Talk:Jan Karski/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Was there a reason for placing an article on Jan Karski under the name Jan Karsky? Halibutt 22:13, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was under the impression that's how he spelled it during the 50 years he lived in the US. But I see that Google doesn't support me on that. Adam 23:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He might've been spelled that way since Americans are pretty good at americanizing foreign names. However, I doubt he ever used the name himself and in the polish versions of his books the photos clearly show that the original, polish name was used in his British documents.Halibutt 10:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I recommend keeping the "Karsky" referral page, in case the subject arises again. Numerous books have misspelled the name that way over the years, and so there may be people who use it as a search term. E.ThomasWood

Indeed, the redirect should stay. Halibutt 12:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

E.ThomasWood - You refer to 'numerous books' misspelling karski's name. Would it be possible to provide a small list to what those books may be, as i am doing a research piece on him. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Nakul L.

"Sorting-Camp"

If Jan Karski thought, he was in the massdestruction-camp Belzec but actually was in a sorting/transit camp how can he whitness singular industrial human massdestruction there? <confused> The United Nations really should send Scott Ritter to eastern Poland to "sort things out".

I recommend you read his account directly as I did last December. I've since passed the book on to a friend and cannot quote directly; however, I recall the scene rather vividly. He was brought in dressed as a guard, and witnessed the extreme misery the inhabitants. He did not, to my recollection, witness exterminations directly, but was horrified by the conditions he encountered there. If you read the description, and his other narratives, you'll get a sense for the very confusing circumstances of his visit. I recently met an archivist at the Hoovers Institute (where Karski's papers are housed) who knew him personally, who could perhaps provide greater clarity if need be.Mikewelch7 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous poster of the first comment above will find in my biography of Karski a detailed discussion of what camp he visited and what he saw there. The book is based on dozens of interviews with Karski, years of archival research spanning seven countries, and my visits to many relevant locations including the sites of camps at Belzec, Belzyce and Izbica Lubelska. I concluded, on the basis of all available evidence, that he visited Izbica. --Tom Wood 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination

• In 1998 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official or even prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements, and more often it is impossible to verify. I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Will Beback · † · 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ac.karski2.jpg

Image:Ac.karski2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Another interview

• [1] Interview with Karski pages 14-18, taken from the book Voices from the Holocaust by James Cargas.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.85 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Description

Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.203 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that it was Karski who gave a presentation as part of the Holocaust Lecture Series at Sonoma State University in 1996, possibly 1995 as that was an annual event. There were times when the question and answer sessions were pretty animated and I remember there were people with video cameras present. Is there a single archive where that could be found?

He had some fast smart alek type answers to some questions which were pretty funny in their context. When asked what his response would be to the Holocaust deniers, he said something like "why should I fathom what transpires in the mind of a cockroach?". He also offered some very interesting insights into resistance activities regarding obtaining weapons and supplies for the resistance, specifically regarding some lingering issues about the AK not sharing weapons with Jewish resistance groups in the Ghettos, but he explained that they were given money and told that certain elements of Axis forces were "corruptible" implying that weapons would be purchased from corrupt elements of the occupying forces.

Georgetown University Doctorate

The article states that he received a Ph.D from Georgetown University in 1952. Does anyone know what subject it was for? --Hydraton31 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC) KARSKI, JAN 1952. MATERIAL TOWARDS A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FALL OF EASTERN EUROPE (1938-1948). Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.2.147 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where to put this link?

http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf187001bd Register of the Jan Karski Papers

--88.75.216.185 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Update Needed Since "Le Rapport Karski"

The material on the Karski-Lanzmann controversy needs to be updated since the release of Lanzmann's most recent film, Le Rapport Karski. Also, see the French WP page on that film for Lanzmann's sourced defense of his editing of Karski's interview in Shoah: that quotation would make the paragraph in this article much more balanced. — Wegesrand (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Article written by Jan Karski

According to E. Thomas Woods and Stanislaw M. Jankowski's book Karski has written an article on the film Shoah -being published in English, French and Polish- where he asked Lanzmann to produce another documentary showing what Karski had to tell about his task towards "the West". It would be interesting to read that article. Anybody knows where and when and by which title it has been published?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.104 (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Wood: are you still here? Can you please give the information necessary to find Karski's article? Would be nice.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.66.109 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was in a quarterly called Kultura, published in Paris. The salient point about it is that Karski embraced Lanzmann's film as a great and important work, in contrast to most influential Polish emigres who condemned the filmmaker for prejudice against Poles. And Karski took that stance after an exchange of correspondence that left him and Lanzmann no longer on speaking terms. Lanzmann interviewed him in 1978 and had him sign a promise not to speak about his experiences until the movie came out, which of course didn't happen until 1985. When Karski told Lanzmann in 1981 that he wanted to speak out, Lanzmann sent him a nasty letter of denunciation. Karski asked me not to quote it in full in my book, as he feared it could start a new Polish-Jewish controversy. But I believe it is available in his papers at the Hoover Institution. Tom Wood (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is now a link to this article (in French), but the WP article gives its title as "Shoah, a Biased Vision of the Holocaust", while the article that is linked to is just called "Shoah". Perhaps there is a good reason for this (for example, the original had that subtitle, but this French edition doesn't), but given the negative tone of that subtitle this requires some justification. Marfire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

Roosevelt and the Polish horses

An anonymous contributor added today the following sentence, "During their meeting Roosevelt suddenly interrupted his report and asked about the condition of horses in occupied Poland", with three references in Polish. I didn't find a reference to this in a googlebooks search, nor in a general google search. Can anyone sustain the reliability of these Polish sources and of the sentence ? --Pylambert (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, regardless of its veracity, what is the importance of the anecdote? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Malik I'm surprised that u can't see the importance of how u called it "anecdote".I added that information to realize some people how little interest in situation of brutally ocuppied countries, american and maybe more proper i should say allied forces had shown.Jan Karski (he wasn't the only one, Witold Pilecki get to Auschwitz to help prisoners, tried to make an uprising there, and get informations for Allies) risked his life by getting to Warsaw getto, he tried to get as much informations as he possibly could to inform Allies about mass murders of Jews, Poles and other Central and Eastern European nations.He hoped that American and others finally will help them.He was wrong, some of the Allies was too panicked to do anything while others ignored him or didnt believed in his informations.Today when some groups are calling Poles antisemites and blame them for Holocaust( how hurtful is that for Poles who lost 3 mln people in that unbelivable massacre, not to mention that such an accusations for anybody who know anything about history are just ugly lies) I think its important to show something that is very rarely mentioned in mass media: Allies despite all the informations that they get from Polish Underground Army and others for whom to stop that massacre was a priority, didnt do nothing to help them in any way.Don't You think its not just an "anecdote"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.209.211 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Claude Lanzmann, director of the film Shoah interviewed Jan Karski who carried the terrible news about the Warsaw Ghetto and the camps to the Allied Powers.

