Talk:Golden Harvest (book)

This book genre

this book should have been supplied with the double header in it's Wikipedia Entry. 1) WORK OF FICTION 2) the characters and events described in this publication are product of author's epiphany and loosely based on general events that occurred during WW II. treating this pamphlet as anything else than a defamation is just purely immoral. this book is on par with; painted bird and misha & the wolves

   shemyaza (aginst all)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.124.40 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 

Comments by Xx236

The page is about Polish and English editions, but no bibliographic data ara available.

The picture has been published on English edition cover.

As far as I know the subject of the picture is unknown. The cleaning is much more probable, but unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The wpolityce text summarizes the Rzeczpospolita article and doesn't prove anything. It says the picture doesn't probably show criminals, but it may show an exhumantion of Soviet soldiers.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources in a POV manner

@Volunteer Marek: - care to explain why in relation to this revert, you've:

1. Decided to ignore the next sentence in Mędykowski's review on how the Treblinka musuem sees this as a representative photograph?
2. Omitted Mędykowski's conclusion on how this is appropriate shock therapy? We usually retain the bottom line.

And in this revert, you've -

1. Again, misrepresented the reviewer's coverage of the "photo issue" - in which he criticizes both Gross and his critics regards the photo.
2. Removed background information Loose provides on the "gold rush" near death camps.
3. misrepresented Loose's by saying " its jump to rash conclusions" - as Loose qualifies this with "probably" in his text.
4. Re-ordered the summary of Loose - so that his conclusion on the work is present in the middle of our paragraph - instead of at the end.

Misrepresenting sources in such a manner is not appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented anything. Don't make such accusations unless you can substantiate them (WP:ASPERSIONS). "Misrepresenting sources" (what's in the source) is when you change "western leftist" to "American Jews" (what you pretended it was) in order to falsely accuse an author of anti-Semitism. THAT is misrepresentation. Here at best we have a disagreement of what parts of the source are most relevant, but really just an objection to your usual POV cherry picking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that if you haven't read a source - revert1revert2 - then your ability to summarize it is quite limited. In both edits you grossly misrepresented the reviewers.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And I will note that my edit didn't "summarize" anything, but rather cut down on the UNDUE length you gave to these sources. One more time - I didn't misrepresent shit. Stop making false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This - Browning also notes in regard to the photograph which motivated the book that it is unknown who took it, when and why. does not appear in Browning (who makes a general observation regarding photographs as evidence in general). Retaining Zoe Waxman's comment of anti-Polish accusations and her observation of lack of sympathy - while omitting her stmt that such lack of sympathy is understandable because of the material (as the concluding sentence in her paragraph) - is a serious distorion of what the source is saying.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You discuss about undefined books - still no bibliographic data.Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Taken to NPOV/n.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The translation of the last quote in the 'Reception' section is misleading. 'Leaves (something) to be desired' would be much closer both to the German wording (no 'much'!) and the spirit, as Loose actually addresses what may well be 2 minor flaws ('the not wholly convincing attempts at giving a 'thick description' do not even mention Geertz').IonDoe (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@IonDoe: I'm copying the paragraph below. Would you like to attempt a re-translation? François Robere (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ingo Loose reviewed Golden Harvest, alongside Jan Grabowski's Hunt for the Jews, and Barbara Engelking's It Was Such a Beautiful Sunny Day. Loose wrote that all three works relate to the open wound of Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust, a very sensitive point in Polish historical memory. Loose writes that Gross makes it clear that a well-informed reader will find nothing new in the book, and in this manner, the book is perhaps disappointing to a professional reader, though worth reading as it has a social "therapeutic" dimension rather than opening a new page in the state of research. Loose notes that there has been a public debate regarding the book's cover photograph, and that neither Gross nor Gross's critics probably know exactly what it portrays. Loose also criticizes the work for lack of archival research and for jumping to conclusions, and states that the methodology "leaves much to be desired."

References

Poles enriching themselves at the expense of Jews murdered in the Holocaust

Is it possible to enrich themselve at the expense of dead people? Is the statement legal or ethical?

At the same time landlords (ziemianie) lost their land and were expelled to another county in Poland. Is digging gold immoral and destruction of big farms, parks and manors ethical? Even small businesses were nationalized. Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

• https://historia.org.pl/2016/04/01/zlote-zniwa-t-gross-recenzja/
• https://histmag.org/Jan-Tomasz-Gross-Irena-Grudzinska-Gross-Zlote-zniwa-recenzja-5206 Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/historia/1512268,1,zlote-zniwa---ile-faktow-ile-interpretacji.read Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.recensio.net/rezensionen/zeitschriften/jahrbucher-fur-geschichte-osteuropas/jgo-62-2014/3/ReviewMonograph766430035 Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

THe book is allegedly about Poles. The New Statesman “Wartime plundering of Jews became a continent-wide affair,” he writes, citing evidence from Vichy France to Corfu.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please learn how to cite chapters of books. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books

Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include:

• name of author(s)
• title of the chapter.

so not Horne, Cynthia M.; Stan, Lavinia. Pages 68-69 were written by Mark Kramer.

Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is a stub

This page should contain some text, see Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz#Content. Now it describes mostly a discussion about the book, so maybe its name should be Controversies regarding ''Golden Harvest'' Gross&Gross or Reception of ''Golden Harvest''?Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I see that much of the text is under the "Reception" heading. But that is lengthy, and readers can glean much about the book even from what's written in the "Reception". It definitely needs work. An inspired editor could possibly even break out both a summary and reception from what's already written. I'd argue with the length of what's already written, its more of a start-class than a stub-class article. Dawynn (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

broken citation + misrepresentation

@Volunteer Marek: - I attempted to reduce the content under dispute to a small subset - after discussion between us stalled and did not receive much external input. You reverted the whole thing. Could we perhaps begin with agreeing on restoring the missing citation for Witold Mędykowski? In addition - omitting however this lack of sympathy can be readily explained by material covered as it is difficult to sympathize with those who capitalized on, and even rejoiced in, their neighbors' murder while retaining Waxman notes that Gross has at times been accused of anti-Polish bias, and according to Waxman he at times displays a lack of sympathy to the dilemmas ordinary Poles faced, is a misrepresentation of what Waxman wrote. And mentioning Medykowski's mention of the photograph without including his continuation of this being representative according to the Treblinka museum misrepresents Medykowski's message on the matter - to avoid misrepresentation, we should for Waxman either include in whole her discussion of bias - or exclude it - keeping only one fragment without the rather big HOWEVER does not represent the text. Likewise for Medykowski discussion of the photograph. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

a collective "effort", headed by the Nazi regime but openly and visibly benefiting many others

Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly is based on German documents. Germans plundered on many levels and plundered plunderers. The idea of a Polish peasant with a Jewish plate or cusion simplifies the problem of taxes, regulated prices, slave work system. The answer of many Poles was black market and criminality. Hiding Jews were weak which made them preferred victmis, but they didn't have any food, so anyone inclufing hiding Jews robbed peasants. Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Salmonowicz

https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/SIT/article/view/SIT.2012.023/1514 Salmonowicz claims that he mentioned the problem earlier, so Gross implemented his agenda. He criticizes the book.Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Machcewicz ignored

http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,9094561,Recenzja_ostatecznej_wersji__Zlotych_zniw___historia.html Machcewicz is O.K., Gazeta Wyborcza is O.K., but Machcewicz's critics in GW isn't notable. Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)