Holocaust in Poland
Naliboki massacre
The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out). 1 question out of 2 has a compatible detail difference.
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: 0 → 12. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
2 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 605 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 3.3 years old or newer. 5.6% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 84.8% of what is there now (a fairly small group of accounts wrote much of the current text; 67 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.
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.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
- 2 · Interval scoring39 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.Not neededNo coarse candidate was sent to revision-level checking.
- 2008-01-01Loss 6.7%12 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-07-01Loss 35.2%158 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 7.8%78 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-07-01Loss 4.2%72 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 27.2%777 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 0.3%12 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-07-01Loss 0.1%3 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 0.3%26 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 6.6%760 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 5.5%680 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 7.9%1,020 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 0.7%98 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 0.1%12 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 0.0%5 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 23.1%3,981 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 5.3%856 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 0.2%45 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 0.0%3 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 9.4%2,268 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 7.4%1,851 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 4.7%1,237 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 1.3%379 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 0.7%204 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 0.7%243 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 18.8%7,051 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 3.3%1,079 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 0.5%164 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 4.0%1,474 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 26.0%9,999 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 0.1%43 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.4%134 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 1.5%601 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.4%160 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 0.3%149 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.2%123 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 40.6%23,137 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 2007-07-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 73 → 808. Overall: wording changed a lot.
Used more afterward
- partisans0 → 18
- attacks0 → 8
- war0 → 8
- forest0 → 7
- church0 → 5
- defense0 → 5
- europe0 → 5
- town0 → 5
- villages0 → 5
- world0 → 5
Used less afterward
- partizans3 → 0
- agreement2 → 1
- number2 → 1
- history3 → 2
- killing2 → 3
- destruction1 → 2
- only1 → 2
- people1 → 2
- killed2 → 5
- koniuchy1 → 4
- local1 → 4
- police1 → 4
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 2007-07-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 12 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 24. Different websites: 0 → 12.
Mix of citation types: — → web 53%, journal 24%, book 18%, news 6%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| ipn.gov.pl | 0 → 5 |
| citinet.net | 0 → 3 |
| wyborcza.pl | 0 → 2 |
| books.google.com | 0 → 2 |
| forward.com | 0 → 2 |
| shtetlroutes.eu | 0 → 1 |
| rp.pl | 0 → 1 |
| discovery.ucl.ac.uk | 0 → 1 |
| radzima.org | 0 → 1 |
| naukawpolsce.pl | 0 → 1 |
| ampoleagle.com | 0 → 1 |
| zagladazydow.pl | 0 → 1 |
| 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.
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 editions largely agree on the core event—a massacre of Polish civilians by Soviet partisans in Naliboki—but diverge on details. RU gives a precise death toll of 129 including demographic breakdown, while EN gives an approximate range of 127-128 and PL omits a number entirely. PL also omits the specific date. Descriptions of the settlement differ (town vs. village), and RU emphasizes the forest location without noting German occupation, which EN and IT explicitly state.
Languages compared: en, pl, ru, it.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| death toll | differ | 127 or 128 Poles killed “mass killing of 127 or 128 Poles” | 129 people killed, including three women and several teenagers “убиты 129 человек, включая трёх женщин и нескольких подростков” | RU, EN |
| specificity of victim count | missing elsewhere | 127 or 128 Poles “mass killing of 127 or 128 Poles” | no specific number given, only 'polskich mieszkańców wsi Naliboki' (Polish residents of the village) “masakra polskich mieszkańców wsi Naliboki” | PL |
| date of massacre | missing elsewhere | 8 May 1943 “the 8 May 1943 mass killing” | no date mentioned in lead “dokonana przez oddziały radzieckich partyzantów” | PL |
| location context / occupation status | differ | town in German-occupied Poland, now in Belarus “in the small town of Naliboki in German-occupied Poland” | village located in the Naliboki forest (Налибокской пуще), now territory of Belarus, no mention of German occupation “деревни Налибоки (в Налибокской пуще, ныне территория Беларуси)” | RU |
| settlement type | differ | described as a 'small town' “in the small town of Naliboki” | described as a 'wieś' (village) “masakra polskich mieszkańców wsi Naliboki” | PL |
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, 2 questions produced: 0 contradict · 1 compatible difference · 1 agree · 0 not enough said.
| question | today |
|---|---|
| How many people were killed in the Naliboki massacre? | agree |
| Both give ~127-129 as main figure; pl notes Soviet sources claimed 250 as alternate, but core estimate matches. | |
| Who was responsible — Soviet partisans, the Bielski partisans, or others? | differ |
| Both attribute to Soviet partisan units under same brigade names; pl adds unconfirmed possible Bielski involvement not stated in en. | |
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: Q2669836.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Naliboki massacre | open version 1357986947 | 2026-06-05T21:50:42Z | 9,112 |
| pl | saved | Zbrodnia w Nalibokach | open version 79715122 | 2026-05-08T08:23:57Z | 2,530 |