Earlier this year [2010] the Franco-German cable channel Arte broadcast the nine-hour Shoah and on March 17, a new film of some fifty minutes, Le Rapport Karski, also by Lanzmann . . . . The film consists of a second interview he conducted with Karski that did not appear in Shoah. In it the agent [Karski] confirms that Roosevelt didn’t ask “any specific questions about the Jews”, but that he gave him the names of several officials and dignitaries he was to meet in Washington, including the Justice of the Supreme Court Felix Frankfurter who, when told by Karski what was happening in Poland, replied “I am unable to believe you.” He also reveals that he [Karski] was in awe of the President – I was totally overwhelmed”. It makes for fascinating viewing and confirms the courage of the man whom Roosevelt greeted with the words, “Mr. Karski, I know about you.” ⎯"Mr. Karski, the hero and the myths", Times of London Literary Supplement (Oct. 8, 2010)

The article as written implies that this was a blindness peculiar to Roosevelt, and implicity suggests that he alone is blameworthy for this. The fact is that anti-Semites were already accusing him of provoking Hitler solely to mollify a small number of Jews with allegedly only financial interests in fomenting war. Roosevelt, in response, had to be careful not to appear to be catering to Jewish opinion. In fact, it took a long time – until the late fifties for people to be able to assimilate and believe the information about atrocities of Hitler and Stalin. During the 1950s the topic of the holocaust was virtually taboo, the rationale being that the Germans were now our friends in the fight against the USSR and people should just get over it. 173.77.106.73 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The three footnotes for the anecdote about the horses are all in Polish and therefore violate wikipedia guidelines, which prefers references either to be in English or, if they are in another language, to be accompanied by English translation.173.77.106.73 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredibly hard to believe, and somewhat discouraging (about Wikipedia) that this anecdote has not been removed yet, after nearly two years. I, too, searched to verify this source and could find no English sources whatsoever. Clever vandalism, really. Putting three sources that are unverifiable by English-speakers on an English wiki is going to make the vast majority of editors ignore the vandalism because they cannot verify it's not true. Is it true? I doubt it, to be honest. Why would a Polish newspaper have information regarding a US President that cannot be found in English? Also consider that from near the end of the war until 1989, the Polish media was highly controlled by the Communist-Polish Government, and anything about Jan Karski was suppressed. Always keep in mind that a newspaper can make something up just as easily as a person can. In fact, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, certain New York City newspapers paid their reporters to make things up because they found out they made more money that way (read about yellow journalism, if you wish). Regardless, whether the anecdote about the horses is true or not actually doesn't matter. It has no relevance to anything that should be put on this article. As the anonymous person who wrote the anecdote says, "it shows how little interest Americans and other allies had in the brutally occupied countries," but this article is supposed to be an unbiased article about Jan Karski. Just remember the subject of the article. If you want to discuss whether the allied response to Holocaust intelligence was appropriate or not, do so elsewhere. I'm removing this anecdote.--DeaTh-ShiNoBi (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

A footnote currently mentions the issue of when in 1914 Karski was born. It is true that his legal docs in the U.S. give June 24 and that his wartime docs gave April 24. But it's worth noting that Karski himself had no idea which date was correct. His mother told him when he was a child that his father and the priest had gotten drunk at the baptism ceremony and put down the wrong date on the baptism certificate. I could find no trace of any public records in Poland that would settle the question. Karski himself professed not to care in the least, and in my experience he always refused to let people make a fuss over his birthday. --Tom Wood 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Could Tom clarify the accusation made in the article that Karski knew he had not in fact been to Belzec when he wrote that he had been there? These seems to be a serious accusation to make without referencing. Adam 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just briefly, because I'm strapped for time but don't know that I'll have a chance to revisit this subject anytime soon... Karski lays out the details about what the emissary claimed and when he claimed it. Without time to refer back to the book, I can say that my research found references from soon after Karski reached England in 1942 indicating that he had talked of being "near Belzec" or some specific distance from Belzec. I noted, as I recall, that there is no evidence he told any of the people he met secretly in 1942-43, in the UK and US, that he had been inside a death camp at Belzec.

And the book describes in detail the process of creating his memoir, published as Story of a Secret State in November 1944. A writer named William Poster, who was apparently very good at ghosting such projects, took Karski's dictation and created the book for Houghton-Mifflin. While working on the project, Karski told political superiors in London and Washington about his arguments with Poster over the latter's tendency to sensationaliize and over how best to obfuscate many details for security reasons.

That suggests that you are agreeing (a) that Karski knew he had not been to Belzec (b) that his ghost-written book said that he had been to Belzec (c) that Karski didn't stop this or correct it when it came out. Is that so? I'm not saying this was not necesarily a defensible thing to do in wartime, but if he did do that, the article should explain what he did and why. Adam 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I agree with Adam and am not convinced by your description. We need more substantial evidence. Can you tell us how we can examine your documentation? How is it packaged and labelled? How can we request a copy? --Iwoj (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The documentation I collected on this subject and for the rest of the book has been deposited at, and is available to the public at, the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. --Tom Wood 05:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the goal of sorting out the evidentiary issue here, but someone will just have to refer to the book. It's in more than 550 libraries worldwide. I don't have the documentation at hand anymore, but I made the case as thoroughly as I could in the 1994 book. Tom Wood (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct date is 24 April. Some important sources:

• http://www.jankarski.org/postac/historia-o-karskim/ - site, about Jan Karski, which is leaded by Museum of History of Poland
• http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo.php?id=3920748 - main "paper" Polish encyclopedia (here in the net ;))
• http://www.nowyjorkkg.polemb.net/?document=124 - site of Consulate General of the Republic of Poland in New York, about Day of Jan Karski organised by the Consulate with Jan Karski US Centennial Campaign (see: "24 kwietnia jest faktycznym dniem urodzin legendarnego kuriera" - "24 April is correct date of birth of legendary courier")
• and last but not least: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karski Patryk (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reverting based on the footnote in the article. Thank you for finding quality sources that show the correct date. Please change the article accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Done :) It was news about Wikipedia and this article in the main news at Polish public TV yesterday (it was example of mistakes of Wikipedia). Patryk (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings and misinformation

Nakul L. asked for examples of books that misspelled Karski's name. I remember encountering quite a number as I wrote his bio, but for the moment I can only find on my hard drive the ones mentioned below.

What follows is a passage from my book proposal sent to publishers in 1992 as I was trying to get a contract the book. (For what it's worth, 22 of them turned me down, and I sometimes think the book would have been better off if John Wiley & Sons had been the 23rd, given how ineptly they marketed it.) I'm pasting this part in because it's possible that some of the mistakes mentioned here would be worth noting in the wiki article itself, but I'm agnostic on whether to include any of them:

Some of the mistakes that have appeared in writings about Karski are fairly minor: A biography of Rabbi Stephen Wise refers to Karski as "Korski"; a recent book on the Holocaust jumbles his biographical data. Others are more egregious:

• In Courier from Warsaw (Wayne State University Press, 1982), former underground member Jan Nowak mentions a meeting between Karski and Churchill that never took place.

• In Soldiers (Grove Press, 1968), German playwright Rolf Hochhuth portrays Karski as not only holding tempestuous discussions with Churchill, but also having an affair with the British leader's secretary.

• In Defeat in Victory (Doubleday, 1948), former Polish Ambassador Jan Ciechanowski writes that "Karski... gave the President [Roosevelt] a nerve-shattering description of his own visit-- disguised as a policeman-- to the two murder camps, Treblinka and Belzec, where Jews were gassed in railway trucks." Karski never visited Treblinka and did not mention his own camp experience to FDR, probably on the orders of Ambassador Ciechanowski. He did tell the President about other extermination camps and about specific atrocities against Jews.

• In The Silence of Pius XII (Little, Brown, 1970), Carlo Falconi states that Karski "was in Rome, and was received in audience by Pius XII-- and he left with the Pope the same memorandum [about the murder of Jews] that he had already delivered in London and Washington."

• In Koestler: A Biography (Macmillan, 1982), Iain Hamilton not only alleges that Karski had served as an executioner at a death camp, but also concludes his discussion of Arthur Koestler's collaboration with Karski with these words: "Karsky [sic], driven to despair by his inability to arouse world opinion, had by this time committed suicide.". --Tom Wood 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jan Karski nee Kozielewski himself used June 24 on his numerous handwritten documents including his dossier at the League of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, that contains his official resume, among other documents. There are no known documents written by his own hand with the April date. Jan or John was born on Saint John's day, which is June 24 and was subsequently named after the saint. The Kozielewski family, including its legal representative, insist that the correct date is the one found on original handwritten documents. Some of the war-time documents reflect various dates including April 24, reflecting the error on his birth certificate. No doubt the confusion served him well as cover but it ought to be corrected according to his wishes and the wishes of his family.

