Holocaust in Poland
Collaboration in German-occupied Poland
Wording shifted a little. 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 ↗L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.
Different websites cited: 31 → 29. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
3 configured questions checked in more than one language. See Facts.
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 1,974 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 8.1 years old or newer. 2.1% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 87.0% of what is there now (most of the current text comes from a small group of accounts; 88 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, Facts, Versions.
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.
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 16 interval rows and sent 1 candidate window to exact checking: 0 confirmed, 1 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 scoring16 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.Candidates rejectedRevision-level checking did not find the required durable replacement.
- 2019-01-01Loss 31.5%5,822 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2018-07-01 → 2019-01-01
- 2019-07-01Loss 8.2%2,459 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 6.7%3,030 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 0.3%174 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 1.1%910 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 0.4%433 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 0.2%292 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 0.3%463 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.3%521 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 0.3%541 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 0.3%509 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.0%84 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.1%321 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.8%1,974 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 0.1%278 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.1%394 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-01 → 2019-01-01View redline | Rejected: 12.6% durable-spine drop, below the required 20.0%Exact pair: 2018-08-02T18:05:56Z → 2018-08-05T06:57:44Z | coarse interval · 31% persistence-weighted loss · 5,822 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
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 2018-07-01 -> 2019-01-01 (around L1 candidate date 2018-07-01; exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite). Rough word count: 3,245 → 3,276. Overall: wording shifted a little.
Used more afterward
- another0 → 3
- largest0 → 3
- nationalist0 → 3
- punished0 → 3
- servicemen0 → 3
- hiding2 → 7
- journal1 → 4
- theater1 → 4
- family1 → 3
- gorals1 → 3
- helped1 → 3
- helping1 → 3
Used less afterward
- jasińska7 → 0
- puretz6 → 0
- due4 → 0
- datner3 → 0
- higher3 → 0
- jasińskiej3 → 0
- jednak3 → 0
- marta3 → 0
- grabowski11 → 2
- żydów5 → 1
- number13 → 5
- się8 → 3
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 2018-07-01 → 2026-07-01 (across the L1 pivot ~2018-07-01): 17 websites were cited more (or newly), 16 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 138 → 166. Different websites: 31 → 29.
Mix of citation types: book 66%, web 18%, journal 10%, news 5% → book 65%, journal 15%, web 15%, news 4%, press 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com | 21 → 31 |
| archive.org | 0 → 7 |
| doi.org | 0 → 3 |
| polska1918-89.pl | 1 → 3 |
| fpnp.pl | 0 → 2 |
| dzieje.pl | 0 → 1 |
| policjapanstwowa.pl | 1 → 2 |
| mazowsze.hist.pl | 1 → 2 |
| ceeol.com | 0 → 1 |
| api.parliament.uk | 0 → 1 |
| haaretz.com | 1 → 2 |
| archiwum.rp.pl | 0 → 1 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.ca | 11 → 0 |
| wpolityce.pl | 3 → 0 |
| grott.info | 2 → 0 |
| cbc.ca | 2 → 0 |
| niniwa2.cba.pl | 2 → 1 |
| jhi.pl | 1 → 0 |
| arch.ipn.gov.pl | 1 → 0 |
| treblinka-muzeum.eu | 1 → 0 |
| timesofisrael.com | 2 → 1 |
| books.google.co.kr | 1 → 0 |
| tandfonline.com | 1 → 0 |
| hansard.millbanksystems.com | 1 → 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.
The English lead was substantially revised between June 2018 and January 2019, removing the specific claim that the German minority were the main collaborators, softening 'executed' to 'punished... with thousands sentenced to death,' and rephrasing the comparative claim about marginality using hedged attribution ('described by some'). The Russian lead's brief definitional lead remained completely unchanged across the same window, containing no equivalent statements about collaborator identity, punishment specifics, or comparative marginality, making these purely English-side edits with no cross-edition convergence or divergence pattern in RU to compare against.
Compared matched historical revisions around the L1 candidate window from 2018-07-01 to 2019-01-01.
Languages compared: en, ru.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · ru: ru before / ru after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution of collaboration to German minority | English moved away | Before: The main collaborators were members of Poland's German minority. During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators. “The main collaborators were members of Poland's German minority.” After: During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement punished collaborators, with thousands sentenced to death. “Collaboration in Poland was less institutionalized than elsewhere in Europe, and has been described by some as marginal.” | Before: Польский коллаборационизм во Второй мировой войне — сотрудничество польских организаций, польских граждан и отдельных этнических поляков с Третьим рейхом и странами "оси" во время Второй мировой войны. “сотрудничество польских организаций, польских граждан и отдельных этнических поляков с Третьим рейхом и странами "оси"” After: Польский коллаборационизм во Второй мировой войне — сотрудничество польских организаций, польских граждан и отдельных этнических поляков с Третьим рейхом и странами "оси" во время Второй мировой войны. “сотрудничество польских организаций, польских граждан и отдельных этнических поляков с Третьим рейхом и странами "оси"” | RU |
| Punishment vs execution of collaborators | English moved away | Before: During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators. “During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators.” After: During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement punished collaborators, with thousands sentenced to death. “During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement punished collaborators, with thousands sentenced to death.” | Before: No equivalent statement present in RU lead. “no quotation” After: No equivalent statement present in RU lead. “no quotation” | RU |
| Characterization of collaboration's scale relative to Europe | difference persisted | Before: Compared to the situations in other German-occupied countries, collaboration in Poland was marginal. “Compared to the situations in other German-occupied countries, collaboration in Poland was marginal.” After: Collaboration in Poland was less institutionalized than elsewhere in Europe, and has been described by some as marginal. “Collaboration in Poland was less institutionalized than elsewhere in Europe, and has been described by some as marginal.” | Before: No comparative statement about scale relative to other countries in RU lead. “no quotation” After: No comparative statement about scale relative to other countries in RU lead. “no quotation” | RU |
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 · 0 compatible difference · 3 agree · 0 not enough said.
| question | today |
|---|---|
| Did the Polish state or its government-in-exile formally collaborate with Nazi Germany? | agree |
| All editions agree: no formal collaboration; government-in-exile rejected German proposals. | |
| What scale of individual Polish collaboration with the occupier does the article describe? | agree |
| All cite ~5% active collaboration vs ~25% resistance; ar adds wider numeric range but same overall framing. | |
| What role does the article attribute to Poles in the deaths of Jews under occupation? | agree |
| All three describe 'structural collaboration' via indifference, not direct killing, with extermination attributed to Nazi Germany. | |
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: Q55607914.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Collaboration in German-occupied Poland | open version 848275255 | 2018-06-30T22:24:53Z | 933 |
| en | after | Collaboration in German-occupied Poland | open version 878606067 | 2019-01-15T21:06:14Z | 509 |
| ru | before | Польский коллаборационизм во Второй мировой войне | open version 92806665 | 2018-05-22T07:50:36Z | 201 |
| ru | after | Польский коллаборационизм во Второй мировой войне | open version 97624831 | 2019-01-21T15:08:06Z | 201 |