Politics & ideology
Republican Party (United States)
3 confirmed rewrite episodes; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 29.0% 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: 29.0% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 222 → 202. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 2.0 years old or newer. 65.1% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 59.2% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 730 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-01-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
3 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 2026-01-01 (revision 1330402946).
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 24 interval rows and sent 3 candidate windows to exact checking: 3 confirmed, 0 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 scoring24 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.3 rewrite episodes confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 2003-01-01Loss 4.0%, Gain 189.1%, Replacement lead 4.0%16 removed · 764 added PWRDescriptive anomaly: below exact-check floor
- 2004-01-01Loss 4.9%, Gain 68.2%, Replacement lead 4.9%75 removed · 1,050 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2005-01-01Loss 14.8%, Gain 142.4%, Replacement lead 14.8%534 removed · 5,142 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2006-01-01Loss 56.5%, Gain 90.9%, Replacement lead 56.5%5,590 removed · 8,998 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2005-01-01 → 2009-01-01
- 2007-01-01Loss 46.5%, Gain 69.2%, Replacement lead 46.5%7,609 removed · 11,337 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2005-01-01 → 2009-01-01
- 2008-01-01Loss 20.3%, Gain 28.1%, Replacement lead 20.3%5,368 removed · 7,410 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2005-01-01 → 2009-01-01
- 2009-01-01Loss 53.7%, Gain 12.8%, Replacement lead 12.8%22,532 removed · 5,351 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2005-01-01 → 2009-01-01
- 2010-01-01Loss 10.4%, Gain 7.9%, Replacement lead 7.9%3,771 removed · 2,852 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 9.9%, Gain 8.2%, Replacement lead 8.2%4,874 removed · 4,044 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 9.3%, Gain 7.8%, Replacement lead 7.8%5,850 removed · 4,906 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 7.1%, Gain 3.5%, Replacement lead 3.5%5,496 removed · 2,712 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 7.8%, Gain 13.0%, Replacement lead 7.8%7,277 removed · 12,137 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 12.2%, Gain 9.8%, Replacement lead 9.8%14,400 removed · 11,553 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 4.5%, Gain 3.6%, Replacement lead 3.6%6,427 removed · 5,071 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 32.6%, Gain 6.5%, Replacement lead 6.5%56,963 removed · 11,417 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2016-01-01 → 2017-01-01
- 2018-01-01Loss 6.4%, Gain 4.8%, Replacement lead 4.8%9,901 removed · 7,433 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 7.2%, Gain 7.1%, Replacement lead 7.1%13,372 removed · 13,184 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 21.7%, Gain 11.8%, Replacement lead 11.8%48,280 removed · 26,318 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2021-01-01Loss 8.3%, Gain 4.4%, Replacement lead 4.4%19,735 removed · 10,455 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 9.5%, Gain 7.2%, Replacement lead 7.2%26,923 removed · 20,384 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 5.1%, Gain 4.7%, Replacement lead 4.7%17,085 removed · 15,776 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 17.7%, Gain 9.2%, Replacement lead 9.2%71,905 removed · 37,548 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2025-01-01Loss 8.7%, Gain 11.6%, Replacement lead 8.7%38,593 removed · 51,016 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 26.3%, Gain 5.9%, Replacement lead 5.9%143,511 removed · 32,165 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-01
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 → 2009-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 92.7% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2005-01-12T20:55:02Z → 2005-01-12T22:49:39Z · 1.9 hours | coarse interval · 56% persistence-weighted loss · 41,099 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2016-01-01 → 2017-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 28.2% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2016-01-20T00:44:51Z → 2016-01-20T00:57:25Z · 12 minutes | coarse interval · 33% persistence-weighted loss · 56,963 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 29.0% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2025-04-10T09:52:46Z → 2025-04-10T10:08:31Z · 15 minutes | coarse interval · 26% persistence-weighted loss · 143,511 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 1284886106 → 1284887246