Tom Wood is correct but one ought to add that Jan Karski nee Kozielewski has been trying to correct the date during his life time and so has the Kozielewski family subsequently, including the family legal representative and their lawyers. Numerous hand-written documents exist to confirm June 24 as Karski's birth day, including the diplomatic dossier at the League of Nations [precursor of UN] in Geneva containing several documents with the official hand-written resume. Jan Karski was named Jan [or John in English] because he was born on Saint John's Day, on which all agree, and that is June 24th. I think perpetuating an error does disservice to Jan Karski's memory and his wishes. The sad part of the story is that it is done for the purpose of fundraising mostly. Primary sources that abound and in this case Jan Karski himself on numerous occasions ought to be the best judge. Articles about this issue also abound, and recorded evidence based on primary sources make this inconvenient fact certain. The confusion on war-time documents no doubt served Karski well but it is time not to perpetuate inaccuracies.Mieciousa (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Michael Szporer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jan Karski. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://zakazanahistoria.nowyekran.pl/post/31477,jak-niemcy-polakow-wrabiali-w-mordowanie-zydow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jan Karski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140428221745/http://www.pap.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_www.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=infopakiet&dz=swiat&idNewsComp=152195&filename=&idnews=155506&data=&status=biezace&_CheckSum=-331242185 to http://www.pap.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_www.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=infopakiet&dz=swiat&idNewsComp=152195&filename=&idnews=155506&data=&status=biezace&_CheckSum=-331242185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518083741/http://press.georgetown.edu/newsfeeditem/georgetown-university-press-publish-jan-karski%E2%80%99s-story-secret-state to http://press.georgetown.edu/newsfeeditem/georgetown-university-press-publish-jan-karski%E2%80%99s-story-secret-state
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524024539/http://www.arte.tv/fr/semaine/244,broadcastingNum=1139154,day=5,week=11,year=2010.html to http://www.arte.tv/fr/semaine/244,broadcastingNum=1139154,day=5,week=11,year=2010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609041259/http://sfs.georgetown.edu/53301.html to http://sfs.georgetown.edu/53301.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121219122815/http://yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/documents/part2/doc154.html to http://yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/documents/part2/doc154.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan Karski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222061218/http://www.georgetown.edu/webcasts/a-tribute-to-jan-karski.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/webcasts/a-tribute-to-jan-karski.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140210234235/http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/05/29/2012-presidential-medal-freedom-ceremony to http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/05/29/2012-presidential-medal-freedom-ceremony/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Explanatory material about date of birth

Howserman removed, and Poeticbent restored, a great deal of material in the "Life" section of this article concerning the question of Karski's date of birth. Before that material was added, the date of birth in the article was regularly reverted back and forth. However, I wonder if it's too much information for the text of an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience.

I propose simplifying things. Let's say, in the article text, that Karski was born on 24 June, but that his date of birth is sometimes given as 24 April. Perhaps we can include a (very) brief explanation why. Maybe we include that he was born on a saint's day and named after the saint. Then let's move almost all the rest of the material, formatted in a better fashion, to an explanatory footnote. (For a simple example of what I'm proposing, see the first sentence of Betty Shabazz, whose date of birth is also given differently in different sources.) My suggestion would preserve the material while keeping the article from getting lost in details that probably are not of interest to most readers.

I welcome comments from interested editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm OK with moving extraneous detail into a separate section:

==Footnotes==

{{notelist}}

by using {{efn|.....}} tag in bodytext. It wouldn't ever require to change much. Just wrap the extraneous details in {{efn|.....}} tag in bodytext. That's all. Would you like to do that, Malik Shabazz? Poeticbent talk 04:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I tried to organize the material a little better, grouping together the various organizations and books that use each date. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of fringe material

@GizzyCatBella: you inserted material sourced to a fringe author of "forbidden history" books published on zakazanahistoria.nowyekran.pl which seems like a blog. This, in and of itself, would not seem like a RS. Furthermore, the article linked does not mention Obama or Karski - so the tie-in to this article seems rather WP:SYNTHy. Care to explain?Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe author? Who are you talking about?GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The blog of Leszek Pietrzak, author of "forbidden history" books, which was entered into the article in the diff above. You might recall this author from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak. I'll further note that this blog makes no connection to Obama making the whole thing SYNTH. Care to explain how this BLOG is a RS, and how this is relevant to Karski?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak is a respected Polish historian; his bio has been successfully deleted from English Wikipedia but this does not mean he is not credible.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the notability of the author and reliability of the author are disconnected. Sources for him being respected? Any policy based rationale to be using what appears to be his blog? And how is this conspiracy theory connected to Karski's bio?Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

typo fix please

This page is "protected." Would someone who can do it please fix the typo "leaaders" in the article? LewisChessman (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Request 1

I've never heard the word "regugees" before. Either it's a typo (please change to "refugees"), or if it's a real word, please change to a more common word with a similar meaning. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Request 2

There are four appearances of "Washington, D.C." in the article text (as opposed to the references and a category) and five of "Washington, DC". Either "D.C." or "DC" ought to be used everywhere; please harmonize them as you see fit. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

Hi there! I would like to request an edit for an external link to this article which is outdated. The broken link is linked to this phrase in the article: "Photographic Memory: Snapshots of a Spy, Culture.pl". Currently it links to "https://culture.pl/en/article/photographic-memory-snapshots-of-a-spy" and this link does not work and is broken. This link should be replaced with: "https://culture.pl/en/article/photographic-memory-snapshots-of-the-emissary" and this one is up to date and is working. JoanneSA614 (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just removed the link, since there's already another link to the overview at culture.pl. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

I would like to add this at the end of the section "Resistance" :

However, the historian Steffen Hänschen notes topographical and chronological difficulties in the Izbica thesis and concludes that "it can hardly be said with certainty that Karski was in Izbica".

It is impossible for me, because I didn't make 500 edits. Could anybody add this sentence ? Thanks in advance. By the way, is it reasonable to maintain this protection for such a long time ? Marvoir (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (Edited Marvoir (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC) )

To answer the second question, it was protected by the Arbtration comittee after a case on Antisemitism in Poland. Signed, IAmChaos 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the !tlx|edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish : if I suggest an alteration and nobody expresses disagreement, isn't it a "consensus" ? Or, otherwise, what is a "consensus" ? By the way, I made similar additions on January 17 in the "Jan Karski" artcles of the German and Dutch Wikipedias and they have not been removed. Marvoir (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. It is said on the page Wikipedia:Edit_requests : "Consensus isn't needed if a change is not controversial." Is there anything controversial in my suggestion ? Marvoir (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

With an edit request, consensus is a positive thing. There are nearly 100 page watchers here, and at least one person replied to you. The lack of the edit being made shows there is no consensus among the article's editors to make the change. The request is still visible, so other editors can still make the edit if they wish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Siblings' names (Personal Life)

Could someone fix the typos in the names of Jan's siblings since his page is protected? Bogusław, instead of Boguslaw. Cyprian, instead of Cyjrian. Józef, instead of Uzef. Thank you! 2A02:A310:E13D:7D80:65C7:AC07:F9E6:2409 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the typos. Marvoir (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Meeting between Karski and Anthony Eden

On February 9, 2021, the following words were removed from the article Jan Karski by Volunteer Marek :

According to a contemporary note, when Karski met with Anthony Eden, the latter pressed for more information on the fate of Polish Jews while Karski wanted to discuss Soviet designs for Poland.

