Talk:The Promise (2011 TV serial)

Synopsis

A more elaborate synopsis is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 February 2011

Agreed. But at the same time, guidelines say the synopsis shouldn't be too detailed; it shouldn't be a blow-by-blow substitute for watching the series itself.

Compare, for example, the relatively terse synopsis for Our Friends in the North, which is considered an example of good practice. So that's why, just for myself, I've been writing some of the more technical sections first, before something that is going to need a little more judgement as to what to put in and what to leave out. Jheald (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a first stab at a plot summary [1]. Despite my good advice to myself above, it's way too detailed, massively over-length, and needs to be severely cut back. Which is why I hid it in a box. Trouble is it's the level of detail and different elements, conveyed really pretty efficiently and economically, that is so much of what makes the series what it is. Though perhaps you could say that of any intricately constructed work. And even then I haven't really caught the characters' emotional journeys. Anyway, there it is as a first offer, if anyone wants to take a radical pruning axe to it, and trim it back ruthlessly. Jheald (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cd you reconsider your annotation where you say that security on Agatha and Shark were both said to have held? My reading of the research is that both were severely compromised. The scene where we see Rowntree being shown a placard on which their entire plan for the operation was posted by the IZL is a true event - corroborated by our interviews with veterans.Peter Kosminsky (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.

I had been going by the official Army post-operation reports from the ParaData website:

"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)

In the light of those, I had assumed in this that you had been applying a little dramatic licence in the interest of the "spy in the base" plotline; and/or compositing from another operation this particularly dramatic and visual example of security failure. (And perhaps you might have also been wanting to bring out the kind of postering activity that had just done for Alexander Rubowitz).

But since you have now made clear that this was based on much more than just dramatic licence, and since my annotation sprang from no more than what I had read on that one website, I am very happy to withdraw the comment, and to thank you for taking the time out to raise this so it could be corrected. Jheald (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I have seen photographs of the placards that were posted round the city. Maybe contemporary military reports were trying to conceal the extent to which they had been penetrated. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mini-series?

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)

It is very much an Americanism. "Serial" would be the traditional British description, although "series" is now used for anything with more than one episode. Channel 4, however, does refer to it as a "serial", so we should probably go with that. I'll move it now. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mid importance

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)

First realistic enactment of the 'Nakba' ?

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)

France

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)

That's a fair comment. After all, in a piece reviewing the controversy Le Post summarised the press reaction with the subhead "Critiques unanimes" [7], so you're quite right -- that should be the primary tenor of the section if it is to reflect the different voices with appropriate WP:DUE weight.

I seem to remember I originally did much the same thing with the UK critics. Perhaps it's a personal tendency to look for the emptiness in a glass first, or the gaps in a theory, rather than appreciate what's there. Somebody fixed that for the UK section, which is a good thing. I'll see whether I can make the balance of the France section a bit more representative. Jheald (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, James. Much appreciated. There's a response for you on my own talk page. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Le Point quote read:"is, for Israel, overwhelming" rather than "is overwhelming for Israel"? Headhitter (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you like. The sense is that what the film shows leaves Israel on the ropes (whether this was Kosminsky's up-front intention or not), so he's going to get attacked.

I've done my best with the translations (helped by Google) but I wouldn't claim it as a particular skill. So if anyone can make the English more precise or more idiomatic then they've got my support. The rendering of the end of the quote from Les Echos is particularly rough and ready; and I don't know whether I got quite the right word for "souffle épique", which I've given as "epic sensibility" in the body text, and "epic spirit" in the refs. Jheald (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ARTE (France & Germany/Austria)

