Holocaust in Poland
Jedwabne pogrom
1 confirmed rewrite episode; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 42.5% 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 ↗Largest by persistence-weighted mass: 42.5% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 64 → 35. 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 2,256 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 6.2 years old or newer. 2.6% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 81.6% of what is there now (a fairly small group of accounts wrote much of the current text; 139 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.
1 confirmed rewrite episodeA bounded window in which established wording was substantially replaced.
Events bounded by stable revisions where long-lived wording was substantially replaced.
Snapshot corpus through 2026-07-01 (revision 1363438688).
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 50 interval rows and sent 2 candidate windows to exact checking: 1 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 scoring50 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.1 rewrite episode confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 2002-07-01Loss 9.6%24 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-01-01Loss 3.6%17 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-07-01Loss 5.8%41 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 2.1%20 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-07-01Loss 0.1%1 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 9.6%164 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-07-01Loss 38.9%801 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 21.5%419 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-07-01Loss 38.2%1,037 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 5.7%173 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-07-01Loss 17.6%782 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 6.0%334 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-07-01Loss 16.7%1,250 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 3.8%392 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-07-01Loss 12.5%1,766 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 14.0%2,668 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-07-01Loss 3.5%881 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 2.0%669 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-07-01Loss 3.3%1,358 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 24.3%12,210 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-07-01Loss 1.3%698 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 4.3%2,842 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 3.2%2,560 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 2.3%2,163 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 0.3%315 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 0.5%623 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 1.8%2,522 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 0.0%44 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 0.2%419 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 2.2%4,143 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 0.1%195 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 0.1%173 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 14.9%34,924 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.2%2,681 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 1.4%3,527 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 2.0%5,479 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 80.1%232,392 removed · 0 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2020-01-01 → 2020-07-01
- 2021-01-01Loss 1.0%773 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 2.8%2,699 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 4.6%5,138 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 0.4%532 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.2%313 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 2.8%4,613 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 0.0%74 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.4%880 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.1%102 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.2%428 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 0.0%103 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.0%64 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 65.9%202,132 removed · 0 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2026-07-01 → 2026-07-01
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-01 → 2020-07-01View redline | Confirmed: 42.5% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2020-04-13T19:12:42Z → 2020-04-13T23:29:42Z · 4.3 hours | coarse interval · 80% persistence-weighted loss · 232,392 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2026-07-01 → 2026-07-01View redline | Rejected: insufficient revisions to resolve an exact pair | coarse interval · 66% persistence-weighted loss · 202,132 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 950771412 → 950809202
3,290 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 2,240 surviving replacement tokens · SlimVirgin was associated with 100.0% of removals · SlimVirgin 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 2020-01-01 -> 2020-07-01 (around L1 pivot ~2020-01-01). Rough word count: 4,546 → 2,818. Overall: wording shifted clearly.
Used more afterward
- statement0 → 4
- communism0 → 3
- held0 → 3
- militia0 → 3
- stereotype0 → 3
- persak1 → 5
- writes3 → 12
- apologized1 → 4
- class1 → 4
- council1 → 4
- interviews1 → 4
- moved1 → 4
Used less afterward
- analysis6 → 0
- center6 → 0
- jerusalem6 → 0
- nazis6 → 0
- historian5 → 0
- pdf5 → 0
- silence5 → 0
- available4 → 0
- confronting4 → 0
- daily4 → 0
- deported4 → 0
- discussion4 → 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 2018-07-01 → 2026-07-01 (across the L1 pivot ~2020-01-01): 21 websites were cited more (or newly), 49 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 238 → 82. Different websites: 64 → 35.