(Diff here.)
The reason given for the deletion was : "fails sourcing requirements ('tokfm')"
In fact, TOK FM echoes a contribution of historian Adam Puławski's to the book: Wobec "niespotykanego w dziejach mordu": Rzad RP na uchodzstwie, Delegatura Rzadu RP na Kraj, AK a eksterminacja ludnosci zydowskiej od "wielkiej akcji" do powstania w getcie warszawskim, Chełm (Poland), Stowarzyszenie Rocznik Chełmski, 2018.
Is TOK FM really an ineligible source ? Why ? Marvoir (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes TOK FM is not a reliable source here. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, could you please explain why TOK FM is an ineligible source here ? Are there sources that are ineligible for some matters and eligible for other matters ?

Under the pretense of suppressing "original research", you suppressed the fact that Raul Hilberg, the foremost Holocaust scholar, did not find Karski's testimony worthy of a footnote. You also removed the fact that Karski first said he visited the Belzec camp and that after Hilberg's criticism, a theory of uncertain origin replaced Belzec with Izbica, a theory that raised doubts in the Izbica specialist Steffen Hänschen. Even if some remarks I had made in the article can be discussed, the fact remains that when I say that Hilberg did not believe Karski's testimony and that Hänschen questioned the Izbica version of this testimony, it is not original research. Therefore, it is clear that you are using notions such as "original research" to conceal from the readers that Karski's testimony is suspect in the eyes of certain specialists. Marvoir (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide sources, links and quotes for these claims. I already noticed that the David Engel article you used as a source said nothing like what you claimed. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(the article was being used to source this claim about Hilberg doubting Karski but the article didn't even mention Hilberg!) Volunteer Marek 16:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's go in order. You say: "Please provide sources, links and quotes for these claims." Well, it seems to me that I gave the sources (several texts of Hilberg and the book of Hänschen) in our article and you deleted the whole thing. Did I understand your request correctly? After your response, I will respond to the rest of your message. Marvoir (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Note : I will not be here before some hours. Marvoir (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

How about this. Please let us know which page in the David Engel article mentions Hilberg. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to go in order, one thing at a time. I made the effort to answer your first request, I would like to know if you are able to recognize that I answered well. Otherwise, it's not worth wasting my time. After your answer, I will answer about Engel's article. Marvoir (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, if you did indeed blatantly misrepresent the source that's quite significant. So let's resolve that first. Where in the Engel article does he actually mention Hilberg? Volunteer Marek 19:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So after all this time, you haven't guessed yet. Quite simply, I never said that Hilberg is named in Engel's article. I mentioned Engel as a second example of a historian questioning Karski's account of his clandestine visit to an extermination camp. Engel thought that the camp described by Karski could not have been Belzec and he conjectured that it was Belzyce's camp. I did not go into details because this conjecture has not been accepted by historians. Marvoir (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I thought that, after my last reply, you would apologize. Is it impossible for you ? If you don't apologize, I will seek action against you. Marvoir (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You can seek whatever action you wish but the fact still remains that you tried to use a source that doesn’t even mention Hillberg to try and pretend-source a statement about Hillberg, your ex post justifications not withstanding. Your text certainly pretend that “Hillberg is named in Emgel’s article”. Volunteer Marek 15:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Stable version

I support restoring the stable version and careful checking new changes. This article needs some improvements (it's just C-class) but recent edits by Marvoir are problematic. Addng a mentionof Hilberg's views to the lead seems UNDUE. Adding his second name (Romuald) is helpful but it was improperly referenced to an unreliable genealogical site (I've restored it with a RS). The new paragraph added to the beginning if WWII is weird and arguably misleading, as it creates an impression that Poland started WWII. There are issues with grammar/vocabulary (ex. here, "resistant". Marvoir, we appreciate your interest in this, but you need to be more careful in ensuring your edits are making the article better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Piotrus, you said : "Adding a mention of Hilberg's views to the lead seems UNDUE". It's your opinion. Karski is mainly known for his testimony on an extermination camp. For me, the fact that the greatest specialist in the field of the Holocaust despised this testimony ("I would not put him in a footnote in my book") is important. Marvoir (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

First, his views need to be discussed in the article, the if the section is lenghty enough, they can be summarized in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, lead should contain no new content. Further, we have to show that Hilberg's view is shared by most other scholars, otherwise it is UNDUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Piotrus, one could argue that giving more importance to four or five secondary historians than to the foremost Holocaust scholar is UNDUE. Marvoir (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You said : "First, his views need to be discussed in the article". I explained in detail how historians "discussed" the views of Hilbreg. In fact, they didn't discuss his views, they obtained from Karski, or they suggested to Karski, a version that replaced Belzec by Izbica, and they also added explanations (security or diplomatic reasons) from Karski about lies in his statements . I mentioned all this in the article, but it was deleted. Marvoir (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part you'd like to restore here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is the section "Problems with the account of a camp visit" in this version. Marvoir (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There as some problems with this. Statements like "The explanation also does not sit well with the fact that" are bad English/bad encyclopedic style and need to be attributed. The sentence "This explanation does not square well with the fact that in his 1944 book, Karski, in addition to Estonian guards, had mentioned Ukrainian guards" is attributed to Karski himself and thefore is pure WP:OR. Overall, I am not convinced this minute detail needs a lenghty section, although I do think the content you found could be summarized in a single, shorter paragraph, and re-added to the current article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Piotrus, I reinstated the items in question, without what you consider "original research" (i.e. noting obvious stuff). I think it's impossible to explain the question clearly without going into what you consider to be details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvoir (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Piotrus, I presume that you have no objections against my last edit, since you didn't react. This last edit represents a rather long break in the narrative, so it seems to me that it would be good to encapsulate it in a subsection entitled "Problems with the account of a camp visit", as I had initially done. What do you think ? Marvoir (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marvoir I wonder if we can split most of the content (leaving a summary here) to somewhere else? Where was this visit mentioned? If in Karski's reports, it should go there. If in Story of a Secret State, that would be the right place (the article doesn't exist yet, but it should; I can stub it in the near future). Overall, the content you've added is valuable, but I think it's WP:UNDUE in Karski's biography (of course, a summary should remain). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Adam Puławski's work, Karski is no more seen as "the man who revealed the Holocaust to the West". See what I said about Adam Puławski in this (deleted) version of the Jan Karski article. Thus Karski is now important only for his (alleged) visit to a camp. So I think that this visit should be discussed in the Jan Karski article, and that such a discussion is not UNDUE in that article. To my knowledge, the first explicit mention of a visit made by Karski to a camp is in a 1943 BBC script written by Arthur Koestler; thereafter came Karski's 1944 book. It is possible that, during the war, Karski told of his visit to various personalities (Lord Selborne, Frankfurter...), but this is not said explicitly. After the war, Karski repeated his account of the visit several times. Since there is no Wikipedia article about the book (and perhaps there will never) I would leave the discussion of the visit in the Jan Karski article, at least until the article on the book has been created and passed the draft stage. Marvoir (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Since Adam Puławski's work, Karski is no more seen as " - huh, can you cite sources for that? Puławski's work is quite new, I have doubts it would quickly and drastically change things. And when I looked at your sources in the linked version, they seem to be newspaper interviews. I don't think that we can use intereviews with a reliable but minor Polish historian to conclude that his views have changed global views and decades of scholarship on Karski. Frankly, I am not even sure we can use those interviews as sources in light of Wikipedia:APLRS (or at least, they should be backed up by better sources). PS. And I still think this is more relevant to the book, with only a short summary remaining here. I've started the article about the book, so we have a place to split off WP:UNDUE content now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, "Rosa Luxembourg Foundation" is probably not an RS here. Volunteer Marek 06:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No, not for this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And texts such as "Even with Izbica substituted for Belzec, Karski's statements about the Estonian nationality of some guards remained problematic." are very clearly editorializing WP:OR. The first reference given to this is from Wood and Jankowski who say NOTHING like it. This is the second instance of Marvoir misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek 06:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The only references to "Ernie Meyer, "Recording the Holocaust – interview of Raoul Hilberg", The Jerusalem Post, June 12, 1986" that can be identified are this Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors which seems a bit strange. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And Marvoir also once again tried to restore the sentences "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements and was questioned by several historians, starting with Raul Hilberg in 1986." and cite it to David Engel even though Engel 1) says nothing of the sort and 2) doesn't even mention Hilberg! This too is a blatant misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek 06:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know what Piotrus thinks of these new and renewed accusations from Volunteer Marek against me. Marvoir (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like it if you could explain why you are blatantly misrepresenting sources. Wood and Jankowski say nothing like what you claim. Engel doesn't even mention Hilberg. Etc. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think you make some valid points, but you do have trouble sourcing them correctly and avoiding OR. I wish I had more time to help right now; I would like to improve this article and will be checking your version for sources/talking points, but it may take me weeks/months to get around to do this. In the meantime, I encourage you to carefully read WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, among others. Your attempt to improve this article is very appreciated, but these days English Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to respecting these policies, and the old days of WP:ESSAYish style with weak sourcing are no longer best practices. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

First point. I wrote : "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements and was questioned by several historians, starting with Raul Hilberg in 1986."

