This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A more elaborate synopsis is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 February 2011
"The opposition had to some extent been expecting an operation of this kind against Tel Aviv since the blowing up of the King David Hotel and complete surprise was therefore not to be expected. However, there was no indication that the actual time and scale of the operation was disclosed, and the fact that a number of Top Grade terrorists were in fact arrested indicates that no prior warning had been received by them." ( Post operation report on Operation Shark, bottom of the first page)
"As far as can be ascertained, complete tactical surprise was achieved." ( Post operation report on Operation Agatha, middle of fourth page)
Why "mini-series"? I see that on the page for Peter Kosminsky it's referred to as a serial. We ought to be consistent. Headhitter ( talk) 10:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am tempted to put it up to High. I have not seen the series but have heard a lot of comment. People don't appear to have know about the British experience in Palestine (let alone the present). It sounds as if this is well made television. With a honest attempt to try and portray history the way it was. Padres Hana ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Miri Weingarten makes quite a striking assertion at the top of this interview (email q&a?) with Kosminsky:
I can’t recall any other realistic enactment [of the 1948 displacement of the Palestinians, known as the ‘Nakba’] of this sort in a drama before
adding that
Elia Suleiman’s The Time That Remains (2009) is a very different sort of enactment – more like fragments of a memory or a dream than an attempt to show events as they were.
Here on WP we list three documentary films under 1948 Palestinian exodus#Films about the exodus, to which someone has added The Promise; but no other fiction.
Can The Promise really claim to be the first realistic filmed depiction? It seems quite a claim. S. Yizhar's novella Khirbet Khizeh, the book recently cited by Ian McEwan in Jerusalem [2], was (controversially) dramatised by Israeli television in 1978, so I don't know whether that counts.
Presumably there must have been others? Or is Ms Weingarten on the mark? Jheald ( talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
French transmission starts Monday 21 March for four weeks on Canal +, going out at 20h50; DVD box set (3 discs) announced for 12 April 2011. Somewhat different box-cover art. [3] [4]; Amazon.fr has a slightly different cover again: [5] French language title is "Le Serment" (The Oath); though it seems to be mainly presented under the English title. Here's the Canal + site with some additional video interviews: [6] Jheald ( talk) 12:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you would consider expanding slightly the comments of the papers in France that liked the programme? You lump together the papers that really liked the show at the start of the section without quotation but then expand the remarks by the more equivocal papers. Not all readers will find their way to the footnotes where the very positive quotes are laid out. The French press response was overwhelmingly positive but there is a danger that, reading this, a reader might not receive this impression.
What do you think. Peter Kosminsky ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have again reverted the above editor's en masse removal of what ios almost entirely properly and adequately cited information pertinent to the subject. I am a hair's bredth away from escalating to vandalism warnings, but would rather Wikieditorpro actually engage in discussion here, despite the fact that they have not seemed willing to do so previously. Nick Cooper ( talk) 08:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, embarrassing. I thought that was directed at me, since you had just deleted my Cesarani and Freedland entries. I at first thought 'wikieditorpro' was some kind of heading under which you addressed people.
Well, everything below this sentence is a load of nonsense.
Does this mean that what you wrote on the HurryupHarry website is nonsense too? Headhitter ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism, huh?
'what ios ALMOST (!) entirely properly and adequately cited information pertinent to the subject'
So was mine, to wit your not criticising it on those grounds. So what, Mr. Neutral Wiki Editor, makes yours more worthy to be retained over mine? You're threatening to ban me for 'vandalism', consisting in contributing information no (almost?) less pertinent or adequately cited than yours?
Hmm. An interesting definition of 'vandalism'. Not one I have come across in academe before.
'would rather Wikieditorpro actually engage in discussion here, despite the fact that they have not seemed willing to do so previously.'
I did engage in a discussion. I told you exactly what I thought was wrong with your case and why, point by point. It was you who declined to respond (having first of all deleted me!).
I do not know exactly how to convey 'messages' to you guys, but I accorded with Heald's mandate to better reflect Cesarani's argument e.g. about the 'oil' issue.
As for 'undue negative coverage', or whatever the phrase Cooper used, The Promise, in Reception, hardly lacks positive. Heald is supposed to be neutral. But there is a manifest relationship between him and Kominski. He claims he includes Cesarani's sharpest assertions. But he doesn't. Cesarani's criticism is a lot sharper, for reasons he doesn't cite, but I do. And since he is an academic historian (the only to review The Promise so far. so far as I can see), and The Promise purports to be historical drama, surely his input is important. Surely to criticism of the only academic historian deserves more than a sentence or two? I think (and, yes, it is entirely my subjective judgment) Heald manifestly attempts damage limitation, under Kominski's guidance, in fact. And Cooper seems to play ball. The fact is that an academic critical argument may well need to employ more words to convey it than an artistic. Heald says he is only interested in conveying a 'flavour' of Cesarani, 'flavour' being an interesting term to use of an academic criticism. In the this case, Heald has 'diluted' the flavour considerably, and he done so in a mutual arrangement with Peter Kominsky, as the edit and talk history shows.
As for complaints about 'format', that is very rigorous criterion
a) if you guys were really neutral and disinterested, you could help
b) the Freedland section relies on an audio-visual source. I cannot link to a transcription, as I myself am the only one transcribing it. Are you going to delete for that reason? I have no choice but to include the transcription. If you guys want to help me, you're welcome.
Again, it looks a lot to me as though your rigorous criteria are means to effect damage limitation on negative criticism of Kominski's work. Merely my subjective opinion. But that is what it looks like to me.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you guys have made the blogosphere:
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
I have undone this edit by Zkharya ( talk · contribs), which the user had previously also tried to introduce a couple of days ago. [20].
It seems to me that we already link to this comment piece; we already quote its most powerful line "[Kosminsky] turned the British, who were the chief architects of the Palestine tragedy, into its prime victims...Ultimately, Kosminsky turns a three-sided conflict into a one-sided rant"; and we already attempt to summarise its overall thesis, that it "criticised the series for not bringing out underlying selfish geopolitical motives behind British policy". This it seems to me is an appropriate level of coverage for a single comment piece -- it is as much coverage, I think, as we give any other single article; so I do question whether more is appropriate.
I'm also wary of opening up here the vexed question of the Balfour Declaration, particularly given the declaration's infamously open-to-interpretation rider: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", and some of the statements in public at the time (also since questioned) that in no way was a Jewish state intended. (See eg the section Text development and differing views in our article on the Declaration). It's a highly nuanced question, and I'm not sure that this article is a good place to get into it, particularly as it formed no part of the series as shown on-screen at all.
My view is that we already give a good summary of this article, as much as we give to any other single piece of press coverage, and the interested reader can always look up the whole piece for themselves.
I certainly don't want to try to exert WP:OWNership of the article, having contributed a fair amount of it; so it would be useful to hear what other contributors, eg Headhitter ( talk · contribs) and others think, as well as other readers. But for myself I think we already give an appropriate flavour of Cesarani's article, in balance to the rest of the press coverage, without the addition that Zkharya ( talk · contribs) seeks. Jheald ( talk) 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
David Cesarani is the only academic historian of this (or arguably any) period who has reviewed The Promise to date. His view is that the omission of the mention of the Balfour Declaration, which was the only one, he says, with the force of international law, is extraordinary.
Nick Cooper, it may well be the case that most of the audience are not aware of the Balfour Declaration. Is that supposed to excuse Kominski of omitting to mention it.
Cesarani says, keep simply, Kominski's assertion British troops were poured into Palestine immmediate post-war to separate Jews and Arabs was untrue. If this is what Kominski's Tommies' testimonials said, they were woefully misinformed, and Kominski should have done a better job of historical research.
A Jewish insurrection, and insurrection which was occurring precisely because of the White Paper of 1939 which effectively cancelled the Jewish national home, and which led to the continuing British policy in barring Palestine to Jewish immigration.
Kominski mentions neither the Balfour Declaration nor its being cancelled, the two reasons why there was a substantial Jewish community now in Palestine and why many of its members were now up in arms, Britain's continuing the policy even after the Holocaust.
Cooper, you seem to be defending Kominski's omissions on the grounds that most of his audience would be too ignorant to know otherwise.
What kind of historical drama is that supposed to defend?
'I'm also wary of opening up here the vexed question of the Balfour Declaration, particularly given the declaration's infamously open-to-interpretation rider:'
Are you, Heald? David Cesarani isn't and, unlike you or Kominski, he is actually an academic of this particular period. If he isn't afraid to refer to Kominski's omission of the Balfour Declaration, or the fact that Jews were up in arms now that, in their view, this promise had been betrayed, who exactly are you to censor his contribution?
'It's a highly nuanced question, and I'm not sure that this article is a good place to get into it, particularly as it formed no part of the series as shown on-screen at all.'
Clearly Professor David Cesarani thinks differently. In his view, the omission is significant. Why are you or Kominski so afraid of that fact being mentioned? This is the central argument of Cesarani's thesis, since it addresses what he identifies as the major flaw of Kominski's work. The omission of the Balfour Declaration is central to what he pretty explicitly calls Kominski's fraud:
'This is the central conceit, and deceit, of Kosminsky's epic. The British were in Palestine for their own interests and when it no longer suited them they left. To conceal this fact he has to perpetrate a massive historical distortion. Although The Promise is insufferably didactic, no one mentions the Balfour declaration.'
Are you seriously telling me my mentioning this fact renders Cesarani less intelligible than your work of damage limitation? You mention the bare minimum of him that you can. And you avoid his most damaging assertions i.e. the above.
zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Cooper, I don't know how to answer you without giving you the excuse to delete me, but here goes.
"You seem keen to misinterpret both what I said and why I said it to suit your own case. Headhitter in essence suggests that people would assume the title of the series refers to the Balfour Declaration;"
Ha. Hilarious i.e. unlike you, he thinks most people will know of the Balfour Declaration. Wonderful that. If someone criticises Kominski for omitting it, A can claim everyone knows about it while B can claim nobody does. Even if true, Cesarani thinks it's omission extraordinary.
"I merely pointed out that most people would not make that connection, not least because most have no idea what the Balfour Declaration was."
Which justifies it's omission?
"You clearly echo Cesarani's claim that the Balfour Declaration was, "the only promise that mattered," but that comes across as a rather bizarre claim of exclusivity, with a hint that Kosminsky's choice of title is somehow a deliberate misappropriation."
But only the Balfour Declaration had the force of international law. It was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate. It is "bizarre", to use your terminology, not to at least mention it.
"If "The Promise" was somehow a common phrase widely understood to refer to the Balfour Declaration, then Cesarani - and you - might have a point, but it isn't, so he and you don't."