• According to Satellifax, ARTE will be showing the series over two Fridays starting from April 20, 2012.[8]. Part 1 will be at 8:40, and part 2 at 10:00 according to the ARTE site. [9][10] It will apparently be shown "en version multilingue", but it's not made clear whether that is English/French or French/German. Possibly the former, though. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, here's a German site presenting the series as "Gelobtes Land" ("Promised Land") [11], so perhaps ARTE has made a full German dub. Jheald (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Here's a fairly long German preview piece [12], so it does indeed seem there's now a German-language version (though I suppose it might be subtitled). The piece gets the headline "Exciting history lessons", and concludes "Through the skillful exchange between the time frames he builds tension, with historical and political facts conveyed in such a subtle current of events, that many will probably only notice afterwards that they have learned something." The first commenter (who has the English version on DVD) reckons it's one of the best series they've ever seen, with a "super-well cast ensemble". Jheald (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • ARTE.de's listing for episode 1 (at 8:15 -- 25 minutes earlier than ARTE.fr; and indeed dubbed, not subtitled) has quite a lot of orientation about the series (as well as building Kosminsky up as the UK's "most significant and most controversial film and TV director"). Given some of the heat in the past, interesting to see this explicitly on historicity: "The Promise is a fictional narrative. But director Peter Kosminsky undertook extensive research to shape the historical background of the drama." Jheald (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • ARTE.de's preview magazine also has a longish piece trailing and backgrounding the series. [13]. 'Every historically significant place was visited by the director in the company of historians. "I draw no caricatures, each figure is based on a person whom we interviewed or about whom we read," says Kosminsky... "Sure my film criticizes Israel, but it also shows the complexity of the conflict. It's an area where accusations of anti-Semitism quickly enter the room. But The Promise is not a criticism of a people. Israel is a sovereign state, and it must be allowed to criticize the policies of a state." Jheald (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
        • • ARTE now has a clip up -- for those who want to compare Claire Foy's speaking voice in French and German. Also Lucas Gregorowicz I think re-voicing himself. Jheald (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Also, it appears, a live web-chat with Kosminsky [14] -- while the episodes are actually going out?? Also in French. Jheald (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
            • And a post-screening debate / ARTE+7 available from April 28: Is The Promise an ideologically committed work (une oeuvre engagée) ? It's a 50 minute moderated discussion with two academics, one of whom has just written an introduction to Ben Gurion's 1947-48 diary, with of course, being ARTE, one speaking French and one speaking German. Format looks quite interesting and quite detailed -- the talking heads are given time to develop their theses, rather than being constantly interrupted. But my connection keeps dropping out, and it's a lot more demanding when there's no Google translate to do all the hard work ... So might have to wait for another day :-) Jheald (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I have started a sub-page to make a detailed summary/translation of the studio discussion, if anyone would like to help. Not clear whether the video will continue to be available after 7 days, i.e. after Friday 4 May. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • German previews/commentaries:
    • Propaganda for Prime Time (German), Jüdische Allgemeine, 19 April. Jheald (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Noted in Der Spiegel's daily online round-up of the arts pages.
      • Quoted in a syndicated piece by IsraelNetz: Promised Land: ARTE broadcasts controversial four-part series.
    • Preview piece (German) in Austria's Der Standard, 19 April. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The Süddeutsche Zeitung's Tel Aviv correspondent writes: On a voyage of discovery through the eternal conflict (German), noting the attacks that have been made against the series, but finds that it is "grippingly told, exciting, and factually well founded". "It is not without its issues (Unproblematisch ist er nicht), but it appears well-intentioned, and is definitely well made... Against the charge of anti-Semitism, one has to take the director's side... He plays with the parallels, as images from the bombing of the King David Hotel flow into images of a Palestinian suicide bombing. Both are similarly awful, but both are not the same. Kosminsky does not make an assessment, he simply shows this whole absurd, insane reality that has been tearing apart the Middle East for decades". Jheald (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Die Welt also has an extended preview piece, The enemy at my door (German). Having set the stage, the reviewer comments "The beginning already shows the strength of this vividly recounted historical drama". Later, "British film and television director Kosminsky, who again and again has caused a stir with his films, such as the 1997 rape drama "Stolen Childhood" [i.e. No Child of Mine] or the 1999 "Warriors" about the experiences of British peacekeepers in the war in Bosnia, once again manages a balancing act. On the one hand Kosminsky tries to take account almost like a teaching-piece of all the facets of the ongoing conflict... At the same time Kosminsky, who oversaw eight years of intensive research for his drama, raises a critical spotlight on the security policies of the Israelis. He shows the Israeli soldiers as careless aggressors at the checkpoints which screen the Palestinian villages, and as persecutors who drive innocent families from their homes. But it is not about assigning blame. "Promised Land" shows, in a vexingly clear way, the high price the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has required to the present day. From both sides." Jheald (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Noted in Der Spiegel's daily round-up of the arts pages: "... Andrea Backhaus recommends Peter Kosminsky's four-part series "Promised Land", the first part of which runs today on Arte."
