← Back to all analyses

Other

United Nations General Assembly observers

The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out). 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 scan
No candidate window confirmed

L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.

Wording
wording shifted clearly

Which words grew or shrank is listed under Vocabulary.

Footnotes
28 sites grew · 0 shrank

Different websites cited: 1 → 28. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.

How openings sound
3 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 848 recorded revisions in the measure.

Who wrote today’s text?

Half of the wording still on the page is about 9.3 years old or newer. 29.4% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 67.8% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 188 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 (no candidate found), Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Versions.

Not available in this export: Facts. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.

No candidate rewrite window was confirmed

The exact L1 check ran, but no candidate showed the required durable-spine drop. This is a completed negative result for that detector, not a claim that the article never changed.

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.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
  2. 2 · Interval scoring42 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.Not neededNo coarse candidate was sent to revision-level checking.
  • 2006-01-01Loss 1.3%10 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-07-01Loss 8.0%131 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-01-01Loss 54.5%1,481 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-07-01Loss 33.7%1,270 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-01-01Loss 2.1%108 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-07-01Loss 0.5%42 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-01-01Loss 3.8%425 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-07-01Loss 32.4%4,669 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-01-01Loss 0.5%67 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-07-01Loss 4.2%679 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-01-01Loss 5.2%991 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-07-01Loss 4.5%1,082 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-01-01Loss 1.8%510 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-07-01Loss 1.9%692 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-01-01Loss 8.6%3,590 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-07-01Loss 5.5%2,566 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-01-01Loss 5.6%2,892 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-07-01Loss 16.3%9,315 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-01-01Loss 1.0%554 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-01-01Loss 4.7%3,372 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-07-01Loss 1.5%1,200 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-01-01Loss 0.1%83 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-07-01Loss 0.7%681 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-01-01Loss 0.1%161 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-07-01Loss 1.9%2,370 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 0.3%366 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-07-01Loss 6.8%10,274 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-01-01Loss 4.3%6,582 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-07-01Loss 3.2%5,137 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-01-01Loss 1.0%1,643 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-07-01Loss 0.4%755 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-01-01Loss 0.0%37 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-07-01Loss 0.3%705 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-01-01Loss 2.5%5,636 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-07-01Loss 0.2%356 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-01-01Loss 0.3%714 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 2.5%6,266 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-01-01Loss 3.0%8,044 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-07-01Loss 0.5%1,332 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-01-01Loss 2.7%7,786 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-07-01Loss 0.0%51 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed

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 2005-07-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 347 → 1,980. Overall: wording shifted clearly.

Used more afterward

  • res0 → 111
  • status0 → 33
  • granted0 → 22
  • observer1 → 45
  • full0 → 11
  • plo0 → 10
  • rights0 → 9
  • entity0 → 8
  • resolution0 → 8
  • december0 → 7
  • participate0 → 7
  • people0 → 7

Used less afterward

  • certain2 → 1
  • crescent2 → 1
  • federation2 → 1
  • governmental2 → 1
  • malta2 → 1
  • meetings2 → 1
  • military2 → 1
  • seabed2 → 1
  • several2 → 1
  • societies2 → 1
  • authority3 → 2
  • commonwealth3 → 2

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 2005-07-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 28 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 93. Different websites: 1 → 28.

Mix of citation types: — → web 78%, news 11%, book 9%, journal 2%.

cited more oftenbefore → after
un.org1 → 34
documents.un.org0 → 21
reuters.com0 → 5
un.int0 → 5
euobserver.com0 → 4
books.google.com0 → 4
legal.un.org0 → 4
digitallibrary.un.org0 → 4
daccess-dds-ny.un.org0 → 4
undemocracy.com0 → 3
treaties.un.org0 → 2
radionz.co.nz0 → 2
cited less oftenbefore → 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 three editions are largely aligned in structure and core content regarding UNGA observer status, the 1986 treaty conference, and the EU's exceptional 2011 rights grant. The main divergences are: EN uniquely names the two specific non-member observer states (Holy See and State of Palestine), which KO and FR leave unspecified; FR adds more granularity by distinguishing intergovernmental from non-governmental organizations among non-state observers, a detail absent in EN and KO; and there is a minor difference in whether the 'as of May 2011' temporal qualifier is retained when describing the EU's uniqueness, with FR omitting it while EN and KO include it.

Languages compared: en, ko, fr.

contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it

topichow they compareEnglish saysother language(s) saylanguages
specific non-member states nameddifferNames the two non-member observer states explicitly as the Holy See and the State of Palestine
“granted observer status to two non-member states (the Holy See and the State of Palestine)”		KO and FR refer generically to non-member sovereign states without naming which ones currently hold this statusEN
non-state observers composition detailmissing in EnglishDescribes non-state observers simply as international organizations and other entities, without subdividing further
“Non-state observers are the international organizations and other entities.”		FR specifies that non-state observers include both intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, plus other entities
“Les observateurs non étatiques sont des organisations internationales, tant les organisations intergouvernementales que les organisations non gouvernementales, et d’autres entités.”		FR
EU enhanced rights uniqueness qualifierdifferStates 'As of May 2011, the EU is the only international organization to hold these enhanced rights', explicitly time-stamping the claim
“As of May 2011, the EU is the only international organization to hold these enhanced rights”		KO also includes the May 2011 timestamp similarly, while FR states the EU is the only organization without the explicit date qualifier
“L'UE est la seule organisation internationale à détenir ces droits renforcés”		KO

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: Q219082.

languagecomparison pointarticle titleversionwhentext used (chars)
frsavedObservateurs à l'Assemblée générale des Nations uniesopen version 2374385792026-06-29T15:42:00Z24,128
ensavedUnited Nations General Assembly observersopen version 13631717552026-07-08T14:19:54Z22,762