But it should be understood. The Balfour Declaration should have been mentioned as a key historical fact. That is Cesarani's point. And it was a promise, at least as Jews thought, the promise of a Jewish national home. Its being broken the reason for insurrection.
"I would rather suggest that the title would be more widely assumed to be a reference to the biblical concept of the Promised Land,"
But that was not the basis of the Balfour Declaration. It's not even the basis of mainstream Zionism, which is that the Jews are a people historically exiled and dispossessed, entitled to national restoration and return as a matter of justice and need.
Kominski has not only omitted the British promise of a Jewish national home, whose perceived annulment was the cause of the insurrection he depicts; he has misrepresented the basis of a modern movement of Jewish national restoration. And he has done so manifestly for his own apologetic pro-British and pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalist purposes, as becomes apparent later in the series.
"which in fact some of the dialogue Cesarani actually quotes appears to corroborate, i.e.:
But that wasn't the basis of either the Balfour Declaration or even the modern Jewish national/Zionist movement. And it still doesn't constitute a mention of the Balfour Declaration, nor even an allusion, since it omits any reference or allusion to the British promise of a Jewish national home.
Kominski both elides and misrepresents. It is not only I who say so, but Howard Jacobson and Jonathan Freedland, at 01.13.30 in this interview for Jewish Book Week 2011:
http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php
Below are the criticism's I introduced into Heald's text, but which you, Cooper, deleted: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cooper, because I am not familiar with the correct way to place comments, you wiped deleted them? Thanks, charming.
So, re. Cooper's 'Kominski's omitting the Balfour Declaration so so should we': So the audience's ignorance excuses Kominski's omission?'
Re. Heald's allegedly representing Cesarani accurately: That's not really true, is it? Cesarani introduces his accusation that Kominski commits a fraud ('conceal', 'massive historical distortion') precisely with his omission of the Balfour Declaration. It's strikes me you are engaging in a bit of 'distortion' and 'conceal' with regard to David Cesarani yourself. I cannot see what reason you would have for objecting to my (very modest) addition to the Cesarani section, unless it was because you found it inconducive is some way other than that of mere scholarship. It was after all Kominski himself that drew it to your attention...
Re. Heald's allegedly using Cesarani's 'most powerful sentence': But you omit a key reason why Cesarani calls this a one-sided rant, and an assertion at least as damaging:
"He (Len Matthews) protests that Britain can't just walk away after "we've been here for 30 years keeping them apart". This is the central conceit, and deceit, of Kosminsky's epic. The British were in Palestine for their own interests and when it no longer suited them they left. To conceal this fact he has to perpetrate a massive historical distortion. Although The Promise is insufferably didactic, no one mentions the Balfour declaration. Yet it was the British foreign secretary, AJ Balfour, who informed the English Zionist Federation in November 1917 that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object". This was the only promise that mattered because it had the force of international law."
Re. Heald's alleging Cesarani doesn't really refer to the rescinding of the Balfour Declaration's promise: Although Cesarani does not explicitly say that it was the perceived breaking of this promise that had Palestinian Jews up in arms, he more or less implies it, else why mention the Balfour Declaration as a promise to start with? Clearly Palestinian Jewish rebels weren't happy with it to some degree. Hence my 'rescinded'. It is the making (and arguably breaking) of that promise of a Jewish national home, as suited, with which Cesarani introduces his fundamental criticism.
Re. Heald's alleging that the Balfour Declaration is too contraversial to be mentioned: What how does that excuse Kominski's omission? Or refute Cesarani's assertion that that, so far as the Jews were concerned, was a promise of a Jewish national home? The perceived breaking of which was the reason for the Jewish insurrection in the first place?'
Re. Heald's alleging that my reference to Cesarani's reference to the Balfour Declaration etc is inusfficiently 'nuanced': But Cesarani's point is that the Balfour Declaration should have been mentioned somewhere in The Promise. It doesn't even get a "nuanced" look in. You can't "nuance" nothing!
Re. Heald's alleging that he's done Cesarani justice: I think it more accurate to say that you give the bare minimum of coverage to Cesarani that you think you can get away with, without being accused of skimping on it i.e. an exercise in damage limitation. The assertion that The Promise mentions not the Balfour Declaration, the promise of a Jewish national home (and I think, it may be reasonably argued, the continuing of the policy of the White Paper of 1939 even after the Holocaust i.e. the perceived breaking of that promise that had Jews up in arms), is at least as damaging an assertion, and inseparable from that allow to be quoted. The British made that promise, and broke it as it suited them, which is Cesarani's point.
zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not know exactly how to convey 'messages' to you guys, but I accorded with Heald's mandate to better reflect Cesarani's argument as for 'undue negative coverage', or whatever the phrase Cooper used, The Promise, in Reception, hardly lacks positive. Heald is supposed to be neutral. But there is a manifest relationship between him and Kominski. He claims he includes Cesarani's sharpest assertions. But he doesn't. Cesarani's criticism is a lot worse. And since he is an academic historian (the only to review The Promise so far), and The Promise purports to be historical drama, surely his input is important. Heald's manifestly attempts damage limitation, under Kominski's guidance, in fact. And Cooper seems to play ball. The fact is that an academic critical argument may well need to employ more words to convey it than an artistic. Heald says he is only interested in conveying a 'flavour' of Cesarani, 'flavour' being an interesting term to use of an academic criticism. In the this case, Heald has 'diluted' the flavour considerably, and he done so in a mutual arrangement with Peter Kominsky, as the edit and talk history shows.
As for complaints about 'format', that is very rigorous criterion
a) if you guys were really neutral and disinterested, you could help
b) the Freedland section relies on an audio-visual source. I cannot link to a transcription, as I myself am the only one transcribing it. I have no choice but to include the transcription. If you guys want to help me, you're welcome.
Again, it looks a lot to me as though your rigorous criteria are means to effect damage limitation on negative criticism of Kominski's work.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
Presumably the Freedland/Jacobson interview that Zkharya ( talk • contribs) refers to is this one: http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php? I've listened to the podcast, and the transcription in his now reverted edit appears to be accurate. Zkharya ( talk • contribs): you still aren't signing off your contributions to this Talk page with four tildes (which will generate your user name signature). You can insert four tildes by going to the box of blue text near the foot of this page, selecting Wiki markup from the options on the left, and dragging and dropping them onto your last line of text. Headhitter ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Lo All,
drive by neutral party attack. I've been discussing Zkharya's edits in another place. hurryupharry.org/2011/05/04/raining-on-sergeant-len-matthews-parade - (can't link directly due to spam problems).
I think he does make a reasonable case that Cesarani's criticisms are stronger than presented here. I've suggested: Historian of the period, David Cesarani, criticised the series for downplaying British culpability, from the Balfour declaration onwards, saying it had “turned the British, who were the chief architects of the Palestine tragedy, into its prime victims… Ultimately, Kosminsky turns a three-sided conflict into a one-sided rant”.[63] Or something like that. Maybe we can come up with something a bit better.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)'
'from the Balfour Declaration onwards' is a misrepresenation on two counts, because
a) Kominski doesn't mention the Balfour Declaration which is
b) one of Cesaran's gripes (actually = 'deceit' and 'massive historical distortion', on Kominsky's part)
a) But, pray, what are you going to use as a source other than my transcription? How can either of you used the video or audio source unless you sit through it, like I did. My transcription, which Nick Cooper, deleted, is the only one so far in existence.
b) because I have sat through it, I know that Freedland says a good deal more than that i.e. Kominsky employs antisemitics, as well as misrepresenting Zionism, as well as the history of Israel, for which reason Freedland puts it The Promise in the same bracket as, for instance, Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, which both he and Jacobson consider at least consider in part antisemitic:
In a filmed conversation with Howard Jacobson during Jewish Book Week 2011 (see link), Jonathan Freedland, Guardian editor, journalist, author and BBC presenter, first of all says Kominsky panders to antisemitic tropes, such as that of wealthy Jews (00.52.50-58). He then brackets The Promise with works such as Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, which he and Jacobson consider antisemitic (00.55.58-00.56.00). In an extended discussion with Howard Jacobson (01.13.28-01.14.18), Freedland makes three fundamental criticisms of The Promise:
Jacobson: ..how many you would think educated journalists still talk about Israel as though it’s a consequence of the Holocaust. Which was The Promise, wasn’t it?”
Freedland: The premise of The Promise, so to speak (it lost me first of all at the girl on Business Class), but also these very long, lingering pictures, archive footage from Belsen, I felt three things about that.
One, you don’t have the right to use those pictures, you haven’t earned the right to use those pictures artistically.
Second, I just know looking at that that you’re making a down payment on what you want to say attacking Jews later on in this series. And you’re doing that as your insurance policy, to say, well, look, I was sympathetic on that.
Third, and it was actually explicitly said by a character, a brigadier, briefing the British troops in Palestine -you knew they were saying this was the premise of all Zionism-, the Arabs were here minding their own business for 2000 years, and suddenly, after the Holocaust, Jews arrive…
Jacobson: We drop in out of the clear blue sky, bang, we’ll have that!
http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php
zkharya≈≈≈≈
If you have watched the video, Headhitter, where's your transcription, or the times in the video where Freedland says what?
I am not responsible for what others say in the thread below. And I think it's a bit rich your tarring me with it, since a) you found out about this source via me and b) your own citing of it is, in comparison, rather shoddy.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
'edit-warring.'
i.e. once or twice a year, since 2008, I have disputed with another editor on wiki. I only just discovered about all this behind the scenes stuff, and it's still new to me.
'I would further note that they also admit to being the user Wikieditorpro,'
Huh? What are you talking about?
But, while we're on the subject of 'pathetic', I think it's pathetic for you to have been 'economical' with the truth about what you actually wrote in the wiki talk threads, and with which I took legitimate issue. And even if my thread on HP is 'pathetic' it's still were Headhitter got his info on Jewish Book Weeks, even if his use of the source hardly fulfils his own wiki criteria.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
If I am it is not to cover up or hide anything, it's mainly for spelling. I didn't know I could do that.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
'I see that you are now substantially deleting and/or amending you own comments'
No, I'm not. That is untrue. Over the wikieditpro thing I didn't delete anything. I acknowledged I was wrong ( think I apologised), and said everything below in response to your comment was nonsense.