Thus, I explained the ideas of Engel. Why the hell do you keep pretending that I misrepresented Engel's article by implying that he names Hilberg ? If you think that there is an ambiguity, please act collaboratively and suggest a less ambiguous formulation. I will pass to the other points when you will give a satisfactory response to the first point. I would also like to have Piotrus' opinion on this first point. Marvoir (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Engel does not write anything like "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements"

Engel does not write anything like ""Karski's visit to the camp (...) was questioned by several historians"

Engel does not even mention Hilberg.

Engel does not write anything like " This conjecture was not accepted by historians"

Engel rather just makes a small note (a footnote in fact) regarding the whole Belzec/Belzec sub camp confusion. The Wikipedia text is all you misrepresenting the source. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Logically speaking, I'd expect "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements" to be true, and "was questioned by several historians" I think is supported by some other sources. That said, we need better sourcing here, a big problem I see is along the lines of "this mostly correct, I don't remember which source said exactly, here's a semi-relavant source". No, this is not how we go about improving the article - the article is already at this level, we need to make it better, not longer but still full of poorly sourced ORish claims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Logically speaking, I'd expect "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements" to be true Not exactly. Wood and Jankowski go through some other testimony that corraborates his experiences and testimony. Like, yes, obviously he (and the guard that guided him) are the only people who know for 100% sure but there's actually no doubt sources that really doubt he went (only question is where) and writing it this way is obvious POV and OR. "Questioned by several historians" is also untrue (and obviously unsourced) if we're talking about whether he visited a camp or not. The confusion is between visiting Belzec itself and visiting a sub camp of Belzec. This has for all intents and purposes been resolved and everyone, including Karski, acknowledges that he visited a sub camp/transit station, so there really is no "controversy" but Marvoir is trying to pretend like there is. Volunteer Marek 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems like a minor point. He visited location B, not A, not much difference. The more I think about it it's a footnote-level stuff, really. A sentence-two here, maybe a short paragraph in the article about the book will suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

About the words "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements" : in Wood and Jankowki's 2014 book, in the Penguin 2012 edition of Karski's book, in the 2010 French editions of this book, in the 2013 edition of this book (Georgetown University), there is no mention of anyone other than Karski attesting to his visit to the camp. It seemed clear to me that the references to Hilberg and Engel were to the part of the sentence that says "Karski's visit to the camp (...) was questioned by several historians". In order to avoid an ambiguity, we perhaps can put:

Karski's visit to a camp was questioned by several historians, for example the foremost Holocaust specialist Raul Hilberg and historian David Engel.

I assume that this way there will be no more sourcing problems. (And, parenthetically, the content will be the same.) Marvoir (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"there is no mention of anyone other than Karski attesting to his visit to the camp" (in one particular source) and "Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements" are two different things. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're basically saying "well, this source doesn't say that any one else attested so I'm gonna say that no one has ever attested". That's OR (and logically wrong). The purpose of this (your) phrasing appears to be to put the reality of the visit in doubt, which is NOT at all what any source says. You're faking sourcing here. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I woudn't accuse someone of intentional faking of sources, just not understanding OR/SYNTH. Let's AGF. Marvoir, you need to be more careful interpreting what the sources say. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

In my last proposition, I didn't keep the words ""Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements". (But please, don't tell me that if Karski's testimony was corroborated by another witness, Karski's specialists wouldn't say it.) What about my last proposition ? Marvoir (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I rather propose what follows :

Karski's account of his visit to a camp was questioned by several historians, for example the foremost Holocaust specialist Raul Hilberg and historian David Engel.

What about this proposition ? Marvoir (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No. This is the same misrepresentation of sources as before. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained. In fact, you're adding an additional misrepresentation - Wood and Jankowski mention neither Hilberg or Engel.

BTW, this interview is still nowhere to be found. Volunteer Marek 08:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You say : " Wood and Jankowski mention neither Hilberg or Engel." They mention them explicitly in their note p. 269, as I said it. Who is misrepresenting sources ? Marvoir (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you owe us an explanation. How come you could say that Wood and Jankowski don't mention Hilberg or Engel when they mention them on the page I had said? Marvoir (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You’re right - they mention both in … A ENDNOTE You tried to write 40k of text based on that. And, again, they don’t say anything like you pretend they say. The footnote is a thank you to Engel for providing the authors with an article. The text itself says “In this supposition he (Karski) was precisely correct”.

Stop trying to manufacture a fake controversy by misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The footnote is not only a "thank you" to Engel, it is a reference for the following sentence : "Scholars of the Holocaust have long realized that the camp Karski described coul not have been the Bełżec death camp." No, I didn't try to write 40k of text based on this footnote. I quoted the criticisms of Hilberg and the different explanations Karski gave about the Estonian nationality he had absurdly attributed to some guards. All this was carefully referenced. Wood and Jankowski say “In this supposition he (Karski) was precisely correct” : so what ? I didn't hide that Wood and Jankowski thought they had a good solution with the substitution of Izbica for Belzec, but the Izbica theory didn't convince the Izbica specialist Steffen Hänschen. By the way, Wood and Jankowski don't mention the 2001 book of Hilberg. In this book, the part devoted to Karski begins with these words (I quote from the French translation, p. 197-198): "He or she who presents a story or a rumor as a direct observation thereby introduces a falsification, even if the content of his testimony happens to be accurate. The falsification is multiplied by two if the content of the testimony turns out to be false." Next, Hilberg repeats the criticisms he had made in his 1986 interview and he adds: "According to the conclusions of his two biographers, Karski probably went in Izbica, and perhaps he heard rumors there about Belzec. He had passed through the village of Belzec in 1939. Karski recounted many things he had seen with his own eyes. He had brought messages from Jewish leaders in Warsaw and taken risks wherever he went. His additions to what he had personally known were perhaps intended to hold the attention and mobilize the consciences of all with whom he spoke. Perhaps he believed that these exaggerations were justified, and perhaps he refused to see in them a form of contamination." So the only way Hilberg envisages to explain the impossibilities asserted by Karski is that he repeated rumors, passing them off as his own findings. That is the opinion of the foremost Holocaust scholar on Karski. Marvoir (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Another thing : Volunteer Marek wrote in an edit comment :"Wood and Jankowski state that he knew where he was". Volunteer Marek is "misrepresenting the source" : Wood and Jankowski don't say that Karski knew where he was, they say that he didn't believe that he was in Belzec. Here is what they say exactly, p. 114 in the 2014 edition :

The village Jan reached was not Bełżec, nor did Jan think it was while he was there. When he first spoke of this mission after reaching London three months later, he described the site as a " 'sorting point' located about fifty kilometers from the city of Bełżec" although in the same statement he referred to the camp's location as "the outskirts of Bełżec."