    • The Hamburger Abendblatt calls the series "exceptional". ("Promised Land": Stirring search for clues in Israel (German)). "... For an ambitious television film that could be quite enough levels of action and complication to be made comprehensible, but director Kosminsky goes a significant step yet further, linking today with yesterday, the current Middle East conflict with its roots in the 1940s, and Erin's search for clues with the fate of he grandfather, who fought against the Jewish Irgun undreground army, fell in love with a young Jewish woman (a strong Katharina Schüttler) and stood alongside oppressed Palestinians. Kosminsky connects the episodes seamlessly, making for a high-voltage result, without ever sacrificing the story to the effect." ... "His drama, in all nearly six hours long, is extremely complex and differentiated"... "Director Kosminsky does not give an answer to every question, but he suggests that the status quo is not easy to accept, and to illuminate both sides of this seemingly endless conflict."
    • The Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung [15]: "... With this simple but effective trick, Peter Kosminsky (script and direction) links the Palestinian-Israeli history inextricably with the present. Thus develops a breathtakingly exciting, absolutely remarkable history lesson that takes into account the many aspects of the conflict and does justice to the complexity of the issue. Whoever wants to understand the present of the region must know its past. And to that "Promised Land" contributes significantly".
    • The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had a 577 word piece, but it's behind a paywall in the archive & I was too mean to pay the 1 euro required to read it; nor does the FAZ appear to be available through PressDisplay. It begins: "An odyssey through the Middle East conflict "Promised Land": The renowned British director Peter Kosminsky captivates with a four-part series. It was not until the explosion, then darkness, and finally, when the dust finally clear, the view of the location of the attack. 2005 ... "
    • A highlight with photograph on the TV listings page of Tagesspiegel (20 April, p.27). "A young woman wants to experience Israel. But the first idyll is deceptive".
    • A blogger thinks the series tried to hit too many issues too fast without allowing enough time for reflection [possibly not helped by the scheduling?] and didn't like some of the characters, but considers it a failure still worth seeing. [16]. Finds the complaint about the 1940 sequences talking about "the Jews" rather than "the Israelis" to be ludicrous, because there were no Israelis then - the country did not yet exist. Also uploaded to the Turkishpress.de website.
  • French previews/commentary:
    • Télérama's website is re-running its interview with Kosminsky. A separate capsule preview (French) sums up the series as a "Painful and exciting game of ping-pong between two periods of heavy individual and collective tragedies, The Promise is based on solid documentary research. But it is indeed an (excellent) fiction, with a fluid narration, and a few narrative devices (the incredibly slow reading of the grandfather's diary!) that are quickly forgiven, because very cleverly exploited. Through the impossible task assigned to Len and the quest that Erin sets herself, large and small-scale history intertwine, in a way that is gripping and often poignant. The Promise is not intended in any way to provide an exhaustive view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but manages, a televisual feat, to convey its intractable character. Though the episodes are so dense that it would have been preferable to (re-)see them one by one."
    • The Nouvel Obs is re-running pretty much its previous capsule commentary [17] "... The aim being to shake public opinion in Britain which, as a former colonial power, should have put more effort into resolving this conflict. His position however remains that of someone of the British pro-Palestinian left. The film has to be seen such, with its always so worthy Palestinians (Omar's character), even into the sacrifice, and its Israelis either bellicose (Jews threw stones at Palestinian schoolgirls), gently disconnected (the parents of Erin's friend) or turned pro-Palestinian (Paul, their son). But put aside the politics and despite the shortcomings of the contemporary part (one might call it "the Misfortunes of Erin"), "The Promise" is a beautiful spectacle. A love story, with its share of great dramas and low betrayals, which exudes an epic spirit rare on TV."
    • French blogger re-iterates her objections to the series. (French).
    • French webzine Critictoo republishes its review and comments thread (French) from 2011. Finds some of the speeches didactic, and Erin's motivations under-convincing, making her journey seem calculated towards narrative convenience, and less immersive and powerful than the scenes involving Len. But nevertheless finds the series sufficently strong, and its subject matter delicate and important to explore, that it deserves to be watched. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Another French webzine (or blog?) Paperblog (French) also has a long-ish reaction piece to the series. It likes it: "Tonight Arte offers us a very nice gift"... "a strong mini-series that deals with a sensitive subject", and finds its depiction convincing "Though this may be a series, the facts are real." Particularly it likes Erin's epilepsy, showing Erin as a girl just like any other despite her illness ("adds nothing to the plot, but it makes the character more believable and endearing"); and Eliza's grandfather in Ep 2 ("Those dangers don't threaten Eliza, nor anyone of her generation"). And the French dubbing, apparently, is "quality". Jheald (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • One of the great televisual events of the year (French), according to a preview in French-language Lebanese paper Agenda Culturel. Jheald (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Overnight French ratings: 582,000 viewers, a 2.2% share. [18]. Jheald (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • French opera-buff blogger [19] finds parts 1 & 2 "not perfect, therefore, but rather clever and challenging. (And better shot - by Peter Kosminsky - than quite a number of recent films, IMO.)" Jheald (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Wikieditorpro