Still don't get the signature thing.
zkharya≈≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I did provide the link. One of you lot, I think Nick Cooper, deleted it, with the transcription. In any case, the external site of which you complain did provide both link and transcription. Ok, got the signature thing now. Zkharya ( talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, guys, I've taken on board the need to shorten entries to a line or two, and added elements approved by Nick Cooper, Red Deathy et al. e.g. Cesarani's accusing K. of 'massive distortion' by omitting the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home, absolving the British, blaming the Jews etc. With the Jewish Book Week, I've kept the same word count, but added his accusing K. of using antisemitic trope, mispresenting Israel and Zionism as a consequence of the Holocaust, and abusing its imagery:
Interviewing Jacobson during Jewish Book Week 2011, Jonathan Freedland said Kominsky used antisemitic tropes, misrepresented Israel and Zionism as though a consequence of the Holocaust, whose imagery he abused. [1] Historian, Professor David Cesarani, accused Kominsky of "deceit...massive distortion": omitting the Balfour Declaration's promising a Jewish national home; downplaying selfish British geo-strategy; exculpating the British, "chief architects of the Palestine tragedy"; and "blaming the Jews", in a triune conflict of British, Arab and Jew, "in a one-sided rant". The Promise: an exercise in British self-exculpation, The Guardian Comment is Free website, 4 March 2011</ref>
Zkharya ( talk) 20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I followed the link and, I have to say, I am not sure how to read what happened. By and large I edit for spelling or something I said which I think was wrong. My intention is not to deceive. Having said that, it looks to me as though most of my changes are not deleting material, but adding it. Zkharya ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Forgive me for intervening and apologies if it is inappropriate for me to do so. Could I make a couple of points? Firstly, could I make it very clear that I have no connection - direct or otherwise - with any of the editors working on these pages. I have been polite and praised work where I thought it good. I thought that was just good manners. But to accuse Jheald of being some kind of surrogate or puppet is grossly unfair and certainly defamatory. It is also quite wrong to put such a statement into the public domain when Jheald has made it clear in these pages that he is away for some time and therefore unable to defend himself. Writing on Wikipedia is publishing within the meaning of the act and I would strongly advise that defamatory material is taken down as soon as possible. Second, could I draw editors' attention to the fact that Howard Jacobson clearly states, in his discussion with Jonathan Freedland at Jewish Book Week, that he has not watched The Promise, (having been put off by the title). This remark is at approximately 1.09.25 into the discussion. Perhaps his robust criticism of the programme should be judged in this light. Peter Kosminsky ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, so there Jacobson is speculating. But Freedman is agreeing, pretty much, and his statements are the ones in the entry. Clearly K. is trying to frame that for his later April-May review, since that is where is most robust criticism occurs.
You'll be happy to know, I edited out Jacobson's quotations for that period, retaining only the substance of Freedland said,
So, we should all be happy :) Zkharya ( talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'There is currently an issue in that Jacobson's comments are not quoted in chronological order, with his Independent piece being mentioned before Jewish Book Week, when they should obviously be the other way around.'
I agree. But I hesitated to do anything lest any of you lot delete that too. Zkharya ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
' It is, perhaps, sloppy of him to have admitted in public to having not seen it earlier, and then to comment on it further without any confirmation that he had rectified that oversight'
It's not 'sloppy' even more than it is 'admitting': he's speculating in JBW, which he is entitled to do. And Freedland is largely agreeing, and Freedland's view at this time is the more pertinent, to use your expression. Why should he 'confirm' anything? There is no 'oversight'. He hadn't seen it by JBW. Like most reviewers, he assumes the readers understand what he has reviewed. Do any reviewers ever 'rectify' the 'oversight' of having said they had not seen something earlier? Zkharya ( talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a point there, Cooper. Perhaps by prefacing his comments with 'having seen the first episode', or some such.? Zkharya ( talk) 17:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who is attributing the maximum amount of bad faith possible to Howard Jacobson! Also by K., I think, in my subjective opinion (and I admit it is just my subjective opinion), since K. implies that Jacobson's 'robust criticism', the most robust of which appeared in his April-May review, should be read as though Jacobson had not viewed The Promise by the time in question. Zkharya ( talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'This is as astounding as it is unequivocal, and obviously this casts doubt on whether his comments from the same event can be validly quoted. We do, however, have the precedence of The Wind That Shakes the Barley, where we include negative comments by certain commentators alongside self-admissions or other evidence that they were made without having actually seen the film in question.'
If you did that re. Jacobson's April-May review, you would be attributing the maximum amount of bad faith to Jacobson possible. And if it were untrue, or even unverified, I think it would be clearly defamatory in the manner K. throws out about one case. Zkharya ( talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'One certainly would hope that someone reviewing a TV series would actually watch it before doing so, but then Jacobson's Independent article is not a review, it's an opinion piece. The series ran between 6 & 27 February, and Jacobson's piece did not appear until 23 April - newspapers do not review TV series two months late.'
a) all reviews are opinion pieces; simply because it is an opinion piece on x does not mean it is not a review on it. That is a logical fallacy b) one may review any number of months after x appears c) he speculated on TP, and asked Freedland for confirmation, who pretty much affirmed.
So what? Freedland's comments are, in my view, to use your term, pertinent. I only included Jacobson's comments to frame Freedland's, since there was no transcription other than mine. That didn't stop you from deleting it though, did it? Zkharya ( talk) 22:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'Jacobson's admission to have not seen the series casts doubt on the validity of his comments on the same day, as well as later.'
a) as to 'same day', only if J.s comments are reported as anything but speculation (they are not reported in wiki at all) b) as to 'later' only if you have a priore animus against J.
'His article appears in the Opionion/Commentators section, not the Arts & Ents section, where a review would appear.' That is specious and officious distinction. One may opine at length on a work of art outside the Art and Ents section. J. often does. ' Jacobson's piece is clearly not a review, not least becasue it is not structure like one, nor does it read like one.' That is an entirely subjective opinion. What is the definitive form of a review? All reviews are opinion pieces, and Jacobson is opining on TP, which, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it would be attributive to him of the worst faith (defamatory, even?) to insinuate he has not seen. Zkharya ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Maybe he watched the DVD in the meantime, but there's no evidence whether he did or not'
Oh, my goodness. So Nick Cooper, at the instigation of Peter Kominsky, is now accusing Howard Jacobson of the maximum amount of bad faith a reviewer can have: of not having seen the item he reviews or opines on.
Very, very interesting. Zkharya ( talk) 22:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not suggesting conspiracy. I am saying K. used HJ's admitting he hadn't seen TP Feb-March to insinuate that he hadn't seen it when he wrote his 'robust criticism', the most robust of which was written, obviously, April-May. I am saying that is when you decided to insert it into wiki to insinuate the same. That looks like a kind of instigation to me. It's not 'conspiracy', it's quite out in the open. Zkharya ( talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
'So you it's alright for you to respond to Peter's comment, but not for anyone else to confirm what he said? How does that work?'
Not at all. But, what is interesting is that you inferred from K.'s observation (and had you even heard or seen the JBW link? You haven't yet said you had at the time, so it looks prima facie as though you hadn't) that J. had not seen TP by April-May, and that you could then insinuate this in the wiki text.
'It is standard practice for editors on Wikipedia to review the sources cited by other editors to confirm that those sources are being accurately represented'
Is it standard practice for wiki editors to follow up, unexamined, the insinuations of interested parties that hostile critics are writing in bad faith? Is it standard to accuse reviewer of not having seen or read their subject simply because they do not provide evidence of having seen it? That would probably exclude most reviewers. So the question I ask is, Why just Jacobson with this review? Zkharya ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Peter raised a very improtant point, so I naturally checked the video to confirm it. ' Before or after you started insinuating J. had not seen TP? And that still doesn't account for your ascribing to J. the worst faith possible in April-May. Again, at the instigation of K. Zkharya ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
' It would therefore probably be best to quote him from JBW, '
Hehe. You first decide NOT to include the comments. THEN, after I've told you I was HAPPY to do that, since Freedland's were more pertinent, to include them, so that you can ALSO accuse him of bad faith in the process, insinuating about a piece/review on TP 7 weeks later.
Well, go ahead. I will then review what you have done, and suggest or make any changes I deem fit. Zkharya ( talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but, you've just been using K.'s observation (had you even heard or seen the audio-visual at the time?) as the basis to insinuate HJ hadn't seen TP at the time of his April-May review. That is very "interesting" form of editorial neutrality. Using all kinds of preposterous distinctions between reviewing and opining on a drama. In my personal, subjective, opinion. Zkharya ( talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a point there. Perhaps prefacing his comments with 'Having seen the the first episode', or some such? Zkharya ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Maybe he watched the DVD in the meantime, but there's no evidence whether he did or not'
Is there usually evidence that reviewers have reviewed their subject? What form does it take? Why suddenly demand if of this reviewer? Why does the absence of such evidence that characterises most reviews suddenly imply or suggest bad faith in this one?
In short, where is your evidence that absence of evidence in this case constitutes evidence of bad faith? Zkharya ( talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Expected? How? How is the evidence provided in a review? And if evidence is not normally provided in a review, how is HJ's piece not a review because it provides no evidence? Zkharya ( talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous thing to say. All reviews are opinion pieces, and Jacobson has opined on dramatic and written works before in this his regular slot. Are you suggesting he never saw or read those too, because his piece wasn't in the review section? Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'there's nothing in it that he couldn't have gleaned from the comments of others.'
OMG, I can't believe you're actually saying that. What a completely, utterly subjective, and anything but neutral judgment (editorial?) to make. You, Nick Cooper, deduce HJ cannot have seen TP, because you think his opinions could not have been formed after watching TP. Whoa. You are amazing. You can almost read minds, it seems.
Wow. Cooper, I don't think Kominsky is going to be sending you any thank you notes for making that call. Zkharya ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'the focus of it is more the Ofcom decision not to investigate the series.'
That's rubbish. His focus is more TP itself, about which he writes considerably more than Ofcom. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'he fact is that Jacobson could have written what he did without having rectified his acknowledged non-viewing of the series seven weeks earlier. I don't know whether he did or he didn't, and neither do you, but it is a possibility.'
Only if you attribute to him the worst faith possible. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'you seem very uncomfortable about someone else voicing their own opinions' Absolute rot, and completely untrue. It is you and others who have been busy little bees in deleting what I have written in the past.
'You have been very keen on pushing a certain interpretation of Kosminsky's intentions and motives here and elsewhere,'
I have simply noted facts, and I haven't put them into the wiki text. K. and Heald have a relationship of mutual approbation. K. requested and and himself deleted texts utterly truthful and reference which he did not like (my sole exception to that would be my inferring Cesarani's alluding to the White Paper of 1939 -that was too far, I admit).
'but it's clear that you don't like Jacobson, Freedland, et al being subjected to similar scrutiny.'