Thus, what Wood and Jankowski consider to be Karski's first statement about his visit to the camp has inconsistencies. Moreover, at p. 269, they give as a reference for "sorting point": "The Ghetto Speaks". So, for them, it was in “The Ghetto speaks” that Karski first recounted his visit to the camp. What Wood and Jankowski do not say is that the account published in The Ghetto Speaks is an anonymous text (published on March 1, 1943). They do not even say if they received assurances from Karski that he was indeed the author of this story. If Hilberg took the trouble to read all this in detail, he surely saw in it a confirmation of his idea: Karski was repeating rumors while passing them off as his own observations. Another thing that Wood and Jankowski fail to say here is that in a BBC broadcast on July 7, 1943, it was already said that the camp Karski visited was Belzec. See Jan Karski, Mon témoignage devant le monde. Histoire d'un Etat clandestion (French translation of Story of a Secret State), large format edition of 2010, fourth page of photos between pages 180 and 181. In the 2012 Penguin edition, the first page of this script is reproduced on the third page of photos after p. 455. Karski says : "In the coursee of my investigation, I succeeded in witnessing a mass execution in the camp of Belzec." He then says that he was disguised as a Latvian policeman. (Yes, the Estonian story was for later.) I can understand that Hilberg was not very impressed with the work of Wood and Jankowski. Marvoir (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry but this is an issue apparently not just of misrepresenting sources but of basic lack of reading comprehension where you substitute what a source actually says out for what YOU think it should say. Volunteer Marek 14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you misrepresented the source. Marvoir (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Guys, guys, let's take a brather and assume good faith. This is a mostly trivial issue that seems to me can be summarized in one-two sentences. Frankly, I am now leaning towards removing this issue from his biography all together, per WP:UNDUE, as I've aded the following to the Story of a Secret State: "The second editions corrects some errors, such as mis-identification of the as transit camp near Izbica Lubelska for the main Bełżec death camp)." This is based on the RS here which says: "the Izbica Lubelska transition camp (mistakenly identified by Karski as the Bełżec camp in the 1944 edition of the book; see Wood and Jankowski 1994, 128–129)". I don't see the point of making a mountain of this proverbial molehill. It's an error in the first edition of the book, it was mentioned as such be some scholars, so we can do so as well, no need for writing more on that than the scholars themselves do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to forget that the foremost Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg, in a 2001 book where he mentioned the Izbica theory, expressed the opinion that Karski repeated rumors, passing them off as his own observations. By the way, Wood and Jankowski were journalists (Michael Berenbaum in Wood and Jankowski 2014, p. XI). I don't know if they had academic degrees. Marvoir (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

One scholar's dissenting view may be undue, unless other scholars echo him. Can you quote here what he said, exactly? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I did it above, beginning with the sentence "By the way, Wood and Jankowski don't mention the 2001 book of Hilberg." Marvoir (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, so basically he made an error in the first book, that got correct in the later editions, right? And nobody knows for sure why that error was made? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: News item on discovery of radio Karski used clandestinely

Hi. With co-author Stanisław M. Jankowski (who has recently passed away), I wrote the biography Karski: How One Man Tried to Stop the Holocaust (Wiley, 1994; updated edition from Texas Tech Press, 2014).

I suggest adding the following text after "After a short period of rehabilitation, he returned to active service in the Information and Propaganda Bureau of the headquarters of the Polish Home Army":

Karski's duties in 1941-42 included clandestinely monitoring broadcasts by the BBC and other news outlets outside Poland. He conducted this work in an apartment at ulica Czerwonego Krzyża 11 (location: https://goo.gl/maps/gH2ajY3XeH1rT1ev7), Warsaw. In 2016, a plaque was affixed to the building to note its significance in Karski's mission. In 2022, workers discovered a radio receiver, disguised as an electric stove, hidden under the floorboards of one of the apartments. (Source: https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/secret-wwii-radio-found-under-warsaw-apartment-floorboards-27840)

I would also like to add the 2014 revised edition of the book to this article. The ISBN is 9780896728820.

Thanks, Tom Wood Tom Wood (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mister Wood, as I have more than 500 "edits", I was able to make the additions you suggested. (I posted this on 11 July 2022. Marvoir (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC) )

Thanks! Tom Wood (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Who first supported the Izbica theory?

Dear Mister Wood, may I take advantage of your presence here to ask you for some information?

The wikipedia article (note 12) says that the authorship of the Izbica theory goes to you and Mr. Jankowski. But Steffen Hänschen, Das Transit ghetto Izbica im System des Holocaust, Metropol, 2018, p. 165-166, says: "Erst als Karski Jahre später auf einer Zugfahrt von Warschau nach Bełżec an Izbica Lubelska vorbeikam, erklärte er spontan, dies sei der Ort gewesen." (Only years later, when Karski passed Izbica Lubelska on a train journey from Warsaw to Bełżec, did he spontaneously declare that this was the place.)

So, according to Hänschen, the substitution of Izbica for Bełżec was made by Karski himself.

After the sentence I quoted, Hänschen puts a footnote call 386. Footnote 386 (same page 166) says that "Karski's biographers, Wood and Jankowski, assume that it was Izbica." Here is the full text of the note: "Die Biografen Karskis, Wood und Jankowski, gehen davon aus, dass es sich um Izbica gehandelt habe. Vgl. Thomas E. Wood/Stanislaw M. Jankowski, Karski. Opowieść o emisariuszu, Kralow/Oświęcim 1996, S. 252 f."

This note does not explicitly say that it was in the 1996 Polish edition of your book that Steffen Hänschen found the information that it was Karski himself who replaced Bełżec with Izbica. If I looked carefully, this information is not in the 2014 English edition of your book. Can I therefore ask you if you confirm that it was Karski himself who replaced Bełżec with Izbica, in the circumstances indicated by Steffen Hänschen? If so, could you point me to the oldest possible document where the version given by Hänschen appears? Thanks in advance. Marvoir (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC) (Edited by Marvoir (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC) )

Thanks for your interest. Sorry I am slow in responding.

I have not previously heard of the suggestion that Professor Karski himself recognized Izbica Lubelska during a train trip from Warsaw to Bełżec in later years. He did travel within Poland for a Fulbright fellowship in, if memory serves, 1974. He also traveled to his home country several times in the 1990s. (I accompanied him on a 1996 visit.) I spoke with him in person and by telephone frequently during that decade, and he often described in detail his experiences as a visitor. He never mentioned to me that he had visited Bełżec or passed through Izbica.

My co-author and I carefully investigated the episode Karski described in Story of a Secret State about a visit to a Nazi camp where Jews were held and abused. We found several pieces of wartime documentary evidence that he had described a visit to a camp somewhat near Bełżec. In 1992, I visited Bełżec and Izbica to observe the topographical details mentioned in source materials. The Holocaust historian Martin Gilbert later made a similar visit and affirmed to me his conclusion that Izbica was the site Karski visited. Karski himself stated publicly in the 1990s that he too agreed with that conclusion.

Here is text from pages 114-116 of the 2014 edition of our book:

At some point, either in the course of the day’s travels or earlier, a misunderstanding had arisen. Although it would have no effect on Jan’s mission, it was destined to mystify historians for a half-century after the war. Feiner had told Jan, and his guide had confirmed, that he would be taken to see the a part of Bełżec death camp, the killing center east of Lublin that was the subject of fearsome rumors in underground Poland. It was said that deportees from Warsaw were murdered en masse at Bełżec, that the exterminations were carried out by electrocution in a specially wired chamber, that the bodies of the dead were processed into soap and fertilizer. These rumors were all false. Nevertheless, over a half million Jewish lives did end at the tiny town of Bełżec—the lives of Jews from outside Warsaw, extinguished by gas, not electricity.

