Holocaust in Poland
Warsaw concentration camp
Before-and-after comparison of two English versions. Wording changed a lot.
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 ↗These two selected English versions are shown side by side. See Rewrite.
Different websites cited: 0 → 58. 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 1,056 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 4.6 years old or newer. 6.8% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 97.4% of what is there now (most of the current text comes from a small group of accounts; 81 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 43 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 scoring43 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.
- 2006-01-01Loss 8.3%69 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-07-01Loss 12.6%207 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 14.5%379 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-07-01Loss 23.1%921 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 2.9%156 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-07-01Loss 0.1%9 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 0.4%44 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-07-01Loss 0.5%64 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 24.9%4,087 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-07-01Loss 15.8%2,448 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 0.0%3 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-07-01Loss 0.1%20 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 0.2%60 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 0.1%27 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-07-01Loss 1.8%571 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 1.8%636 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-07-01Loss 0.5%197 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 1.7%693 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 0.4%163 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 0.0%2 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 0.2%103 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 0.0%0 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 0.1%84 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 0.0%28 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.1%739 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 37.1%26,024 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 94.0%43,989 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 29.1%2,664 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 2.1%277 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 1.8%354 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 63.2%16,069 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 4.5%1,668 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 3.1%1,981 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 0.7%645 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 1.9%2,275 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.1%115 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.2%304 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.8%1,746 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 0.9%2,092 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.2%580 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 37.3%109,420 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-01 → 2026-07-01View redline | Rejected: insufficient revisions to resolve an exact pair | coarse interval · 37% persistence-weighted loss · 109,420 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 2005-01-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 306 → 4,865. Overall: wording changed a lot.
Used more afterward
- jewish0 → 26
- kopka0 → 16
- died0 → 15
- due0 → 15
- army0 → 13
- bogusław0 → 13
- building0 → 13
- used0 → 13
- fact0 → 12
- part0 → 12
- prisoner0 → 12
- buildings0 → 11
Used less afterward
- grouped3 → 0
- parts3 → 1
- commander2 → 1
- either2 → 1
- gassed2 → 1
- called3 → 4
- railway3 → 4
- city2 → 3
- complex2 → 3
- estimates2 → 3
- transferred2 → 3
- women2 → 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 2005-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 58 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 202. Different websites: 0 → 58.
Mix of citation types: — → web 34%, book 33%, journal 23%, news 9%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| books.google.com | 0 → 11 |
| rp.pl | 0 → 7 |
| haaretz.com | 0 → 5 |
| youtube.com | 0 → 4 |
| polityka.pl | 0 → 4 |
| dzieje.pl | 0 → 4 |
| bip.warszawa.pl | 0 → 4 |
| cbj.jhi.pl | 0 → 4 |
| wpolityce.pl | 0 → 3 |
| zagladazydow.pl | 0 → 3 |
| czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl | 0 → 2 |
| muzeum-niepodleglosci.pl | 0 → 2 |
| 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.
No genuine temporal or cross-edition divergence emerged from this comparison window: the EN, DE, and FR lead sections are textually identical before and after the specified dates. The listed items reflect pre-existing, persistent differences in coverage (e.g., EN's detail on Battalion Zośka's liberation and Maria Trzcińska's role versus DE/FR's silence on these points) rather than any change occurring within the 2026-07-01 window. All editions show zero edits to the relevant content during the specified timeframe.
Compared matched historical revisions around the L1 candidate window from 2026-07-01 to 2026-07-01.
Languages compared: en, de, fr.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · de: de before / de after · fr: fr before / fr after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberator of the camp | difference persisted | Before: On 5 August 1944, KL Warschau was captured by Battalion Zośka during the Warsaw Uprising, liberating 348 Jews who were still left on its premises. “On 5 August 1944, KL Warschau was captured by Battalion Zośka” After: On 5 August 1944, KL Warschau was captured by Battalion Zośka during the Warsaw Uprising, liberating 348 Jews who were still left on its premises. “On 5 August 1944, KL Warschau was captured by Battalion Zośka” | Before: Am 28. Juli 1944 wurde das Konzentrationslager „evakuiert“. “Am 28. Juli 1944 wurde das Konzentrationslager „evakuiert“.” After: Am 28. Juli 1944 wurde das Konzentrationslager „evakuiert“. “Am 28. Juli 1944 wurde das Konzentrationslager „evakuiert“.” | DE, FR |
| Death toll estimate | difference persisted | Before: the total number of people murdered in the camp is estimated at 20,000. “the total number of people murdered in the camp is estimated at 20,000” After: the total number of people murdered in the camp is estimated at 20,000. “the total number of people murdered in the camp is estimated at 20,000” | Before: Nach den Erkenntnissen des Polnischen Instituts für Nationales Gedenken starben im Lager etwa 20.000 Menschen. “starben im Lager etwa 20.000 Menschen” After: Nach den Erkenntnissen des Polnischen Instituts für Nationales Gedenken starben im Lager etwa 20.000 Menschen. “starben im Lager etwa 20.000 Menschen” | DE, FR |
| Attribution of conspiracy theory origin | difference persisted | Before: it has been at the centre of a conspiracy theory, first promoted by Maria Trzcińska “first promoted by Maria Trzcińska, a Polish judge” After: it has been at the centre of a conspiracy theory, first promoted by Maria Trzcińska “first promoted by Maria Trzcińska, a Polish judge” | Before: Behauptungen, es habe sich beim Konzentrationslager Warschau um ein Vernichtungslager mit Gaskammer und ca. 200.000 Todesopfern gehandelt, sind historisch nicht belegt. “sind historisch nicht belegt” After: Behauptungen, es habe sich beim Konzentrationslager Warschau um ein Vernichtungslager mit Gaskammer und ca. 200.000 Todesopfern gehandelt, sind historisch nicht belegt. “sind historisch nicht belegt” | DE, FR |
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 · 1 compatible difference · 2 agree · 0 not enough said.
| question | 2018-06-01 | today |
|---|---|---|
| What is the estimated total number of people killed at this camp? | differ | agree |
| en gives wide range 20k-212k; pl favors ~20k; de declines a total but all treat ~200k as disputed | ||
| Who were the primary victims (e.g. Jews, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs)? | differ | differ |
| en/pl emphasize ethnic Poles alongside Jews; de emphasizes primarily Jewish forced laborers | ||
| Was it primarily an extermination/death camp, or a concentration/labor camp? | differ | agree |
| pl/de say concentration/labor camp rejecting extermination claim; en includes an extermination camp component | ||
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: Q692676.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Warsaw concentration camp | open version 1357168907 | 2026-06-01T03:18:12Z | 2,741 |
| en | after | Warsaw concentration camp | open version 1364851617 | 2026-07-18T22:16:22Z | 2,741 |
| de | before | KZ Warschau | open version 262570944 | 2025-12-19T23:30:28Z | 846 |
| de | after | KZ Warschau | open version 268636434 | 2026-07-09T13:29:46Z | 846 |
| fr | before | Camp de concentration de Varsovie | open version 222518927 | 2025-01-29T19:22:08Z | 1,901 |
| fr | after | Camp de concentration de Varsovie | open version 237942504 | 2026-07-19T13:37:57Z | 1,901 |