Not at all. But actually injecting your attributing of bad faith and deceit to Jacobson into the wiki text, that is different matter. Or rather, by all means try it. Rewrite the wiki text insinuating bad faith to J. Since it came at the instigation of K. it wouldn't look good for either of you. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion transferred from the talk page of Bobfrombrockley ( talk · contribs). Jheald ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I didn't know what to do with the La Croix text [21] when I first covered it for the article.
In addition to what you've already quoted in the footnote:
Laurent Loucher quotes Annette Wieviorka, a French historian of the Holocaust who has written about the liberation of the camp, to suggest that film sequences from Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz were mixed together, in a problematic way: "Viewers will believe that the British, liberating the camp of Bergen-Belsen, liberated the Jews from a death camp. However, Bergen-Belsen was a concentration camp. To support his claim, Kosminsky blends footage shot at Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz. Thus, the film is constructed, the first few minutes, on a montage which appears as true but which is already false. Which, in what follows, allows him to suggest that the survivors are ungrateful."
the La Croix article then added the further paragraph:
She added "Should we remember that these liberators confined the death camp survivors in barracks, before letting them die of typhus?" "We had the sense that our lives did not matter," judged Simone Veil citing this episode.
This seems to me also an extraordinary comment. A typhus epidemic was raging in the midst of widespread starvation, which the British were substantially unprepared for; all while the war was not yet concluded. Of course it is true that 14,000 died in the month after the liberation; and no doubt, as with any calamity, there were perhaps some actions which could have been done differently. But given the resources and knowledge available (and despite Simone Veil's comment -- see here and here for further context), it is hard to know what the British could have done more; and pretty bitter to see the response of soldiers doing their best in those horrific conditions as anything other than heroic.
(The Promise of course didn't touch the question of Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, and the viewer is not shown the situation of Jews in post-1945 Europe, for example post-war pogroms in Poland, which is an authorial choice; but given the budget of time available, and the power achieved by moving straight from Belsen to the rounding-up and detention of Jews on the beaches of Palestine, one that seems quite defensible).
Yet to read the presentation by La Croix of Wieviorka's comments, the bizarre implication being made seems to be that Belsen was just some kind of mild holding camp, and all the deaths there were the British fault. As for the claim that viewers would believe the British liberated a death camp rather than a concentration camp, this also is very odd. For a pure death camp, like Treblinka or Sobibor, there would have been no living emaciated bodies for the British to discover, because, bluntly, the victims would have been smoke. It precisely is a concentration camp where liberation might reveal such living cadavers. ( Auschwitz was a hybrid of the two, that comprised both a work camp/concentration camp and a death camp). The story of each of the camps and ghettos was different. I, as a complete non-expert, certainly couldn't certify for sure whether or not the footage the IWM provided might have contained footage of Auschwitz. But did it misrepresent Belsen? Surely not.
To my mind, the suggestion in the article that The Promise manifestly misrepresented Belsen, if anything, just makes the journalist and his interviewee look like they don't know what they're talking about. Which is why I originally took perhaps the soft option route of not including it. But if it is to go into the article, even as a footnote, then at the very least we should also include that the footage was included on the basis that it was presented to the film-makers as footage of Belsen; and it would also be appropriate (if we're going to report an accusation like this) to email Wieviorka to clarify why she belived there was footage of Auschwitz in the material used (ideally with her identifying particular shots), and then to put those assertions to the IWM. Until such clarification is obtained, it seems to me it would be better to remove these assertions to the talk-page, and take them out of the article (even its footnotes). Jheald ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
JH/PK, I think it is sensible to remove this material from the article to the talk page. Although I think that Wieviorka is a highly respected historian, it is odd that she appears here so categorical about the mixing of footage, and I have no reason to doubt PK is telling the truth about the footage. Also slightly unclear from La Croix article whether it was an interview with her he is quoting or what. I would suggest this whole conversation here be copied to the talk page. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. am abandoning my sandbox for now, might get back to it some time when I am less busy. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that the series is going to be the subject of an academic symposium at the University of Leeds on the 26th of this month. [22] [23]. Anyone likely to look in? Kosminsky himself would appear to have a prior engagement -- handing out the gongs at the LFF awards gala that evening [24]; but I don't know whether papers from the event will be made available. Jheald ( talk) 11:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The series is now going out in Australia. SBS is showing it over four Sunday nights at 8.30 from 27 November. There's also an online catch-up site [34] (apparently Aus-only accessible).
The Australian Jewish News apparently ran a piece gathering up some of the more critical comments from the UK. ( "Mandate drama isn't very promising"). Other than that coverage seems to have been limited to a few preview recommendation slugs on the TV pages. The most extensive of these appears to have been in The West Australian which carried a full article with quotes from Kosminsky [35]. Elsewhere the Sydney Morning Herald trailed the programme as "ambitious... both bracingly original and wonderfully gripping", offering a "profound veracity". [36]. The same piece can also be found at the paper's Melbourne twin The Age [37]. The Australian selected part one as its pick of the week, calling the character development and performances "compelling", and saying that the series "offers insight into the history of one of the world's most conflicted places". [38]. In an agency piece, AAP said that "Foy shines amid a powerful storyline", wising up to "a few harsh truths". [39]. The Sunday Herald Sun also offered a preview. [40]].
Comparatively muted reaction on twitter, with apparently only six people tweeting to #thePromise, seemingly positive though one already seems to have taken against Erin. A few blogs: TV Tonight trailed it as "a stand-out UK drama", "if you’re worried there’s nothing to watch as of this Sunday, think again -- especially if you are a lover of quality, Arthouse drama", with what appears to be the official SBS press release. [41]. 'Neil' preferred it to the latest remake of Brideshead [42]; while 'Jewgle' of Perth denounced it as using "every conceivable anti-Semitic canard" to feed the viewer "an untrue sterotype of the Israeli and an inverted reality of the victim of this conflict". [43]
It may be worth adding some of this to the article in due course; but for the moment I propose hanging back to see whether anything more substantive appears as the series progresses. Jheald ( talk) 13:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm temporarily moving the following, contributed by JulieECAJ ( talk · contribs) here to the talk page, until we have more sourcing. It's very easy for one side or another to cherry-pick some particular items and comments and not others; so we are perhaps as well to hold fire for a day or two until we see whether the full transcript is available, and what assessment is made by independent media organisations or other non-aligned third parties.
Reporting on events like this directly, rather than via secondary media sources, is generally held to be a problem going against WP's guideline against WP:Original research. There can also be a problem if the events are written up by actors with a direct stake in the subject matter of a particular article -- which is one reason why WP:Conflict of Interest policy recommends that best practice is for such actors to contribute material to the talk page, and then let the whole community of editors how best to write it into the article.
There is no doubt that the Estimates hearings are something that the article needs to cover. But WP is not a news service, and we can afford to hang on just a little time to see what if any other reports may be forthcoming.
The material contributed by JulieECAJ ( talk · contribs) was as follows:
On 14 February 2012, the Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid, appeared before an Estimates Committee of the Australian Senate and was closely questioned about the relevant commercial arrangements and decision-making processes leading to the screening of the series by SBS.
Mr Ebeid revealed that SBS entered into a pre-sale arrangement with, and made an advance payment to, the producers of The Promise in full knowledge that the subject matter was going to be controversial and likely to be seen as racist by most members of the Jewish community. He conceded that SBS had formed the opinion that the series is not antisemitic without having consulted anyone in the Jewish community.
One of the Senators who questioned him, Senator Helen Kroger of Victoria, subsequently issued a media release. [1]
“SBS appears to have put a business decision ahead of independent assessments which determined that it was offensive to the Jewish community,” Senator Kroger said.
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition Senator Scott Ryan rejected Mr Ebeid’s claim that because The Promise was fiction, it was subject to different considerations.
“Some of the biggest slanders in history have been works of fiction,” Senator Ryan said. “Depictions in the series include Jewish children stoning Arab children, blood-thirsty soldiers, conniving double-agents and members of an extremely wealthy, cosmopolitan family. Like it or not, these three depictions are antisemitic stereotypes that are at the same time old, but also reappearing today.” [2]
Until more reports emerge, for the time being I have cut it back to just the first sentence.
As with anything else on WP, nothing is final. The article and this talk page are open to further views and contributions. Jheald ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much more discussion that I could find online since the above. Anti-zionist blogger "Middle East Reality Check" has some comments on Kroger's article for The Punch [67], and also some spleen for The Australian [68], but that seems to be about it. Jheald ( talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
References
The series has also been getting a showing at the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, New York, in weekly parts. The first part had showings on Tuesday and Wednesday, 15 and 16 November, as part of the "Other Israel" Film Festival [69], with Liel Liebovitz chairing a Q&A with David Aukin after the Wednesday screening. The remaining parts are then being shown at the JCC over the next three Wednesday evenings up to December 7.
A couple of general reviews of the festival mention The Promise, [70] [71]. I also found one longer curtain-raiser article for part 1, [72]; a blog piece for Tikkun [73]; and a blog report of the screening [74]. Jheald ( talk) 14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Released for download from August 11, 2012 [77]
Air-dates have been announced by TV Ontario. The series will be shown on Sunday evenings at 9pm, from April 15 to May 6. Jheald ( talk) 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The series is now going out in Denmark on the Danish channel DR2 under the title Løftet som bandt ("The Promise that bound"). It's being stripped across the Easter weekend in an early evening slot. Part one went out on Thursday at 5pm [82]; part two follows on Saturday, also at 5pm [83]; part three is on Sunday, at 4.40 [84], and part four is on Monday at 5pm again, [85]. DR2 doesn't appear to have any webpages of its own about the series; its TV guide [86] has a paragraph of information (if you click on the heading), and then a link to IMDB if the reader wants more. Jheald ( talk) 08:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The series will go out on Wednesday nights at 10pm on SVT1 from 2 May. [87] [88]. Repeated on Saturday nights/Sunday mornings at 02.55 am [89] Jheald ( talk) 23:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In Israel, the series is being programmed in April by the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, with five showings in the month for each episode. First screening of part one is on April 9th, and finally there is a screening of all four parts on April 26th. [95]. Jheald ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Also going to be shown at the Cinematheque in Haifa, on Thursday 10, 17, 24 & 31 May. [102]. Jheald ( talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that it is necessarily bad thing, but i'm starting to wonder whether this is going to be the movie/tv article in WP with the most extensive informations on rewiews. :-)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Considering this is the English Wikipedia, why is the first paragraph allowed to remain? I would respectfully suggest it be moved to a Wikipedia page in it's own language if one exists.... Noble Korhedron 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Promise (2011 TV serial). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A more elaborate synopsis is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 February 2011
"The opposition had to some extent been expecting an operation of this kind against Tel Aviv since the blowing up of the King David Hotel and complete surprise was therefore not to be expected. However, there was no indication that the actual time and scale of the operation was disclosed, and the fact that a number of Top Grade terrorists were in fact arrested indicates that no prior warning had been received by them." ( Post operation report on Operation Shark, bottom of the first page)
"As far as can be ascertained, complete tactical surprise was achieved." ( Post operation report on Operation Agatha, middle of fourth page)
Why "mini-series"? I see that on the page for Peter Kosminsky it's referred to as a serial. We ought to be consistent. Headhitter ( talk) 10:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am tempted to put it up to High. I have not seen the series but have heard a lot of comment. People don't appear to have know about the British experience in Palestine (let alone the present). It sounds as if this is well made television. With a honest attempt to try and portray history the way it was. Padres Hana ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Miri Weingarten makes quite a striking assertion at the top of this interview (email q&a?) with Kosminsky:
I can’t recall any other realistic enactment [of the 1948 displacement of the Palestinians, known as the ‘Nakba’] of this sort in a drama before
adding that
Elia Suleiman’s The Time That Remains (2009) is a very different sort of enactment – more like fragments of a memory or a dream than an attempt to show events as they were.