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≈≈≈≈

Balfour declaration

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)

Thanks for inviting comments, Jheald (talk · contribs). Anyone who hasn't seen the programme might think, not unreasonably, that "promise" refers to the Balfour Declaration, but as far as I recall it doesn't do so. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think we say anywhere in the article what the "promise" is. Perhaps in the introduction we might think of including wording to the effect that the promise refers, not to the Balfour Declaration, but to x... If that - or similar wording - is added, then I don't think we need to extend the Cesarani quotation. Headhitter (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that most people would not even be aware of the Balfour Declaration, let alone assume the title was a reference to it, although clearly some audiences may differ significantly in that perception. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 1 May 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)

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; I merely pointed out that most people would not make that connection, not least because most have no idea what the Balfour Declaration was.

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. 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.

I would rather suggest that the title would be more widely assumed to be a reference to the biblical concept of the Promised Land, which in fact some of the dialogue Cesarani actually quotes appears to corroborate, i.e.:

In the first episode a British intelligence officer explains to the new troops that Jews are flooding into Palestine in fulfilment of "a promise made by God".

As Jheald notes, there is not even universal acceptance of what the Balfour Declaration "promised," so Cesarani's attempt to ring-fence the concept of "the Promise" seems even more tenuous. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:28, 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.:

In the first episode a British intelligence officer explains to the new troops that Jews are flooding into Palestine in fulfilment of "a promise made by God"."

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 was not looking for any "excuse to delete" you. You inserted multiple comments within a comment left by another editor, which is not accepted practice on Wikipedia, because it is messy and confusing.

I would respond further, but I see that yet again you have chosen to willfully misinterpret virtually everything I have already said, so I really can't be bothered. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal abuse of other Wikipedia contributors is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, Zkharya (talk • contribs), and does not advance your cause. Very many people have contributed an extraordinary amount of their own time to help debate, and determine through consensus, the rules and standards that apply to Wikipedia entries and to develop Wikipedia into the highly functioning and very effective online community that it is today. Please have the respect to read these rules and standards and apply them at even a basic level so that you can contribute effectively to the discussion. For the record, I believe that none of the contributors to the Wikipedia article, except Peter Kosminsky himself, has a proprietorial interest in the subject matter and all of us, including Peter, seek to work collaboratively to produce an article that abides by Wikipedia's agreed standards and which takes a neutral point of view. Headhitter (talk) 06:18, 2 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≈≈≈≈

Zkharya's edits

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)

I'd be happy with wording along these lines. Regarding the Freedland/Jacobson interview, I suggest adding to the existing text referring to Howard Jacobson: "In an interview at Jewish Book Week 2011 with Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland, Jacobson criticised The Promise for talking about Israel as though it were a consequence of the Holocaust". By the way, I'd much prefer that discussions about editing Wikipedia content take place on these discussion pages - which are open to all to contribute - rather than on a website elsewhere. Headhitter (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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://vimeo.com/22086132

http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php

zkharya≈≈≈≈

I'll make the change now. I agree it's better to talk here, but the discussion started elseplace, so I reffed it so anyone could see it. I think your proposed change sounds good also.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now made the Jewish Book Week change too: thanks for your comments, Red Deathy (talk). Thanks also for alerting us to the discussion taking place on the Harryupharry website; I see that the discussion is still going. The latest post I saw described Wikipedia as "unredeemable shit". Charming. Headhitter (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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≈≈≈≈