Mix of citation types: book 33%, web 28%, journal 23%, news 16% → book 36%, web 24%, journal 21%, news 18%, report 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| polin.pl | 1 → 5 |
| archive.org | 0 → 3 |
| thetimes.com | 0 → 2 |
| bbc.com | 0 → 2 |
| ww2.senat.pl | 0 → 2 |
| archiwum.thenews.pl | 0 → 1 |
| latimes.com | 0 → 1 |
| archive.jpr.org.uk | 0 → 1 |
| vimeo.com | 0 → 1 |
| theglobeandmail.com | 0 → 1 |
| timesofisrael.com | 1 → 2 |
| jhi.pl | 1 → 2 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com | 16 → 6 |
| myinternetarchive-recovery.blogspot.ca | 6 → 0 |
| books.google.ca | 6 → 0 |
| info-poland.buffalo.edu | 5 → 0 |
| ipn.gov.pl | 9 → 6 |
| wiez.free.ngo.pl | 3 → 0 |
| warsawvoice.pl | 3 → 0 |
| youtube.com | 3 → 0 |
| polish-jewish-heritage.org | 2 → 0 |
| polin.org.pl | 2 → 0 |
| glaukopis.pl | 2 → 0 |
| muse.jhu.edu | 2 → 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's factual content did not change between the before and after revisions in this window; only a footnote/citation marker was removed. In contrast, DE and PL retained their pre-existing framing that persisted unchanged across the same period: DE emphasizes joint Polish-German responsibility under Wehrmacht occupation, while PL foregrounds German inspiration for the massacre. ZH also remained essentially unchanged, matching EN's core facts (340 killed, 300 burned, ~40 Poles implicated, German police present) without added attribution language. These attributional divergences between EN and DE/PL predate and persist through the observed edit window, rather than resulting from the English edit itself.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2020-01-01 to 2020-07-01.
Languages compared: en, pl, de, zh.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · pl: pl before / pl after · de: de before / de after · zh: zh before / zh after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution of responsibility: Polish citizens vs German inspiration/occupation | difference persisted | Before: About 40 ethnic Poles were implicated in the murders. German police were present in the town. “About 40 ethnic Poles were implicated in the murders. German police were present in the town.” After: About 40 ethnic Poles were implicated in the murders. German police were present in the town. “About 40 ethnic Poles were implicated in the murders. German police were present in the town.” | Before: Das Massaker von Jedwabne war ein Pogrom polnischer Bürger...gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht. “gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht” After: Das Massaker von Jedwabne war ein Pogrom polnischer Bürger...gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht. “gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht” | DE, PL |
| German role: inspiration vs occupying force (PL) vs mere police presence (EN) | difference persisted | Before: German police were present in the town. “German police were present in the town.” After: German police were present in the town. “German police were present in the town.” | Before: masowe morderstwo dokonane z niemieckiej inspiracji “masowe morderstwo dokonane z niemieckiej inspiracji” After: masowe morderstwo dokonane z niemieckiej inspiracji “masowe morderstwo dokonane z niemieckiej inspiracji” | PL |
| Removal of footnote citation for German police presence in English lead | English moved away | Before: German police were present in the town."Pogrom in Jedwabne: Course of Events. Polin Museum, 9 July 2016; accessed 2 April 2018 “German police were present in the town."Pogrom in Jedwabne: Course of Events. Polin Museum, 9 July 2016; accessed 2 April 2018” After: German police were present in the town. “German police were present in the town.” | Before: n/a “no quotation” After: n/a “no quotation” | EN |
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: 1 contradict · 1 compatible difference · 1 agree · 0 not enough said.
| question | today |
|---|---|
| How many Jews were killed in the Jedwabne pogrom? | contradict |
| EN cites up to 1,600 (often cited figure) while DE gives at least 340 with a range of 300-400, a large numeric discrepancy; PL is vague ('several hundred') which is compatible with DE but not clearly with EN's higher figure. | |
| Who carried out the killings — local Polish residents or German forces? | agree |
| All three agree local Polish residents carried out the killings, with some form of German involvement/inspiration/coordination noted in each. | |
| What was the role of the German authorities? | differ |
| All acknowledge German involvement but differ in emphasis: EN stresses German ultimate control/coordination, PL frames Germans as inciters per Heydrich's policy, DE presents it as disputed among historians ranging from passive to active roles. | |
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: Q707547.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Jedwabne pogrom | open version 950771412 | 2020-04-13T19:12:42Z | 539 |
| en | after | Jedwabne pogrom | open version 950809202 | 2020-04-13T23:29:42Z | 452 |
| pl | before | Pogrom w Jedwabnem | open version 58914083 | 2020-02-28T10:11:51Z | 3,000 |
| pl | after | Pogrom w Jedwabnem | open version 59444431 | 2020-04-14T22:08:44Z | 3,000 |
| de | before | Massaker von Jedwabne | open version 195716047 | 2020-01-11T17:37:51Z | 419 |
| de | after | Massaker von Jedwabne | open version 199400997 | 2020-04-28T23:14:41Z | 419 |
| zh | before | 耶德瓦布内大屠杀 | open version 57659376 | 2020-01-12T03:53:40Z | 703 |
| zh | after | 耶德瓦布内大屠杀 | open version 59268688 | 2020-04-20T11:36:37Z | 703 |