21,007 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 942 surviving replacement tokens · Tpbradbury was associated with 100.0% of removals · Tpbradbury was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 700687073 → 700688825
4,147 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 11 surviving replacement tokens · CaseyPenk was associated with 100.0% of removals · CaseyPenk was the origin author of 100.0% of surviving replacement text.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 9321996 → 9322502
1,168 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 12 surviving replacement tokens · BaronLarf was associated with 100.0% of removals · BaronLarf 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 9321996 -> rev 9322502 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 2,377 → 1,870. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- information1 → 2
- factions2 → 3
- republican66 → 63
- president19 → 18
- states19 → 18
- senator17 → 16
- democratic15 → 14
- former23 → 21
- governor11 → 10
- secretary11 → 10
- war10 → 9
- congress9 → 8
Used less afterward
- conservatives8 → 0
- favor6 → 0
- fiscal4 → 0
- include4 → 0
- religious4 → 0
- branch3 → 0
- christian3 → 0
- foreign3 → 0
- libertarian3 → 0
- moderates3 → 0
- prominent3 → 0
- trade3 → 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?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
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 1284886106 -> rev 1284887246 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 10,766 → 8,799. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- formed1 → 3
- very2 → 4
- banking1 → 2
- enlisted1 → 2
- identified1 → 2
- mountain1 → 2
- originalism1 → 2
- persisted1 → 2
- railroads1 → 2
- reduced1 → 2
- rejected1 → 2
- six1 → 2
Used less afterward
- grant8 → 0
- cleveland6 → 0
- march6 → 0
- hayes5 → 0
- gingrich13 → 1
- illinois4 → 0
- ahead3 → 0
- august3 → 0
- blaine3 → 0
- bryan3 → 0
- contract3 → 0
- coolidge3 → 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 rev 9321996 → rev 9322502 (exact confirmation, 2005-01-12 → 2005-01-12): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 1 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 0. Different websites: 11 → 11.
Mix of citation types: — → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| republicanmainstreet.org | 2 → 1 |
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 700687073 → rev 700688825 (exact confirmation, 2016-01-20 → 2016-01-20): 150 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 241. Different websites: 0 → 150.
Mix of citation types: — → web 59%, news 32%, book 9%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| washingtonpost.com | 0 → 9 |
| presidency.ucsb.edu | 0 → 7 |
| books.google.com | 0 → 7 |
| cnn.com | 0 → 5 |
| people-press.org | 0 → 5 |
| gop.com | 0 → 5 |
| nytimes.com | 0 → 4 |
| politico.com | 0 → 4 |
| gallup.com | 0 → 3 |
| jstor.org | 0 → 3 |
| pewresearch.org | 0 → 3 |
| goppr.org | 0 → 2 |
| 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 1284886106 → rev 1284887246 (exact confirmation, 2025-04-10 → 2025-04-10): 3 websites were cited more (or newly), 55 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 882 → 765. Different websites: 222 → 202.
Mix of citation types: web 46%, news 34%, journal 12%, book 8% → web 46%, news 34%, journal 12%, book 8%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| dailykos.com | 0 → 1 |
| cup.columbia.edu | 2 → 3 |
| presidency.ucsb.edu | 5 → 6 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| washingtonpost.com | 82 → 64 |
| millercenter.org | 14 → 0 |
| history.com | 12 → 1 |
| politico.com | 44 → 34 |
| jstor.org | 13 → 4 |
| nytimes.com | 120 → 113 |
| theatlantic.com | 28 → 22 |
| npr.org | 20 → 14 |
| archive.org | 14 → 9 |
| smithsonianmag.com | 4 → 0 |
| books.google.com | 40 → 36 |
| wsj.com | 15 → 11 |
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 English article did not change between the two revisions in this window, so there is no English-side temporal movement to report. The German article likewise remained textually identical across its before/after revisions. All identified divergences are therefore persistent, pre-existing differences in content emphasis: English focuses on the 2004 platform, current officeholders, congressional majorities, and the elephant symbol's history, while German emphasizes historical party realignment, regional strongholds, and three ideological currents (Christian-conservative, neoconservative, economically liberal). Neither edition shows convergence or divergence trends within this specific window.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2005-01-01 to 2009-01-01.