The village Jan reached was not Bełżec, nor did Jan think it was while he was there. When he first spoke of this mission after reaching London three months later, he described the site as a “‘sorting point’ located about fifty kilometers from the city of Bełżec”—although in the same statement he referred to the camp’s location as “the outskirts of Bełżec.” (The actual Bełżec death camp was in the town of Bełżec, within a few hundred feet of the train station.) In an August 1943 report, Karski at first placed the camp twelve miles, then twelve kilometers outside of Bełżec. By the time he began retelling his story publicly in 1944, the town he reached had become Bełżec itself.

Scholars of the Holocaust have long realized that the camp Karski described could not have been the Bełżec death camp. Clearly, Karski confused certain details as time went by; this was far from the only such instance. The fact that he had witnessed early persecutions against Jews in Bełżec in 1939 must have contributed to the confusion. Just as clearly, however, Karski believed he had reached a site that was part of the murderous system centered on the Bełżec extermination camp. In this supposition he was precisely correct.

Jan was in the town of Izbica Lubelska, precisely the midway point between Lublin to the northwest and Bełżec to the southeast—forty miles from each locality. Izbica was indeed a “sorting point”; Karski had this fact right and the distance from Bełżec nearly right in his earliest report. His description of the downhill slope between the town and the camp also matches the terrain of Izbica. The camp played an essential, if little-known, role in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Jews. A sanitation worker who was employed in the town during the time of Karski’s visit testified in 1946 about the town’s function:

"The Germans brought Jews from all of Europe to Izbica. Most of the Jews came from Czechoslovakia. In Izbica the various groups would be held for a couple of days (sometimes up to ten days), specifically for the purpose of robbing them of all of their valuables. From conversations with the Jews, I have learned that the Germans had told them, as they were being moved out, that they were being taken to work. That is why the Jews took everything they had with them, especially their valuables. After the Jews were robbed and after some of them were murdered in Izbica, the rest were taken to the extermination camp at Bełżec."

Aside from serving as a looting station for the Nazis, Izbica also functioned as a holding camp, allowing the Germans to regulate the flow of traffic to Bełżec. The fact that the Polish worker had been able to talk with Jewish victims suggests that security was lax at Izbica—lax enough to allow someone like Jan to wander the camp, and even to suffer a nervous breakdown there, without being detected. Such slackness on the part of Hitler’s henchmen was not unusual: At Bełżec and other eastern death camps, guards were typically drunk on the job, and even some S.S. officers kept Jewish women as forced sex workers. The Nazi death factories operated with something less than Prussian efficiency and discipline.

An anecdote related by the same Polish sanitation worker suggests that what Karski witnessed was not an unusual sight in Izbica:

"Once, in November 1942, I rode my bicycle to Izbica. It was a rainy day, thoroughly cold. The marketplace there was incredibly muddy. . . . Suddenly there stood before me the Gestapoman [Kurt] Engels, revolver drawn, and he yelled ‘Halt!’ He didn’t shoot. Why? I don’t know. . . . I stood there, and just behind him I noticed a black mass in the marketplace. Engels approached it and yelled; the mass raised itself from the morass. It was Jews, women and men, 100 in number, maybe 200, maybe even 300. . . . On the command of Engels the entire mass moved, formed itself into rows and tried to push itself toward the tracks some 100 m away. During this time Engels shot three Jews in the head. In the marketplace, on the pavement, remained more than ten, maybe twenty, thirty, forty half-naked small children. They didn’t cry anymore, although some still slightly waved their bare little hands and feet. Between the children lay ten to twenty old Jews and Jewesses. I don’t know whether they were ill or just weak. Either way, they did not lift themselves upon the command of Engels. Engels suddenly halted the columns and asked the Jewish women to take the children. The women didn’t know what to do. Then the Ukrainians started to beat the women with the butts of their weapons, and this brought success: The Jewish women leaped forth and took the children, every one. Engels then walked back to the marketplace, stepped toward the row of those remaining, and shot each one in the head. . . . In this manner the transports to Bełżec were organized."

[The sources cited here are listed in footnotes on page 269. Perhaps the most pertinent of those notes is below:]

114 downhill slope: The description of the camp’s layout that Karski gives in Story of a Secret State (p. 344) makes clear that he viewed it from a rise. The elevation of the Izbica Lubelska camp was some forty meters below that of the town itself, according to Professor Józef Marszałek of Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, an authority on camps in eastern Poland. Professor Marszałek believes that Izbica was the camp Karski saw (letter to author).

Thanks, Tom Wood Tom Wood (talk) Tom Wood (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

I (Jane Robbins) work for the Jan Karski Educational Foundation. We noticed an incorrect statement on the Jan Karski Wikipedia page, namely that Bill Clinton was Karski's student at Georgetown University. We have recently confirmed with the Registrar at Georgetown that Clinton was not enrolled in any of Karski's classes. However, several prominent people were Karski's students. This is documented on our website at the bottom of the Karski Life section https://www.jankarski.net/en/about-jan-karski/jan-karski-life.html Suggested changes shown below:

CHANGE Karski taught Eastern European affairs, comparative government, and international affairs at Georgetown University for 40 years. Among his students was Bill Clinton (Class of 1968)...

TO Karski taught Eastern European affairs, comparative government, and international affairs at Georgetown University for 40 years. (Redacted)

In 1985, Karski published the academic study The Great Powers and Poland, based on research during a Fulbright fellowship in 1974 to his native Poland. TheFairfaxian (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the text that you proposed is copied from the Jan Karski Education Foundation site that you linked. That material is copyrighted, so it unfortunately cannot be used in a Wikipedia article, where all content must be freely licensed. It would also be better to cite independent, secondary, reliable sources if you're able to find any that support your changes, although if not, the JKEF page may suffice per WP:SPSSELF. Feel free to reopen this request if you submit new text that is freely licensed and, preferably, has additional supporting sources. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Please also review the paid-editing disclosure requirements and take appropriate action if those apply to you. Thanks. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear PlanetJuice, The reason why we wanted the change made was to improve the accuracy of the Wikipedia page on Karski, which currently has an incorrect assertion about Bill Clinton being Karski's student. You mention citing independent, secondary, reliable sources, but the only true source is the Georgetown University registrar's office. Obviously they aren't going to publish anything about this, and since our foundation is always interested in accuracy, that's why we placed it on our website. If you send me your email address, I will forward the registrar's email to you. If you don't want to do that, you can email them directly: Amanda Ruthven, Associate University Registrar for Academic & Student Records, Office of the University Registrar, G-01 White Gravenor Building, 37th and O Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20057, Phone: 202-687-4020 (main line). Her email addresses are kar229@georgetown.edu and studentrecords@georgetown.edu. On Jun 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM, she sent an email to Bozena Zaremba stating "After extensive research through the university's archives, we have concluded that President Clinton did not take classes with Jan Karski." In terms of our website being copyrighted, if there is a form or a way to give Wikimedia permission to use our material, please send it to me. (My email is jmurobbins@gmail.com) The point is that we want truthful, accurate information both on our website and on the Wikpedia Karski page. Regarding disclosures about being paid, I'm happy to take any actions to disclose properly. Thanks for your consideration, TheFairfaxian TheFairfaxian (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Removed unsourced sentence about Bill Clinton. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! We also have a new play and film about Karski that have both recently premiered, and I will send in information about them, to be added. TheFairfaxian (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jane and others. I might add that after President Clinton spoke glowingly about Professor Karski at a campus event, the professor told me he had checked with the Georgetown registrar and confirmed that Clinton had not been enrolled in any of Karski's courses. Of course, the President might have become aware of Karski while on campus and, after decades, come to the mistaken belief he had been enrolled.

The 2014 edition of our Karski biography states, on page 220: "One School of Foreign Service student he did not teach was 1968 graduate Bill Clinton; thus Karski narrowly avoided becoming acquainted with a third United States president."