It seems rather pathetic of Zkharya to attempt to whip up support off-Wikipedia, especially by means of a number of snide comments, misrepresentations, and outright lies about myself and other editors. I would further note that they also admit to being the user Wikieditorpro, who has a history of edit-warring. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

'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≈≈≈≈

You clearly self-refered to edits made by "Wikieditorpro" as your own edits. Meanwhile, your continued abject inability to understand what I have been clearly saying is your own problem. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are now substantially deleting and/or amending you own comments, after other editors have responded to them. This is also something that is contrrary to good practice on Wikipedia. If you wish to rescind something you have said, you should strike it through like this, rather than deleting/changing it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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 find it amazing that you "still don't get the signature thing". I've given you clear guidance on how to do so: perhaps if you spent less time making snide comments about me on an external website you might find the time to read what I had hoped was helpful advice. You asked for help - and I've given it; now you complain that I'm citing a website you identified, even though you didn't provide me with a link to it and I had to search for it myself.Headhitter (talk) 20:45, 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. 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)

Zkharya, your edits here removed a large amount of your own text after Red Deathy had already responded to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:35, 5 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

Jacobson's comments

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)

Excuse me, Kominsky, there was a relationship of mutual approbation twixt you too. You also material laudatory of yourself, and requested citing of material from Cesarani, which you found too critical for your liking, to be taken (then taking it down yourself). That is not defamatory. It's true.

As to Jacobson and The Promise, Jewish Book Week was in March. Jacobson's review was in April. Are you accusing him of having not seen The Promise then? That's a very serious charge. Clearly defamatory, if untrue. And the fact that you feel the need to make the charge, despite the obvious explanation that Jewish Book Week was nearly 2 months earlier, suggests how unsettling you find it.

It is not Howard Jacobson who makes the strongest charge against The Promise during Jewish Book Week, it is Jonathan Freedland, who accuses you, Kominsky, inter alia, of using antisemitic tropes. I tried to introduce that into your webpage, and was deleted, transcription, link and all. Zkharya (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"I have been polite and praised work where I thought it good"

Yeah, but, Kominsky, you haven't just done that, have you? Asides contributing material laudatory of yourself, you have also requested intervention to delete material less favourable to yourself, then deleted it yourself, and gotten post factum approval. When I added that Cesarani says that you omit mention of the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home, qua promise (the implication being that that was 'deceit' and 'a massive historical distortion', among others), you deleted it.

You are not merely engaged in the business of 'praising' and 'good manners', Kominsky. Zkharya (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Zkharya, I would suggest that you read the guidance at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

It's perfectly clear from Peter's post above that it is Jacobson's comments during Jewish Book Week on 6 March that need to be contextualised with the clear statement on his (Jacobson's) part that he had not actually seen the series when he made them. The video here does indeed have him saying at 01:09:25, "I haven't even seen 'The Promise', but you know, you just hear the word 'The Promise', and you just know it's a broken promise..." 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.

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. The Independent piece is dated some seven weeks after JBW, so he may very well have watched the series in gap, rather than simply regurgitating the comments of others. 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. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:00, 6 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)

Except that it was Jacobson who says at 1:13:28, "And the proof of that is how many - we would think - educated journalists still talk about Israel as though it's a consequence of the Holocaust, which was 'The Promise', wasn't it?" You're now attributing the "consequence of the Holocaust" part to Freedland. Furthermore, at 1:14:19 Freedland clearly states, "I only watched the first episode..." Any comments we attribute to him should be clarified as having been based on his viewing that first episode only, and not the full series. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:39, 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.

Jacobson made negative comments about The Promise more than a week after it finished, and then admitted that he'd not actually seen it. Nearly two months later he made further negative comments about the series. Maybe he watched the DVD in the meantime, but there's no evidence whether he did or not. It would therefore probably be best to quote him from JBW, and state that he admitted he had not seen it at the time, and then cover his comments in The Independent. Readers can then make up their own minds. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:39, 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. His article appears in the Opionion/Commentators section, not the Arts & Ents section, where a review would appear. Jacobson's piece is clearly not a review, not least becasue it is not structure like one, nor does it read like one.

Deleted what and when? I haven't edited the main pages since Wednesday morning. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:19, 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)

Excuse me? Peter added a comment, to which you responded, and I have now responded to you. I would suggest that you desist from your ludicrous conspiracy theories. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:19, 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?