Here on WP we list three documentary films under 1948 Palestinian exodus#Films about the exodus, to which someone has added The Promise; but no other fiction.
Can The Promise really claim to be the first realistic filmed depiction? It seems quite a claim. S. Yizhar's novella Khirbet Khizeh, the book recently cited by Ian McEwan in Jerusalem [2], was (controversially) dramatised by Israeli television in 1978, so I don't know whether that counts.
Presumably there must have been others? Or is Ms Weingarten on the mark? Jheald ( talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
French transmission starts Monday 21 March for four weeks on Canal +, going out at 20h50; DVD box set (3 discs) announced for 12 April 2011. Somewhat different box-cover art. [3] [4]; Amazon.fr has a slightly different cover again: [5] French language title is "Le Serment" (The Oath); though it seems to be mainly presented under the English title. Here's the Canal + site with some additional video interviews: [6] Jheald ( talk) 12:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you would consider expanding slightly the comments of the papers in France that liked the programme? You lump together the papers that really liked the show at the start of the section without quotation but then expand the remarks by the more equivocal papers. Not all readers will find their way to the footnotes where the very positive quotes are laid out. The French press response was overwhelmingly positive but there is a danger that, reading this, a reader might not receive this impression.
What do you think. Peter Kosminsky ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have again reverted the above editor's en masse removal of what ios almost entirely properly and adequately cited information pertinent to the subject. I am a hair's bredth away from escalating to vandalism warnings, but would rather Wikieditorpro actually engage in discussion here, despite the fact that they have not seemed willing to do so previously. Nick Cooper ( talk) 08:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, embarrassing. I thought that was directed at me, since you had just deleted my Cesarani and Freedland entries. I at first thought 'wikieditorpro' was some kind of heading under which you addressed people.
Well, everything below this sentence is a load of nonsense.
Does this mean that what you wrote on the HurryupHarry website is nonsense too? Headhitter ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism, huh?
'what ios ALMOST (!) entirely properly and adequately cited information pertinent to the subject'
So was mine, to wit your not criticising it on those grounds. So what, Mr. Neutral Wiki Editor, makes yours more worthy to be retained over mine? You're threatening to ban me for 'vandalism', consisting in contributing information no (almost?) less pertinent or adequately cited than yours?
Hmm. An interesting definition of 'vandalism'. Not one I have come across in academe before.
'would rather Wikieditorpro actually engage in discussion here, despite the fact that they have not seemed willing to do so previously.'
I did engage in a discussion. I told you exactly what I thought was wrong with your case and why, point by point. It was you who declined to respond (having first of all deleted me!).
I do not know exactly how to convey 'messages' to you guys, but I accorded with Heald's mandate to better reflect Cesarani's argument e.g. about the 'oil' issue.
As for 'undue negative coverage', or whatever the phrase Cooper used, The Promise, in Reception, hardly lacks positive. Heald is supposed to be neutral. But there is a manifest relationship between him and Kominski. He claims he includes Cesarani's sharpest assertions. But he doesn't. Cesarani's criticism is a lot sharper, for reasons he doesn't cite, but I do. And since he is an academic historian (the only to review The Promise so far. so far as I can see), and The Promise purports to be historical drama, surely his input is important. Surely to criticism of the only academic historian deserves more than a sentence or two? I think (and, yes, it is entirely my subjective judgment) Heald manifestly attempts damage limitation, under Kominski's guidance, in fact. And Cooper seems to play ball. The fact is that an academic critical argument may well need to employ more words to convey it than an artistic. Heald says he is only interested in conveying a 'flavour' of Cesarani, 'flavour' being an interesting term to use of an academic criticism. In the this case, Heald has 'diluted' the flavour considerably, and he done so in a mutual arrangement with Peter Kominsky, as the edit and talk history shows.
As for complaints about 'format', that is very rigorous criterion
a) if you guys were really neutral and disinterested, you could help
b) the Freedland section relies on an audio-visual source. I cannot link to a transcription, as I myself am the only one transcribing it. Are you going to delete for that reason? I have no choice but to include the transcription. If you guys want to help me, you're welcome.
Again, it looks a lot to me as though your rigorous criteria are means to effect damage limitation on negative criticism of Kominski's work. Merely my subjective opinion. But that is what it looks like to me.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you guys have made the blogosphere:
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
I have undone this edit by Zkharya ( talk · contribs), which the user had previously also tried to introduce a couple of days ago. [20].
It seems to me that we already link to this comment piece; we already quote its most powerful line "[Kosminsky] turned the British, who were the chief architects of the Palestine tragedy, into its prime victims...Ultimately, Kosminsky turns a three-sided conflict into a one-sided rant"; and we already attempt to summarise its overall thesis, that it "criticised the series for not bringing out underlying selfish geopolitical motives behind British policy". This it seems to me is an appropriate level of coverage for a single comment piece -- it is as much coverage, I think, as we give any other single article; so I do question whether more is appropriate.
I'm also wary of opening up here the vexed question of the Balfour Declaration, particularly given the declaration's infamously open-to-interpretation rider: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", and some of the statements in public at the time (also since questioned) that in no way was a Jewish state intended. (See eg the section Text development and differing views in our article on the Declaration). It's a highly nuanced question, and I'm not sure that this article is a good place to get into it, particularly as it formed no part of the series as shown on-screen at all.
My view is that we already give a good summary of this article, as much as we give to any other single piece of press coverage, and the interested reader can always look up the whole piece for themselves.
I certainly don't want to try to exert WP:OWNership of the article, having contributed a fair amount of it; so it would be useful to hear what other contributors, eg Headhitter ( talk · contribs) and others think, as well as other readers. But for myself I think we already give an appropriate flavour of Cesarani's article, in balance to the rest of the press coverage, without the addition that Zkharya ( talk · contribs) seeks. Jheald ( talk) 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
David Cesarani is the only academic historian of this (or arguably any) period who has reviewed The Promise to date. His view is that the omission of the mention of the Balfour Declaration, which was the only one, he says, with the force of international law, is extraordinary.
Nick Cooper, it may well be the case that most of the audience are not aware of the Balfour Declaration. Is that supposed to excuse Kominski of omitting to mention it.
Cesarani says, keep simply, Kominski's assertion British troops were poured into Palestine immmediate post-war to separate Jews and Arabs was untrue. If this is what Kominski's Tommies' testimonials said, they were woefully misinformed, and Kominski should have done a better job of historical research.
A Jewish insurrection, and insurrection which was occurring precisely because of the White Paper of 1939 which effectively cancelled the Jewish national home, and which led to the continuing British policy in barring Palestine to Jewish immigration.
Kominski mentions neither the Balfour Declaration nor its being cancelled, the two reasons why there was a substantial Jewish community now in Palestine and why many of its members were now up in arms, Britain's continuing the policy even after the Holocaust.
Cooper, you seem to be defending Kominski's omissions on the grounds that most of his audience would be too ignorant to know otherwise.
What kind of historical drama is that supposed to defend?
'I'm also wary of opening up here the vexed question of the Balfour Declaration, particularly given the declaration's infamously open-to-interpretation rider:'
Are you, Heald? David Cesarani isn't and, unlike you or Kominski, he is actually an academic of this particular period. If he isn't afraid to refer to Kominski's omission of the Balfour Declaration, or the fact that Jews were up in arms now that, in their view, this promise had been betrayed, who exactly are you to censor his contribution?
'It's a highly nuanced question, and I'm not sure that this article is a good place to get into it, particularly as it formed no part of the series as shown on-screen at all.'
Clearly Professor David Cesarani thinks differently. In his view, the omission is significant. Why are you or Kominski so afraid of that fact being mentioned? This is the central argument of Cesarani's thesis, since it addresses what he identifies as the major flaw of Kominski's work. The omission of the Balfour Declaration is central to what he pretty explicitly calls Kominski's fraud:
'This is the central conceit, and deceit, of Kosminsky's epic. The British were in Palestine for their own interests and when it no longer suited them they left. To conceal this fact he has to perpetrate a massive historical distortion. Although The Promise is insufferably didactic, no one mentions the Balfour declaration.'
Are you seriously telling me my mentioning this fact renders Cesarani less intelligible than your work of damage limitation? You mention the bare minimum of him that you can. And you avoid his most damaging assertions i.e. the above.
zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Cooper, I don't know how to answer you without giving you the excuse to delete me, but here goes.
"You seem keen to misinterpret both what I said and why I said it to suit your own case. Headhitter in essence suggests that people would assume the title of the series refers to the Balfour Declaration;"
Ha. Hilarious i.e. unlike you, he thinks most people will know of the Balfour Declaration. Wonderful that. If someone criticises Kominski for omitting it, A can claim everyone knows about it while B can claim nobody does. Even if true, Cesarani thinks it's omission extraordinary.
"I merely pointed out that most people would not make that connection, not least because most have no idea what the Balfour Declaration was."
Which justifies it's omission?
"You clearly echo Cesarani's claim that the Balfour Declaration was, "the only promise that mattered," but that comes across as a rather bizarre claim of exclusivity, with a hint that Kosminsky's choice of title is somehow a deliberate misappropriation."
But only the Balfour Declaration had the force of international law. It was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate. It is "bizarre", to use your terminology, not to at least mention it.
"If "The Promise" was somehow a common phrase widely understood to refer to the Balfour Declaration, then Cesarani - and you - might have a point, but it isn't, so he and you don't."
