Skip to content
Turing

Analysis of the article

Estamos firmes con el matrimonio igualitario: Márquez

El Diario de Chihuahua · published on May 26, 2026

How is it written?

Very good writing

The article uses respectful language.

In the cross-cutting issues

Turing reads it apart from the grade: the grade measures how it is written; this shows what counts in each topic. See all issues.

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Published
May 26, 2026
Analyzed
November 11, 2026
State
Online
Leer en eldiariodechihuahua.mx PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

The text

Where we found it

These are the paragraphs where we find something, without reproducing the entire note. The other underlines are drafting details; the number leads to their explanation in the analysis. Tap or hover over a mark to see why we pointed at it.

El Diario de Chihuahua eldiariodechihuahua.mx

Estamos firmes con el matrimonio igualitario: Márquez

By César Lozano T. / El Diario ·

abc What it does well abc Inclusive language «…» Direct quote

… donde la mesa directiva tiene previsto declarar la conclusión del período ordinario del Poder Legislativo, “Aún nos falta camino por recorrer; aún nos deben a todes el matrimonio igualitario, a las mujeres la ley de violencia vicaria y el derecho a decidir sobre nuestros propios cuerpos”, externó Márquez Nolasco ante la manifestación de groups en favor de los derechos de community development. LGBT.“El dictamen está enlistado para el día jueves, estamos firmes con el tema; el cambio de martes a jueves se dio porque hubo una petición expresa de las diferentes …

… y ordinarias del Congreso en Juárez, no detendrá el avance ni el interés respecto del matrimonio igualitario. “Es ahí donde debió estar desde un inicio, las colectivas llevan más de 16 años luchando y ahora el dictamen está enlistado para el jueves, no pueden decir que estoy negando o bloqueando algo, porque no es cierto”, …

The rating

How Turing arrived at 100

What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the article listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.

Very good

  • Inclusive language
  • Respectful

The article uses respectful language.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2026 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism No flags
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 2 strengths
Inclusive language 100%
How we arrived at 100 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Gender and rights perspective+4
  3. Inclusive language+5
  4. Rating (between 0 and 100, with rounding and caps by category)100

Turing related it to what the site already knows

Who does it listen to?

  • AuthoritiesNo
  • Family, friends and neighborsNo
  • Collectives and organizations1 time
  • ExpertsNo

What it does well

  • Names the LGBTTTIQANB+ population
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists

What it claims

What the article says, fact-checked

In analyzing the memo, Turing reviews the figures, laws, and cases he claims and what the organizations, legislators, and authorities he cites say, and compares them to Memorial, Legislative Observatory, and published verifications.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

Who speaks

Who appears in the article

The public officials, bills and other voices we found, and what Turing did with what they say.

Talk about this initiative

Legislative observatory

Como esta nota habla de una iniciativa y de una persona legisladora, la registramos en automático en el Legislative Observatory. Here is the result; you can check it whenever you want.

Topic: Marriage equality and unions

  • Bill · Chihuahua

    Matrimonio igualitario en el Código Civil (PT)

    The AI found that the note speaks to this initiative. The note already appears on your page.

    See the bill

  • Diputación local de Chihuahua · PT

    Irlanda Dominique Márquez Nolasco No position

    The article mentions them, but does not attribute to them a position of their own on the topic.

    See their record

Other voices in the article

  • Parliamentary group

    diferentes fracciones parlamentarias In favor Speaks respectfully

    “hubo una petición expresa de las diferentes fracciones parlamentarias para que se subiera ese día”

    Shown on the bill’s page. It neither adds nor takes off points: only legislators have a rating.

    See the bill

  • Another voice

    colectivas In favor Speaks respectfully

    “manifestación de colectivos en favor de los derechos de la comunidad LGBT”

    Shown on the bill’s page. It neither adds nor takes off points: only legislators have a rating.

    See the bill

What each person said is published on their record only if it passes a verification: the quote is in the article, it is that person, and a second AI review agrees. Whatever does not pass is decided by a third AI review, without waiting for the team, which can correct any position. Report an error

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-AWV9-VZPY

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 11, 2026, 06:10:08 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-AWV9-VZPY Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 11, 2026, 06:10:08 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy to Ghostarchive In line for Ghostarchive.
  5. 5. Monitoring We check it from time to time to know if it gets deleted.

GHOSTARCHIVE · ghostarchive.org

In line for Ghostarchive

Turing keeps it in Ghostarchive, a public and independent archive. It goes one at a time, so as not to saturate it, and what has sayings goes first; the link appears here as soon as it is saved. Meanwhile, the copy is already valid with your fingerprint and time stamps.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy 1857c7e59e0a823baf16df2e5b01385a50a17119565f16d36cdb3f53dfb681a2

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That's why every copy uses open standards that anyone can check without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin, and Ghostarchive's standalone copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

Record

About the note

Data

Byline
César Lozano T. / El Diario
Published
May 26, 2026
Last analyzed
November 11, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online

Saved versions

  • 100Version 1 · November 11, 2026 · 259 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Are you from the outlet?

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.