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. Peter raised a very improtant point, so I naturally checked the video to confirm it. This is what we do on Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 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)

If we cite commentary from someone who at the same time admits to having not seen all of what they're commenting on, then obviously we have to include that context. I don't plan of changing anything yet - it's late, and I've had a long day, but it'll also be better to have the input of some other editors first. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 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)

Are you actually suggesting that neither I nor anyone else should have viewed the video to check Peter's observation? Presumably you've already watched it yourself, so you must have been aware of not only Jacobson's admission to to have seen the series at all, but also Freedland's to have only seen the first episode. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 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)

It would be expected of someone writing a review, but Jacobson's piece is clearly not a review, and there's nothing in it that he couldn't have gleaned from the comments of others. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 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)

It's not a review, because it's not in the section of the newspapers website where the actual reviews are. It's an opnion piece, because it's in the section when opinion pieces are. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 7 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)

We know for a fact that Jacobson had not seen the series before JBW, yet he still made negative comments about it, some of which are echoed in his piece for The Independent, and the focus of it is more the Ofcom decision not to investigate the series. The 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. Regardless of that, as I said above: "It would therefore probably be best to quote him from JBW, and state that he admitted he had not seen it at the time, and then cover his comments in The Independent. Readers can then make up their own minds."

Despite you not holding back what you think on a variety of issues, you seem very uncomfortable about someone else voicing their own opinions. You have been very keen on pushing a certain interpretation of Kosminsky's intentions and motives here and elsewhere, but it's clear that you don't like Jacobson, Freedland, et al being subjected to similar scrutiny. What's good for the goose... Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 7 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)

Belsen footage and Auschwitz

This discussion transferred from the talk page of Bobfrombrockley (talk · contribs). Jheald (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, could I ask how you know that footage used at the start of Ep 1 of The Promise was from Auschwitz? Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't "know" this. As I wrote in the article, "According to Annette Wieviorka,..." and there's a citation there to my source of her statement. Wieviorka, btw, is a pretty respected historian. Is she wrong?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/The_Promise. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I see. Yes, something like that should not go into the article without a reference. Is it correct, by the way?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your kind words at 14:56, 13 May 2011 above. It feels very odd, and a privilege, to have this conversation, through this medium! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very kind of you to say so, (as I said earlier, I hope me thanking you won't get you into difficulty here).

Re your point above: all the material we used in that section came from the Imperial War Museum and was licensed as such. We asked them for material from B-B and it arrived on a disk labelled B-B. I suppose it is possible that an error was made at source but I think it unlikely. Also, as I understand it, you are quoting second hand, i.e. from a source referred to by a journalist writing in La Croix. That journalist, uniquely amongst those who interviewed me in Paris after the screening, was troubled by the fact that, in his contention, the difference between a death camp and a concentration camp had not been made explicit in the film. As you know, many thousands died in B-B and the remarks Len makes in his diary were very closely based on the diaries, letters and books written by those British soldiers who were there at the time. I am afraid that, for them - and therefore for a character like Len - the difference between the two categories of camps appears to have been academic, given that their main task on arrival was to shovel and bulldoze enormous piles of dead bodies into open pits. I could not understand the La Croix journalist's concern, which was expressed in the context of a generally negative response to the programme. He did not mention a historian during our conversation, referring to the issue as his own opinion at that stage. I hope this helps. Best wishes.Peter Kosminsky (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have edited the article to qualify the citation. I will add further work on that to my to-do list! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 17 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)

Not reading French well, (and being rather busy at the time), I had not picked up on those comments in Le Croix. They strike me as very strange. I read a great deal about B-B. Books, memoirs, diaries, letters. Amongst the most moving was the testimony of a group of British doctors who arrived in B-B unprepared for what they wd find there. They describe powerfully - and quite emotionally - their desperate attempts to save the horribly emaciated, sick and dying inmates they found. How they tried without success to adapt the food used in the Bengal Famine to coax the B-B survivors back to life. Len's remark about 500 a day dying and 500 a day continuing to die, "whatever we do", was based on their testimony. The doomed efforts of these young men and women to save their charges, the compassion they showed, moved me greatly and lives with me still. I think the Le Croix suggestion, if it is as reported above, is grossly unfair. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 09:36, 23 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)

Symposium

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)

Update: The event was recorded, and organiser Dr Eva Frojmovic is hoping to get it uploaded to the centre's website.

