of citation types: web 40%, book 28%, news 26%, journal 7%web 66%, news 15%, book 13%, journal 5%, report 2%, press 0%.

cited more oftenbefore → after
aljazeera.com2 → 19
theguardian.com0 → 13
archive.org2 → 9
pcbs.gov.ps1 → 8
edition.cnn.com1 → 7
apnews.com0 → 6
english.wafa.ps2 → 8
un.org6 → 12
ochaopt.org0 → 5
reuters.com3 → 8
cia.gov3 → 8
bbc.com0 → 4
cited less oftenbefore → after
books.google.com14 → 7
digicoll.library.wisc.edu7 → 0
haaretz.com8 → 3
books.google.ca4 → 0
icj-cij.org7 → 4
domino.un.org3 → 0
unispal.un.org5 → 2
khaleejtimes.com2 → 0
yale.edu2 → 0
thejerusalemfund.org2 → 0
usaid.gov2 → 0
lawrecord.com2 → 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.

Across this narrow window, the English lead remained textually unchanged, so no genuine temporal shift occurred within EN itself. However, comparing EN to other editions reveals persistent and, in one case, newly widened divergences: French shifted during this window from calling Palestine a 'non-member observer state' to explicitly downgrading it to a 'proto-État,' moving further from English's 'partially recognized de jure sovereign state' framing. Hebrew's edit added the loaded term 'terror organizations' to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad, a framing absent from English. Arabic's description of Palestine as a non-independent, aspirational entity contradicts English's sovereign-state framing, and this contradiction persisted unchanged across the window. Greek showed no substantive lead changes in this period.“

Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2015-07-01 to 2016-01-01.

Languages compared: en, ar, he, fr, el.

Version receipts: en: en before / en after · ar: ar before / ar after · he: he before / he after · fr: fr before / fr after · el: el before / el after

topichow they compareEnglish changeother language(s) changelanguages
Statehood status: partially recognized state vs. aspirational/proto-state conceptEnglish moved awayBefore: The State of Palestine ( ), also known simply as Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East.
“is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East”
After: The State of Palestine ( ), also known simply as Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East.
“is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East”
Before: La Palestine... est un État observateur non-membre de l'ONU situé au Proche-Orient
“est un État observateur non-membre de l'ONU situé au Proche-Orient”
After: La Palestine... est un proto-État du Proche-Orient
“est un proto-État du Proche-Orient”
FR, AR, HE
Terminology for Islamic militant groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad)parallel changeBefore: (no equivalent passage)
“no quotation”
After: (no equivalent passage)
“no quotation”
Before: וארגונים אסלאמיים שאינם כלולים באש"ף, כמו הארגונים חמאס והג'יהאד האיסלאמי
“כמו הארגונים חמאס והג'יהאד האיסלאמי”
After: וארגונים אסלאמיים שאינם כלולים באש"ף, כמו ארגוני הטרור חמאס והג'יהאד האיסלאמי
“כמו ארגוני הטרור חמאס והג'יהאד האיסלאמי”
HE
Characterization of State of Palestine's independence/statehood (AR: undefined political entity vs EN: partially recognized sovereign state)difference persistedBefore: The State of Palestine ( ), also known simply as Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East.
“is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East”
After: The State of Palestine ( ), also known simply as Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East.
“is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East”
Before: دولة فلسطين هو مصطلح يشير إلى كيانات سياسية سالفة في فلسطين... لم تكن أي من تلك الكيانات مستقلة حتى الآن
“لم تكن أي من تلك الكيانات مستقلة حتى الآن”
After: دولة فلسطين هو مصطلح يشير إلى كيانات سياسية سالفة في فلسطين... لم تكن أي من تلك الكيانات مستقلة حتى الآن
“لم تكن أي من تلك الكيانات مستقلة حتى الآن”
AR

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

Do the languages agree on basic facts?

Simple factual questions checked in several languages. Editions may agree, differ, contradict, or not say enough to tell. That is not a claim about who is right.

On the latest check, 3 questions produced: 0 contradict · 2 compatible difference · 1 agree · 0 not enough said.

questiontoday
When did the British Mandate for Palestine begin and end?differ
en gives start dates (1920/1922) with no end; he gives end date (May 15, 1948) with no start; ar states neither; not contradictory, just partial/complementary.
What is the stated origin of the name 'Palestine'?differ
All link name to Philistines/Greek usage, but he adds Semitic root and Roman renaming detail not mentioned in en/ar; differing emphasis, not incompatible.
What was the approximate population and its religious/ethnic composition in Palestine circa 1900?agree
All three editions state this information is not provided in the passage.

These checks are starting points for a reader. They do not decide 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: Q219060.

languagecomparison pointarticle titleversionwhentext used (chars)
enbeforePalestineopen version 6826221622015-09-24T22:12:56Z3,000
enafterPalestineopen version 6826223872015-09-24T22:15:04Z3,000
arbeforeدولة فلسطينopen version 170476802015-09-19T17:04:12Z1,167
arafterدولة فلسطينopen version 171500902015-09-29T22:52:25Z1,167
hebeforeמדינה פלסטיניתopen version 173724822015-08-18T15:30:25Z713
heafterמדינה פלסטיניתopen version 175712092015-10-05T20:08:12Z717
frbeforePalestine (État)open version 1187347912015-09-17T19:29:31Z854
frafterPalestine (État)open version 1197348732015-10-22T21:26:39Z847
elbeforeΚράτος της Παλαιστίνηςopen version 54220232015-09-13T06:50:25Z1,060
elafterΚράτος της Παλαιστίνηςopen version 55384722015-11-20T19:05:19Z1,060