But it should be understood. The Balfour Declaration should have been mentioned as a key historical fact. That is Cesarani's point. And it was a promise, at least as Jews thought, the promise of a Jewish national home. Its being broken the reason for insurrection.
"I would rather suggest that the title would be more widely assumed to be a reference to the biblical concept of the Promised Land,"
But that was not the basis of the Balfour Declaration. It's not even the basis of mainstream Zionism, which is that the Jews are a people historically exiled and dispossessed, entitled to national restoration and return as a matter of justice and need.
Kominski has not only omitted the British promise of a Jewish national home, whose perceived annulment was the cause of the insurrection he depicts; he has misrepresented the basis of a modern movement of Jewish national restoration. And he has done so manifestly for his own apologetic pro-British and pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalist purposes, as becomes apparent later in the series.
"which in fact some of the dialogue Cesarani actually quotes appears to corroborate, i.e.:
But that wasn't the basis of either the Balfour Declaration or even the modern Jewish national/Zionist movement. And it still doesn't constitute a mention of the Balfour Declaration, nor even an allusion, since it omits any reference or allusion to the British promise of a Jewish national home.
Kominski both elides and misrepresents. It is not only I who say so, but Howard Jacobson and Jonathan Freedland, at 01.13.30 in this interview for Jewish Book Week 2011:
http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php
Below are the criticism's I introduced into Heald's text, but which you, Cooper, deleted: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cooper, because I am not familiar with the correct way to place comments, you wiped deleted them? Thanks, charming.
So, re. Cooper's 'Kominski's omitting the Balfour Declaration so so should we': So the audience's ignorance excuses Kominski's omission?'
Re. Heald's allegedly representing Cesarani accurately: That's not really true, is it? Cesarani introduces his accusation that Kominski commits a fraud ('conceal', 'massive historical distortion') precisely with his omission of the Balfour Declaration. It's strikes me you are engaging in a bit of 'distortion' and 'conceal' with regard to David Cesarani yourself. I cannot see what reason you would have for objecting to my (very modest) addition to the Cesarani section, unless it was because you found it inconducive is some way other than that of mere scholarship. It was after all Kominski himself that drew it to your attention...
Re. Heald's allegedly using Cesarani's 'most powerful sentence': But you omit a key reason why Cesarani calls this a one-sided rant, and an assertion at least as damaging:
"He (Len Matthews) protests that Britain can't just walk away after "we've been here for 30 years keeping them apart". This is the central conceit, and deceit, of Kosminsky's epic. The British were in Palestine for their own interests and when it no longer suited them they left. To conceal this fact he has to perpetrate a massive historical distortion. Although The Promise is insufferably didactic, no one mentions the Balfour declaration. Yet it was the British foreign secretary, AJ Balfour, who informed the English Zionist Federation in November 1917 that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object". This was the only promise that mattered because it had the force of international law."
Re. Heald's alleging Cesarani doesn't really refer to the rescinding of the Balfour Declaration's promise: Although Cesarani does not explicitly say that it was the perceived breaking of this promise that had Palestinian Jews up in arms, he more or less implies it, else why mention the Balfour Declaration as a promise to start with? Clearly Palestinian Jewish rebels weren't happy with it to some degree. Hence my 'rescinded'. It is the making (and arguably breaking) of that promise of a Jewish national home, as suited, with which Cesarani introduces his fundamental criticism.
Re. Heald's alleging that the Balfour Declaration is too contraversial to be mentioned: What how does that excuse Kominski's omission? Or refute Cesarani's assertion that that, so far as the Jews were concerned, was a promise of a Jewish national home? The perceived breaking of which was the reason for the Jewish insurrection in the first place?'
Re. Heald's alleging that my reference to Cesarani's reference to the Balfour Declaration etc is inusfficiently 'nuanced': But Cesarani's point is that the Balfour Declaration should have been mentioned somewhere in The Promise. It doesn't even get a "nuanced" look in. You can't "nuance" nothing!
Re. Heald's alleging that he's done Cesarani justice: I think it more accurate to say that you give the bare minimum of coverage to Cesarani that you think you can get away with, without being accused of skimping on it i.e. an exercise in damage limitation. The assertion that The Promise mentions not the Balfour Declaration, the promise of a Jewish national home (and I think, it may be reasonably argued, the continuing of the policy of the White Paper of 1939 even after the Holocaust i.e. the perceived breaking of that promise that had Jews up in arms), is at least as damaging an assertion, and inseparable from that allow to be quoted. The British made that promise, and broke it as it suited them, which is Cesarani's point.
zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not know exactly how to convey 'messages' to you guys, but I accorded with Heald's mandate to better reflect Cesarani's argument as for 'undue negative coverage', or whatever the phrase Cooper used, The Promise, in Reception, hardly lacks positive. Heald is supposed to be neutral. But there is a manifest relationship between him and Kominski. He claims he includes Cesarani's sharpest assertions. But he doesn't. Cesarani's criticism is a lot worse. And since he is an academic historian (the only to review The Promise so far), and The Promise purports to be historical drama, surely his input is important. Heald's manifestly attempts damage limitation, under Kominski's guidance, in fact. And Cooper seems to play ball. The fact is that an academic critical argument may well need to employ more words to convey it than an artistic. Heald says he is only interested in conveying a 'flavour' of Cesarani, 'flavour' being an interesting term to use of an academic criticism. In the this case, Heald has 'diluted' the flavour considerably, and he done so in a mutual arrangement with Peter Kominsky, as the edit and talk history shows.
As for complaints about 'format', that is very rigorous criterion
a) if you guys were really neutral and disinterested, you could help
b) the Freedland section relies on an audio-visual source. I cannot link to a transcription, as I myself am the only one transcribing it. I have no choice but to include the transcription. If you guys want to help me, you're welcome.
Again, it looks a lot to me as though your rigorous criteria are means to effect damage limitation on negative criticism of Kominski's work.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
Presumably the Freedland/Jacobson interview that Zkharya ( talk • contribs) refers to is this one: http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php? I've listened to the podcast, and the transcription in his now reverted edit appears to be accurate. Zkharya ( talk • contribs): you still aren't signing off your contributions to this Talk page with four tildes (which will generate your user name signature). You can insert four tildes by going to the box of blue text near the foot of this page, selecting Wiki markup from the options on the left, and dragging and dropping them onto your last line of text. Headhitter ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Lo All,
drive by neutral party attack. I've been discussing Zkharya's edits in another place. hurryupharry.org/2011/05/04/raining-on-sergeant-len-matthews-parade - (can't link directly due to spam problems).
I think he does make a reasonable case that Cesarani's criticisms are stronger than presented here. I've suggested: Historian of the period, David Cesarani, criticised the series for downplaying British culpability, from the Balfour declaration onwards, saying it had “turned the British, who were the chief architects of the Palestine tragedy, into its prime victims… Ultimately, Kosminsky turns a three-sided conflict into a one-sided rant”.[63] Or something like that. Maybe we can come up with something a bit better.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)'
'from the Balfour Declaration onwards' is a misrepresenation on two counts, because
a) Kominski doesn't mention the Balfour Declaration which is
b) one of Cesaran's gripes (actually = 'deceit' and 'massive historical distortion', on Kominsky's part)
a) But, pray, what are you going to use as a source other than my transcription? How can either of you used the video or audio source unless you sit through it, like I did. My transcription, which Nick Cooper, deleted, is the only one so far in existence.
b) because I have sat through it, I know that Freedland says a good deal more than that i.e. Kominsky employs antisemitics, as well as misrepresenting Zionism, as well as the history of Israel, for which reason Freedland puts it The Promise in the same bracket as, for instance, Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, which both he and Jacobson consider at least consider in part antisemitic:
In a filmed conversation with Howard Jacobson during Jewish Book Week 2011 (see link), Jonathan Freedland, Guardian editor, journalist, author and BBC presenter, first of all says Kominsky panders to antisemitic tropes, such as that of wealthy Jews (00.52.50-58). He then brackets The Promise with works such as Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, which he and Jacobson consider antisemitic (00.55.58-00.56.00). In an extended discussion with Howard Jacobson (01.13.28-01.14.18), Freedland makes three fundamental criticisms of The Promise:
Jacobson: ..how many you would think educated journalists still talk about Israel as though it’s a consequence of the Holocaust. Which was The Promise, wasn’t it?”
Freedland: The premise of The Promise, so to speak (it lost me first of all at the girl on Business Class), but also these very long, lingering pictures, archive footage from Belsen, I felt three things about that.
One, you don’t have the right to use those pictures, you haven’t earned the right to use those pictures artistically.
Second, I just know looking at that that you’re making a down payment on what you want to say attacking Jews later on in this series. And you’re doing that as your insurance policy, to say, well, look, I was sympathetic on that.
Third, and it was actually explicitly said by a character, a brigadier, briefing the British troops in Palestine -you knew they were saying this was the premise of all Zionism-, the Arabs were here minding their own business for 2000 years, and suddenly, after the Holocaust, Jews arrive…
Jacobson: We drop in out of the clear blue sky, bang, we’ll have that!
http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php
zkharya≈≈≈≈
If you have watched the video, Headhitter, where's your transcription, or the times in the video where Freedland says what?
I am not responsible for what others say in the thread below. And I think it's a bit rich your tarring me with it, since a) you found out about this source via me and b) your own citing of it is, in comparison, rather shoddy.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
'edit-warring.'
i.e. once or twice a year, since 2008, I have disputed with another editor on wiki. I only just discovered about all this behind the scenes stuff, and it's still new to me.
'I would further note that they also admit to being the user Wikieditorpro,'
Huh? What are you talking about?
But, while we're on the subject of 'pathetic', I think it's pathetic for you to have been 'economical' with the truth about what you actually wrote in the wiki talk threads, and with which I took legitimate issue. And even if my thread on HP is 'pathetic' it's still were Headhitter got his info on Jewish Book Weeks, even if his use of the source hardly fulfils his own wiki criteria.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈
If I am it is not to cover up or hide anything, it's mainly for spelling. I didn't know I could do that.
Zkharya≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
'I see that you are now substantially deleting and/or amending you own comments'
No, I'm not. That is untrue. Over the wikieditpro thing I didn't delete anything. I acknowledged I was wrong ( think I apologised), and said everything below in response to your comment was nonsense.
