Talk:Jan Karski

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 I would like to request an edit for an external link to this article which is outdated.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)

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) )

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) )

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)

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 [email protected] and [email protected]. 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 [email protected]) 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)

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)

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 delted 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 year 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)