Languages compared: en, de.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · de: de before / de after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Founding rival party comparison | difference persisted | Before: it is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay “it is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson” After: it is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay “it is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson” | Before: wird oft mit der 1792 von Thomas Jefferson als Gegenpol zu den Föderalisten gegründeten Demokratisch-Republikanischen Partei verwechselt “no quotation” After: wird oft mit der 1792 von Thomas Jefferson als Gegenpol zu den Föderalisten gegründeten Demokratisch-Republikanischen Partei verwechselt “no quotation” | DE |
| Origin of early party members | difference persisted | Before: Many of its early members came from the Free Soil Party and American Party. “Many of its early members came from the Free Soil Party and American Party.” After: Many of its early members came from the Free Soil Party and American Party. “Many of its early members came from the Free Soil Party and American Party.” | Before: trat eine große Zahl des nördlichen Teils der vormaligen Whig Party über ... viele Demokraten der Nordstaaten wechselten ... zu den Republikanern “trat eine große Zahl des nördlichen Teils der vormaligen Whig Party über” After: trat eine große Zahl des nördlichen Teils der vormaligen Whig Party über ... viele Demokraten der Nordstaaten wechselten ... zu den Republikanern “trat eine große Zahl des nördlichen Teils der vormaligen Whig Party über” | DE |
| Current leader and government position | difference persisted | Before: The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a member of the party – and its leader – and it currently has majorities in the Senate and the House, as well as in governorships and state legislative seats. “The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a member of the party – and its leader” After: The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a member of the party – and its leader – and it currently has majorities in the Senate and the House, as well as in governorships and state legislative seats. “The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a member of the party – and its leader” | Before: ist derzeit eine der beiden großen Parteien der USA (neben den Demokraten) “no quotation” After: ist derzeit eine der beiden großen Parteien der USA (neben den Demokraten) “no quotation” | DE |
| Party's internal ideological currents | difference persisted | Before: The GOP is currently considered to be the more conservative of the two major parties. “The GOP is currently considered to be the more conservative of the two major parties.” After: The GOP is currently considered to be the more conservative of the two major parties. “The GOP is currently considered to be the more conservative of the two major parties.” | Before: Heute bilden die Republikaner eine Partei mit vorwiegend drei Strömungen: Christlich-konservativ, neokonservativ und wirtschaftsliberal. “Christlich-konservativ, neokonservativ und wirtschaftsliberal” After: Heute bilden die Republikaner eine Partei mit vorwiegend drei Strömungen: Christlich-konservativ, neokonservativ und wirtschaftsliberal. “Christlich-konservativ, neokonservativ und wirtschaftsliberal” | DE |
| Historical regional strongholds | difference persisted | Before: Organized in Ripon, Wisconsin on February 28, 1854, as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories “no quotation” After: Organized in Ripon, Wisconsin on February 28, 1854, as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories “no quotation” | Before: Ursprünglich waren die Hauptbastionen der Republikaner der Nordosten, der mittlere Westen und die Westküste “Ursprünglich waren die Hauptbastionen der Republikaner der Nordosten, der mittlere Westen und die Westküste” After: Ursprünglich waren die Hauptbastionen der Republikaner der Nordosten, der mittlere Westen und die Westküste “Ursprünglich waren die Hauptbastionen der Republikaner der Nordosten, der mittlere Westen und die Westküste” | DE |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
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.
Both the EN before/after revisions in this window are textually identical, so no genuine temporal change occurred on the English side within the confirmed rewrite window; the DE and RO revisions are also identical before and after. However, cross-edition divergences that persisted through the window include a direct contradiction between EN's claim of a large House/Senate majority and RO's claim of a minority in both chambers, a differing ideological framing (EN: conservatism/Christian overtones vs RO: center-right), and DE's inclusion of party chairman details absent from EN.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2016-01-01 to 2017-01-01.