Still don't get the signature thing.
zkharya≈≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I did provide the link. One of you lot, I think Nick Cooper, deleted it, with the transcription. In any case, the external site of which you complain did provide both link and transcription. Ok, got the signature thing now. Zkharya ( talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, guys, I've taken on board the need to shorten entries to a line or two, and added elements approved by Nick Cooper, Red Deathy et al. e.g. Cesarani's accusing K. of 'massive distortion' by omitting the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home, absolving the British, blaming the Jews etc. With the Jewish Book Week, I've kept the same word count, but added his accusing K. of using antisemitic trope, mispresenting Israel and Zionism as a consequence of the Holocaust, and abusing its imagery:
Interviewing Jacobson during Jewish Book Week 2011, Jonathan Freedland said Kominsky used antisemitic tropes, misrepresented Israel and Zionism as though a consequence of the Holocaust, whose imagery he abused. [1] Historian, Professor David Cesarani, accused Kominsky of "deceit...massive distortion": omitting the Balfour Declaration's promising a Jewish national home; downplaying selfish British geo-strategy; exculpating the British, "chief architects of the Palestine tragedy"; and "blaming the Jews", in a triune conflict of British, Arab and Jew, "in a one-sided rant". The Promise: an exercise in British self-exculpation, The Guardian Comment is Free website, 4 March 2011</ref>
Zkharya ( talk) 20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I followed the link and, I have to say, I am not sure how to read what happened. By and large I edit for spelling or something I said which I think was wrong. My intention is not to deceive. Having said that, it looks to me as though most of my changes are not deleting material, but adding it. Zkharya ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Forgive me for intervening and apologies if it is inappropriate for me to do so. Could I make a couple of points? Firstly, could I make it very clear that I have no connection - direct or otherwise - with any of the editors working on these pages. I have been polite and praised work where I thought it good. I thought that was just good manners. But to accuse Jheald of being some kind of surrogate or puppet is grossly unfair and certainly defamatory. It is also quite wrong to put such a statement into the public domain when Jheald has made it clear in these pages that he is away for some time and therefore unable to defend himself. Writing on Wikipedia is publishing within the meaning of the act and I would strongly advise that defamatory material is taken down as soon as possible. Second, could I draw editors' attention to the fact that Howard Jacobson clearly states, in his discussion with Jonathan Freedland at Jewish Book Week, that he has not watched The Promise, (having been put off by the title). This remark is at approximately 1.09.25 into the discussion. Perhaps his robust criticism of the programme should be judged in this light. Peter Kosminsky ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, so there Jacobson is speculating. But Freedman is agreeing, pretty much, and his statements are the ones in the entry. Clearly K. is trying to frame that for his later April-May review, since that is where is most robust criticism occurs.
You'll be happy to know, I edited out Jacobson's quotations for that period, retaining only the substance of Freedland said,
So, we should all be happy :) Zkharya ( talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'There is currently an issue in that Jacobson's comments are not quoted in chronological order, with his Independent piece being mentioned before Jewish Book Week, when they should obviously be the other way around.'
I agree. But I hesitated to do anything lest any of you lot delete that too. Zkharya ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
' It is, perhaps, sloppy of him to have admitted in public to having not seen it earlier, and then to comment on it further without any confirmation that he had rectified that oversight'
It's not 'sloppy' even more than it is 'admitting': he's speculating in JBW, which he is entitled to do. And Freedland is largely agreeing, and Freedland's view at this time is the more pertinent, to use your expression. Why should he 'confirm' anything? There is no 'oversight'. He hadn't seen it by JBW. Like most reviewers, he assumes the readers understand what he has reviewed. Do any reviewers ever 'rectify' the 'oversight' of having said they had not seen something earlier? Zkharya ( talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a point there, Cooper. Perhaps by prefacing his comments with 'having seen the first episode', or some such.? Zkharya ( talk) 17:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who is attributing the maximum amount of bad faith possible to Howard Jacobson! Also by K., I think, in my subjective opinion (and I admit it is just my subjective opinion), since K. implies that Jacobson's 'robust criticism', the most robust of which appeared in his April-May review, should be read as though Jacobson had not viewed The Promise by the time in question. Zkharya ( talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'This is as astounding as it is unequivocal, and obviously this casts doubt on whether his comments from the same event can be validly quoted. We do, however, have the precedence of The Wind That Shakes the Barley, where we include negative comments by certain commentators alongside self-admissions or other evidence that they were made without having actually seen the film in question.'
If you did that re. Jacobson's April-May review, you would be attributing the maximum amount of bad faith to Jacobson possible. And if it were untrue, or even unverified, I think it would be clearly defamatory in the manner K. throws out about one case. Zkharya ( talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'One certainly would hope that someone reviewing a TV series would actually watch it before doing so, but then Jacobson's Independent article is not a review, it's an opinion piece. The series ran between 6 & 27 February, and Jacobson's piece did not appear until 23 April - newspapers do not review TV series two months late.'
a) all reviews are opinion pieces; simply because it is an opinion piece on x does not mean it is not a review on it. That is a logical fallacy b) one may review any number of months after x appears c) he speculated on TP, and asked Freedland for confirmation, who pretty much affirmed.
So what? Freedland's comments are, in my view, to use your term, pertinent. I only included Jacobson's comments to frame Freedland's, since there was no transcription other than mine. That didn't stop you from deleting it though, did it? Zkharya ( talk) 22:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'Jacobson's admission to have not seen the series casts doubt on the validity of his comments on the same day, as well as later.'
a) as to 'same day', only if J.s comments are reported as anything but speculation (they are not reported in wiki at all) b) as to 'later' only if you have a priore animus against J.
'His article appears in the Opionion/Commentators section, not the Arts & Ents section, where a review would appear.' That is specious and officious distinction. One may opine at length on a work of art outside the Art and Ents section. J. often does. ' Jacobson's piece is clearly not a review, not least becasue it is not structure like one, nor does it read like one.' That is an entirely subjective opinion. What is the definitive form of a review? All reviews are opinion pieces, and Jacobson is opining on TP, which, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it would be attributive to him of the worst faith (defamatory, even?) to insinuate he has not seen. Zkharya ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Maybe he watched the DVD in the meantime, but there's no evidence whether he did or not'
Oh, my goodness. So Nick Cooper, at the instigation of Peter Kominsky, is now accusing Howard Jacobson of the maximum amount of bad faith a reviewer can have: of not having seen the item he reviews or opines on.
Very, very interesting. Zkharya ( talk) 22:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not suggesting conspiracy. I am saying K. used HJ's admitting he hadn't seen TP Feb-March to insinuate that he hadn't seen it when he wrote his 'robust criticism', the most robust of which was written, obviously, April-May. I am saying that is when you decided to insert it into wiki to insinuate the same. That looks like a kind of instigation to me. It's not 'conspiracy', it's quite out in the open. Zkharya ( talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
'So you it's alright for you to respond to Peter's comment, but not for anyone else to confirm what he said? How does that work?'
Not at all. But, what is interesting is that you inferred from K.'s observation (and had you even heard or seen the JBW link? You haven't yet said you had at the time, so it looks prima facie as though you hadn't) that J. had not seen TP by April-May, and that you could then insinuate this in the wiki text.
'It is standard practice for editors on Wikipedia to review the sources cited by other editors to confirm that those sources are being accurately represented'
Is it standard practice for wiki editors to follow up, unexamined, the insinuations of interested parties that hostile critics are writing in bad faith? Is it standard to accuse reviewer of not having seen or read their subject simply because they do not provide evidence of having seen it? That would probably exclude most reviewers. So the question I ask is, Why just Jacobson with this review? Zkharya ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Peter raised a very improtant point, so I naturally checked the video to confirm it. ' Before or after you started insinuating J. had not seen TP? And that still doesn't account for your ascribing to J. the worst faith possible in April-May. Again, at the instigation of K. Zkharya ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
' It would therefore probably be best to quote him from JBW, '
Hehe. You first decide NOT to include the comments. THEN, after I've told you I was HAPPY to do that, since Freedland's were more pertinent, to include them, so that you can ALSO accuse him of bad faith in the process, insinuating about a piece/review on TP 7 weeks later.
Well, go ahead. I will then review what you have done, and suggest or make any changes I deem fit. Zkharya ( talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but, you've just been using K.'s observation (had you even heard or seen the audio-visual at the time?) as the basis to insinuate HJ hadn't seen TP at the time of his April-May review. That is very "interesting" form of editorial neutrality. Using all kinds of preposterous distinctions between reviewing and opining on a drama. In my personal, subjective, opinion. Zkharya ( talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a point there. Perhaps prefacing his comments with 'Having seen the the first episode', or some such? Zkharya ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'Maybe he watched the DVD in the meantime, but there's no evidence whether he did or not'
Is there usually evidence that reviewers have reviewed their subject? What form does it take? Why suddenly demand if of this reviewer? Why does the absence of such evidence that characterises most reviews suddenly imply or suggest bad faith in this one?
In short, where is your evidence that absence of evidence in this case constitutes evidence of bad faith? Zkharya ( talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Expected? How? How is the evidence provided in a review? And if evidence is not normally provided in a review, how is HJ's piece not a review because it provides no evidence? Zkharya ( talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous thing to say. All reviews are opinion pieces, and Jacobson has opined on dramatic and written works before in this his regular slot. Are you suggesting he never saw or read those too, because his piece wasn't in the review section? Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'there's nothing in it that he couldn't have gleaned from the comments of others.'
OMG, I can't believe you're actually saying that. What a completely, utterly subjective, and anything but neutral judgment (editorial?) to make. You, Nick Cooper, deduce HJ cannot have seen TP, because you think his opinions could not have been formed after watching TP. Whoa. You are amazing. You can almost read minds, it seems.
Wow. Cooper, I don't think Kominsky is going to be sending you any thank you notes for making that call. Zkharya ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
'the focus of it is more the Ofcom decision not to investigate the series.'
That's rubbish. His focus is more TP itself, about which he writes considerably more than Ofcom. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'he fact is that Jacobson could have written what he did without having rectified his acknowledged non-viewing of the series seven weeks earlier. I don't know whether he did or he didn't, and neither do you, but it is a possibility.'
Only if you attribute to him the worst faith possible. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
'you seem very uncomfortable about someone else voicing their own opinions' Absolute rot, and completely untrue. It is you and others who have been busy little bees in deleting what I have written in the past.
'You have been very keen on pushing a certain interpretation of Kosminsky's intentions and motives here and elsewhere,'
I have simply noted facts, and I haven't put them into the wiki text. K. and Heald have a relationship of mutual approbation. K. requested and and himself deleted texts utterly truthful and reference which he did not like (my sole exception to that would be my inferring Cesarani's alluding to the White Paper of 1939 -that was too far, I admit).
'but it's clear that you don't like Jacobson, Freedland, et al being subjected to similar scrutiny.'