I can confirm, as reported on page 234 of our book, that President Clinton sent a lovely letter to be read at Professor Karski's funeral:

After delivering the homily of the Mass of Christian Burial, Georgetown University President Father Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J., read a letter from Clinton:

"Jan Karski was brave; he was resolute; and he demanded of us what he demanded of himself: that we face with clarity the existence of injustice and evil in the world and act with courage to defeat them. Above all, his message was that freedom must GIHON RIVER PRESS be defended. His personal courage and commitment gave weight to his convictions, and his understanding of the world gave depth to the personal history he embodied.

"Those who knew Jan Karski will never forget him; and his message will continue to light the path of freedom-loving peoples throughout the years to come. No one could ask for a finer legacy." Tom Wood (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Doubts about the Izbica theory

I had written this :

In 2018, the historian Steffen Hänschen noted topographical and chronological difficulties in the Izbica thesis and concluded that "it can hardly be said with certainty that Karski was in Izbica".

Volunteer Marek deleted it in a Bold Revert Edit on 24 September 2022. The reason he gave for this Bold Revert Edit was that the text he deleted was UNDUE. Well, why is Dr Steffen Hänschen, who worked 20 years on the Holocaust and who dedicated a 608-page book to Izbica, less important than the journalists Wood and Jankowski, who allege the authority of Professor Józef Marszałek, who doesn't seem to have published anything on the question ? I suggest to restore the part concerning Steffen Hänschen in the following more detailed form :

In 2018, the historian Steffen Hänschen noted topographical and chronological difficulties in the Izbica thesis and concluded that "it can hardly be said with certainty that Karski was in Izbica". Steffen Hänschen added that Thomas (Toivi) Blatt also doubted that Karski had been in Izbica.

Piotrus, what do you think ? Marvoir (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marvoir Did you enter all this text into this bio article to mention a marginal minority trivial theory? Of course this is WP:UNDUE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you speak of a "marginal trivial theory" ? The foremost Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg found that the anomalies in Karski's testimony were enough not to mention Karski in a footnote. The Izbica location, the only solution presented to these anomalies, was questioned in 2018 by an Izbica specialist, who says that Thomas (Toivi) Blatt, who lived in Izbica, also questioned it. So, nobody knows where Karski saw what he pretended to have seen. And that is a trivial marginal matter ? Where are the Izbica specialists who contradicted Hänschen ? But please let us discuss my proposal. Marvoir (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That reminds me. There's still no record of that supposed source. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, Volunteer Marek, instead of triumphing because you are unable to find a source, you have a very simple way to prove your good faith: email the Jerusalem Post and request a copy of the interview. A friend of mine did it and received a copy of the interview a month later. Marvoir (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A "friend of yours", eh? Lol. Ok. Anyway, no, you need to provide this source, especially given the fact that you have already been caught misrepresenting sources in two other instances. Volunteer Marek 13:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, how better can I provide a source than by giving a perfectly verifiable reference? You refuse to do the verification, so you are acting in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvoir (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem. The reference is not viable and there's no indication the source actually exist (it very well might). Maybe you could tell us who "your friend" is and he could provide it? Volunteer Marek 13:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek : and then you will say that the word of my friend is not a proof, thank you very much. You are the one disputing the source (even though this source has been mentioned for years on the internet and no one has ever said it is fake). Your ignorance on the subject does not give you the right to demand that my friend reveal his identity to the spies that Wikipedia is full of. Prove your bona fides by requesting a copy of the interview from The Jerusalem Post. Marvoir (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

”spies that Wikipedia is full of”. Alrighty then. Volunteer Marek 14:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But so much text about the theory? Do you think it’s DUE? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

My deleted text was not only about the Izbica theory. I also mentioned Hilberg's incredulity and the different explanations Karski gave for his lies about his uniform. I think it was impossible to make it shorter. By the way, "UNDUE" is a subjective oipinion. Marvoir (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should mention this fact, but it belongs to the Story of a Secret State. I lean towards it being UNDUE here. Wikipedia, while NOTPAPER, does not provide book-lenght treatment. We have to summarize (see SUMMARYSTYLE) and respect UNDUE. Hilberg is of course reliable, and given that he (and actually, others too) make note of this error in the early editions of the SoSS, it's DUE of us to mention this fact in the article about the book. It seems to me too to warrant at most a single-sentence mention here, now that we have a dedicated article on the book (if we didn't have it, I'd support keeping a longer mention here, but I don't see this as necessary any more). As for a test on UNDUE, we can take a look at encyclopedic or similar "chapter" lenght biographies of Karski, and see how much space they dedicate to this issue. I very much doubt any such treatment dedicates more than a sentence at most to the Belzec/Izbica mistake. We should follow suit.

From what I see, now we still have too much detail about this in the article here - a paragraph of three sentences ("Disguised as a Ukrainian camp guard (although in some of his writings Karski stated he was disguised as an Estonian guard, for security and political reasons) he also visited a Durchgangslager ('transit camp') for Bełżec death camp located in the town of Izbica Lubelska, midway between Lublin and Bełżec. While Karski accurately reported the location in his initial reports, written in 1943, in his book published in the USA during the war, Karski identified the camp as the Bełżec death camp, which has led to some confusion among historians. According to Thomas Wood and Stanislaw Jankowski, Karski was initially told he was going to be taken to see Bełżec and in his book, Karski was referring to the overall system of murder centered on Bełżec rather than the camp itself."). I suggest moving this to the article on SoSS, while keeping a short version here. Also, I'd note that current version has an error: "in some of his writings Karski stated he was disguised as an Estonian guard, for security and political reasons". Not some. This was a second error in the first edition, and as explained in the SoSS article, it was intentional due to the complexity of Polish-Ukraianian-Jewish relations. Karski admited it was a falsifiction he considered necessary back then, and he corrected this in later editions. So the first sentence needs to be clarified, second and third shortened, and any detail from them moved to the SoSS article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We already do mention it. We mention it the way it's described in sources. Not the way that Marvoir has invented. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Piotrus, it is not only in his 1944 book that Karski said he had visited the camp of Belzec, he already said it in a BBC script broadcast in July 1943. And what about Steffen Hänschen expressing doubts about the Izbica theory ? Marvoir (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE answers that. Those seem like trivial, minute details that don't belong in someone's biography. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus : The Izbica theory is the only way they found to save Karki's testimony on "Belzec" and the fact that an Izbica specialist is not convinced by this theory is "UNDUE"? Marvoir (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marvoir ..and I’m afraid it’s time to stop Marvoir. There is no consensus for your changes. Your desired modifications have been also rejected 8 months ago - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

8 months ago, nobody had objections against my proposal. Thus there was a consensus 1 against 0 in my favor. Marvoir (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Aleksander Kwasniewski

change ((Aleksander Kwasniewski)) to ((Aleksander Kwaśniewski)) 2601:541:4580:8500:57A:2B80:8E67:6E30 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Add a link to "Jan Karski Eagle Award"

there is now a "Jan Karski Eagle Award" article on the English Wikipedia (I translated it from Polish yesterday) and I'm going through pages on the find links tool to add the link to it. This page is edit-protected so could you add the link to the proper article? Lunathedog2 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding some brief info about his wife Pola Nirenska

I think the mention of his wife under Personal Info could use some brief augmentation without distracting from the importance of the Karski page. When I read the section as it currently reads, my first thought was I wonder if he drove her to suicide? Silly to think that, but the way it's mentioned begs questions. For example, she had a history of severe depression, and despite Karski's strong support of her dance and teaching careers, and of the Holocaust project that she herself began during Karski's participation in the Shoah documantary, she suffered a nervous breakdown during that time. This info is expanded upon in Wikipedia's Pola Nirenska page, but I believe its mention under Karski's Personal Info wouldn't distract from the significance of his page itself and provide a bit more insight into his character and personal life. Thekeel (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)