Languages compared: en, ro, de.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · ro: ro before / ro after · de: de before / de after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Congressional/state legislative majority status | difference persisted | Before: In the 114th United States Congress, Republicans have their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1928 election and a majority of seats in the Senate. “Republicans have their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1928 election” After: In the 114th United States Congress, Republicans have their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1928 election and a majority of seats in the Senate. “Republicans have their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1928 election” | Before: Actualmente, republicani au o minoritate în ambele camere ale Congresul SUAului american, Senatul și Camera Reprezentanților, respectiv dețin o minoritate de guverne statale. “republicani au o minoritate în ambele camere ale Congresul SUAului american” After: Actualmente, republicani au o minoritate în ambele camere ale Congresul SUAului american, Senatul și Camera Reprezentanților, respectiv dețin o minoritate de guverne statale. “republicani au o minoritate în ambele camere ale Congresul SUAului american” | DE, RO |
| Ideological characterization of the party | difference persisted | Before: The party's platform is generally based on conservatism... usually with Christian overtones. “The party's platform is generally based on conservatism, in contrast to the modern liberalism of the Democrats.” After: The party's platform is generally based on conservatism... usually with Christian overtones. “The party's platform is generally based on conservatism, in contrast to the modern liberalism of the Democrats.” | Before: Platforma politică a partidului este în general considerată a fi de centru dreapta în spectrul politic american. “Platforma politică a partidului este în general considerată a fi de centru dreapta” After: Platforma politică a partidului este în general considerată a fi de centru dreapta în spectrul politic american. “Platforma politică a partidului este în general considerată a fi de centru dreapta” | DE, RO |
| Party chairman / leadership detail | difference persisted | Before: No mention of party chairman in the English lead. “no quotation” After: No mention of party chairman in the English lead. “no quotation” | Before: Vorsitzender des nationalen Organisationsgremiums der Partei, des Republican National Committee, ist seit Januar 2011 Reince Priebus. “Vorsitzender des nationalen Organisationsgremiums der Partei, des Republican National Committee, ist seit Januar 2011 Reince Priebus.” After: Vorsitzender des nationalen Organisationsgremiums der Partei, des Republican National Committee, ist seit Januar 2011 Reince Priebus. “Vorsitzender des nationalen Organisationsgremiums der Partei, des Republican National Committee, ist seit Januar 2011 Reince Priebus.” | DE |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
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 English lead saw minor wording changes (dropping 'contemporary' and 'political' as modifiers, rephrasing the Trump sentence, and adding new economic policy content on taxes and deregulation), reflecting incremental editorial refinement rather than a shift in substantive claims. The German edition, in contrast, underwent a substantive and evaluative change, altering neutral descriptive language ('die kleinere') to charged terms ('die gestörtere' and 'plutokratischen'), which diverges sharply from the English framing during the same window. The Romanian edition showed no textual changes at all between the two revisions, preserving its earlier characterization of the party unchanged, meaning any earlier or persistent divergences with English remain unaltered by this comparison window.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2025-01-01 to 2026-01-01.
Languages compared: en, ro, de.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · ro: ro before / ro after · de: de before / de after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of the two major parties / party framing | parallel change | Before: one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States “is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States” After: one of the two major political parties in the United States “is one of the two major political parties in the United States” | Before: die kleinere der beiden großen politischen Parteien in den Vereinigten Staaten “ist mit ca. 33,2 Millionen registrierten Anhängern nach der Demokratischen Partei die kleinere der beiden großen politischen Parteien” After: die gestörtere der beiden großen plutokratischen politischen Parteien “ist mit ca. 33,2 Millionen registrierten Anhängern nach der Demokratischen Partei die gestörtere der beiden großen plutokratischen politischen Parteien” | DE |
| Description of party rivalry framing | English moved away | Before: It emerged as the main political rival of the then-dominant Democratic Party in the 1850s “It emerged as the main political rival of the then-dominant Democratic Party in the 1850s” After: It emerged as the main rival of the then-dominant Democratic Party in the 1850s “It emerged as the main rival of the then-dominant Democratic Party in the 1850s” | Before: not present “no quotation” After: not present “no quotation” | EN |
| Trump as defining figure of the party | parallel change | Before: Donald Trump has been the defining figure for the Republican Party since 2016. “Donald Trump has been the defining figure for the Republican Party since 2016.” After: Trump has been the defining figure for the party since 2016. “Trump has been the defining figure for the party since 2016.” | Before: not present “no quotation” After: not present “no quotation” | EN |
| Economic policy detail added | English moved away | Before: It also “It also” After: It also supports low income taxes and deregulation “It also supports low income taxes and deregulation” | Before: not present “no quotation” After: not present “no quotation” | EN |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Do the languages agree on basic facts?
Analysis unavailable for this event: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0).
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: Q29468.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Republican Party (United States) | open version 1284886106 | 2025-04-10T09:52:46Z | 3,000 |
| en | after | Republican Party (United States) | open version 1284887246 | 2025-04-10T10:08:31Z | 3,000 |
| ro | before | Partidul Republican (Statele Unite ale Americii) | open version 16861067 | 2025-03-05T14:39:34Z | 1,572 |
| ro | after | Partidul Republican (Statele Unite ale Americii) | open version 16973846 | 2025-05-17T04:24:55Z | 1,572 |
| de | before | Republikanische Partei | open version 254771797 | 2025-04-02T04:34:47Z | 2,728 |
| de | after | Republikanische Partei | open version 255051192 | 2025-04-11T16:14:48Z | 2,746 |