Not at all. But actually injecting your attributing of bad faith and deceit to Jacobson into the wiki text, that is different matter. Or rather, by all means try it. Rewrite the wiki text insinuating bad faith to J. Since it came at the instigation of K. it wouldn't look good for either of you. Zkharya ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion transferred from the talk page of Bobfrombrockley ( talk · contribs). Jheald ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I didn't know what to do with the La Croix text [21] when I first covered it for the article.
In addition to what you've already quoted in the footnote:
Laurent Loucher quotes Annette Wieviorka, a French historian of the Holocaust who has written about the liberation of the camp, to suggest that film sequences from Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz were mixed together, in a problematic way: "Viewers will believe that the British, liberating the camp of Bergen-Belsen, liberated the Jews from a death camp. However, Bergen-Belsen was a concentration camp. To support his claim, Kosminsky blends footage shot at Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz. Thus, the film is constructed, the first few minutes, on a montage which appears as true but which is already false. Which, in what follows, allows him to suggest that the survivors are ungrateful."
the La Croix article then added the further paragraph:
She added "Should we remember that these liberators confined the death camp survivors in barracks, before letting them die of typhus?" "We had the sense that our lives did not matter," judged Simone Veil citing this episode.
This seems to me also an extraordinary comment. A typhus epidemic was raging in the midst of widespread starvation, which the British were substantially unprepared for; all while the war was not yet concluded. Of course it is true that 14,000 died in the month after the liberation; and no doubt, as with any calamity, there were perhaps some actions which could have been done differently. But given the resources and knowledge available (and despite Simone Veil's comment -- see here and here for further context), it is hard to know what the British could have done more; and pretty bitter to see the response of soldiers doing their best in those horrific conditions as anything other than heroic.
(The Promise of course didn't touch the question of Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, and the viewer is not shown the situation of Jews in post-1945 Europe, for example post-war pogroms in Poland, which is an authorial choice; but given the budget of time available, and the power achieved by moving straight from Belsen to the rounding-up and detention of Jews on the beaches of Palestine, one that seems quite defensible).
Yet to read the presentation by La Croix of Wieviorka's comments, the bizarre implication being made seems to be that Belsen was just some kind of mild holding camp, and all the deaths there were the British fault. As for the claim that viewers would believe the British liberated a death camp rather than a concentration camp, this also is very odd. For a pure death camp, like Treblinka or Sobibor, there would have been no living emaciated bodies for the British to discover, because, bluntly, the victims would have been smoke. It precisely is a concentration camp where liberation might reveal such living cadavers. ( Auschwitz was a hybrid of the two, that comprised both a work camp/concentration camp and a death camp). The story of each of the camps and ghettos was different. I, as a complete non-expert, certainly couldn't certify for sure whether or not the footage the IWM provided might have contained footage of Auschwitz. But did it misrepresent Belsen? Surely not.
To my mind, the suggestion in the article that The Promise manifestly misrepresented Belsen, if anything, just makes the journalist and his interviewee look like they don't know what they're talking about. Which is why I originally took perhaps the soft option route of not including it. But if it is to go into the article, even as a footnote, then at the very least we should also include that the footage was included on the basis that it was presented to the film-makers as footage of Belsen; and it would also be appropriate (if we're going to report an accusation like this) to email Wieviorka to clarify why she belived there was footage of Auschwitz in the material used (ideally with her identifying particular shots), and then to put those assertions to the IWM. Until such clarification is obtained, it seems to me it would be better to remove these assertions to the talk-page, and take them out of the article (even its footnotes). Jheald ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
JH/PK, I think it is sensible to remove this material from the article to the talk page. Although I think that Wieviorka is a highly respected historian, it is odd that she appears here so categorical about the mixing of footage, and I have no reason to doubt PK is telling the truth about the footage. Also slightly unclear from La Croix article whether it was an interview with her he is quoting or what. I would suggest this whole conversation here be copied to the talk page. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. am abandoning my sandbox for now, might get back to it some time when I am less busy. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that the series is going to be the subject of an academic symposium at the University of Leeds on the 26th of this month. [22] [23]. Anyone likely to look in? Kosminsky himself would appear to have a prior engagement -- handing out the gongs at the LFF awards gala that evening [24]; but I don't know whether papers from the event will be made available. Jheald ( talk) 11:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The series is now going out in Australia. SBS is showing it over four Sunday nights at 8.30 from 27 November. There's also an online catch-up site [34] (apparently Aus-only accessible).
The Australian Jewish News apparently ran a piece gathering up some of the more critical comments from the UK. ( "Mandate drama isn't very promising"). Other than that coverage seems to have been limited to a few preview recommendation slugs on the TV pages. The most extensive of these appears to have been in The West Australian which carried a full article with quotes from Kosminsky [35]. Elsewhere the Sydney Morning Herald trailed the programme as "ambitious... both bracingly original and wonderfully gripping", offering a "profound veracity". [36]. The same piece can also be found at the paper's Melbourne twin The Age [37]. The Australian selected part one as its pick of the week, calling the character development and performances "compelling", and saying that the series "offers insight into the history of one of the world's most conflicted places". [38]. In an agency piece, AAP said that "Foy shines amid a powerful storyline", wising up to "a few harsh truths". [39]. The Sunday Herald Sun also offered a preview. [40]].
Comparatively muted reaction on twitter, with apparently only six people tweeting to #thePromise, seemingly positive though one already seems to have taken against Erin. A few blogs: TV Tonight trailed it as "a stand-out UK drama", "if you’re worried there’s nothing to watch as of this Sunday, think again -- especially if you are a lover of quality, Arthouse drama", with what appears to be the official SBS press release. [41]. 'Neil' preferred it to the latest remake of Brideshead [42]; while 'Jewgle' of Perth denounced it as using "every conceivable anti-Semitic canard" to feed the viewer "an untrue sterotype of the Israeli and an inverted reality of the victim of this conflict". [43]
It may be worth adding some of this to the article in due course; but for the moment I propose hanging back to see whether anything more substantive appears as the series progresses. Jheald ( talk) 13:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm temporarily moving the following, contributed by JulieECAJ ( talk · contribs) here to the talk page, until we have more sourcing. It's very easy for one side or another to cherry-pick some particular items and comments and not others; so we are perhaps as well to hold fire for a day or two until we see whether the full transcript is available, and what assessment is made by independent media organisations or other non-aligned third parties.
Reporting on events like this directly, rather than via secondary media sources, is generally held to be a problem going against WP's guideline against WP:Original research. There can also be a problem if the events are written up by actors with a direct stake in the subject matter of a particular article -- which is one reason why WP:Conflict of Interest policy recommends that best practice is for such actors to contribute material to the talk page, and then let the whole community of editors how best to write it into the article.
There is no doubt that the Estimates hearings are something that the article needs to cover. But WP is not a news service, and we can afford to hang on just a little time to see what if any other reports may be forthcoming.
The material contributed by JulieECAJ ( talk · contribs) was as follows:
On 14 February 2012, the Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid, appeared before an Estimates Committee of the Australian Senate and was closely questioned about the relevant commercial arrangements and decision-making processes leading to the screening of the series by SBS.
Mr Ebeid revealed that SBS entered into a pre-sale arrangement with, and made an advance payment to, the producers of The Promise in full knowledge that the subject matter was going to be controversial and likely to be seen as racist by most members of the Jewish community. He conceded that SBS had formed the opinion that the series is not antisemitic without having consulted anyone in the Jewish community.
One of the Senators who questioned him, Senator Helen Kroger of Victoria, subsequently issued a media release. [1]
“SBS appears to have put a business decision ahead of independent assessments which determined that it was offensive to the Jewish community,” Senator Kroger said.
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition Senator Scott Ryan rejected Mr Ebeid’s claim that because The Promise was fiction, it was subject to different considerations.
“Some of the biggest slanders in history have been works of fiction,” Senator Ryan said. “Depictions in the series include Jewish children stoning Arab children, blood-thirsty soldiers, conniving double-agents and members of an extremely wealthy, cosmopolitan family. Like it or not, these three depictions are antisemitic stereotypes that are at the same time old, but also reappearing today.” [2]
Until more reports emerge, for the time being I have cut it back to just the first sentence.
As with anything else on WP, nothing is final. The article and this talk page are open to further views and contributions. Jheald ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much more discussion that I could find online since the above. Anti-zionist blogger "Middle East Reality Check" has some comments on Kroger's article for The Punch [67], and also some spleen for The Australian [68], but that seems to be about it. Jheald ( talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
References
The series has also been getting a showing at the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, New York, in weekly parts. The first part had showings on Tuesday and Wednesday, 15 and 16 November, as part of the "Other Israel" Film Festival [69], with Liel Liebovitz chairing a Q&A with David Aukin after the Wednesday screening. The remaining parts are then being shown at the JCC over the next three Wednesday evenings up to December 7.
A couple of general reviews of the festival mention The Promise, [70] [71]. I also found one longer curtain-raiser article for part 1, [72]; a blog piece for Tikkun [73]; and a blog report of the screening [74]. Jheald ( talk) 14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Released for download from August 11, 2012 [77]
Air-dates have been announced by TV Ontario. The series will be shown on Sunday evenings at 9pm, from April 15 to May 6. Jheald ( talk) 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The series is now going out in Denmark on the Danish channel DR2 under the title Løftet som bandt ("The Promise that bound"). It's being stripped across the Easter weekend in an early evening slot. Part one went out on Thursday at 5pm [82]; part two follows on Saturday, also at 5pm [83]; part three is on Sunday, at 4.40 [84], and part four is on Monday at 5pm again, [85]. DR2 doesn't appear to have any webpages of its own about the series; its TV guide [86] has a paragraph of information (if you click on the heading), and then a link to IMDB if the reader wants more. Jheald ( talk) 08:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The series will go out on Wednesday nights at 10pm on SVT1 from 2 May. [87] [88]. Repeated on Saturday nights/Sunday mornings at 02.55 am [89] Jheald ( talk) 23:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In Israel, the series is being programmed in April by the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, with five showings in the month for each episode. First screening of part one is on April 9th, and finally there is a screening of all four parts on April 26th. [95]. Jheald ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Also going to be shown at the Cinematheque in Haifa, on Thursday 10, 17, 24 & 31 May. [102]. Jheald ( talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that it is necessarily bad thing, but i'm starting to wonder whether this is going to be the movie/tv article in WP with the most extensive informations on rewiews. :-)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Considering this is the English Wikipedia, why is the first paragraph allowed to remain? I would respectfully suggest it be moved to a Wikipedia page in it's own language if one exists.... Noble Korhedron 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Promise (2011 TV serial). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)