Elsewhere, on Monday 28 November the Bishop of Sherborne convened a study-day for 300 sixth formers looking at the series (news release, YouTube clip); speakers included Kosminsky himself, and Liberal Judaism's Rabbi Danny Rich; the whole day rounded off by an "unusual" Advent carol service.[25].

Rabbi Rich later responded to criticism of his participation in the event, according to the JC. [26] Jheald (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) The Zionist Federation decided that it would not expel Rabbi Rich as a patron for his attendance. [27] Jheald (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A blog post at the JC by ZF's Jonathan Hoffmann expands on his differences with Rabbi Rich [28], in particular Rabbi Rich's position that a one-state solution is not "by definition" anti-semitic, which Hoffman contends is contrary to the (itself controversial) EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. The comments thread appears not to be entirely convinced.

Kosminsky was invited back to Sherborne Girls School at the start of February to talk further about the series and how it was made. A couple of the students posted their thoughts. Jheald (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also announced for 31 May 2012 is a lecture by Dr Nir Cohen (SOAS) on "Love and Surveillance: Politicised Romance in Peter Kosminsky’s The Promise", the last of a series of four lectures on ‘forbidden relationships’ in film across the Middle East divide under the title "Sleeping with the Enemy", organised by the Leo Baeck Institute London and The Wiener Library. [29]. Jheald (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The essay has now been published in the first issue of a new academic journal, Jewish Film & New Media (ISSN 2169-0324) [30] Jheald (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Other events

• ARTE are sponsoring a showing of the series on Tuesday-Wednesday 9th-10th February, as part of the 15th "British Screen" festival, in Nimes. [31] Jheald (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• In Vienna, a screening in two parts, organised by the Women in Black. (27 Feb & 5 Mar; info via oneworld.at [32]).

• In South Africa, a screening of the series over three nights at Rhodes University, Grahamstown (6–8 March), sponsored by the department of Political and International Studies. [33] Jheald (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia

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)

Part two has now gone out, and this week the number of tweeters appears to have doubled to eight. Mainstream press appears limited to another TV preview slug for the Fairfax group newspapers: "As you would expect of a drama that explores the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Promise is relentless and full of examples of odious human behaviour. Nevertheless, it is gripping and never underestimates the complexity of its subject. Parallel narratives often result in uneven storytelling but in this case Erin's experiences and her grandfather's are equally compelling." [44]. And a fairly bare TV guide paragraph, widely syndicated. [45]. A spirited exchange on one online forum [46], plus 'Neil' still finding it one of the best things on TV this year [47]. The organisation AIJAC has published a handy on-one-page pull-together of some of the more significant of the negative commentary from the UK [48]. Jheald (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Also a "how to complain" guide put out by Friends of Israel Western Australia includes another pull-together of some of the most negative things said about the series, produced for EJAC [49]. Jheald (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An SMH review of best and worst television of the year (19 Dec) called the series "gripping... it dazzled via a raw and complex portrait of conflict in the Middle East... Kosminsky's storytelling was mesmerising." [50] Jheald (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC) SMH's Doug Anderson had also (9 Dec) called the series "the best drama series on television at present... This is powerful stuff, distilling enormous difficulties to a deeply personal level", though one blogger called him out for a few of his phrases. [51]. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian senator Glenn Sterle apparently wrote to SBS's Ombudsman before transmission, describing the series as anti-Semitic and calling for it to be pulled; and SBS's managing director Michael Ebeid has been summoned to appear before the Australian Senate's Complaints Committee in February, to respond to complaints that have been sent in to them (according to the "Australians for Palestine" group [52]). Jheald (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(In fact Sterle's letter was written during transmission, and called for the decision to be "reviewed"; also reported here). Jheald (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

More on the complaint, from ECAJ to SBS, via the World Jewish Congress site [53]; the full text of the complaint can be found reproduced here. Jheald (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Jewish News has made the complaint their cover story (Jan 13), headlined "COVER STORY TV series The Promise akin to Nazi propaganda", and opening "“INSIDIOUS”, “racist” and “a landmark in the creeping rehabilitation of anti-semitism in Western culture”. These are just some of the terms used to describe The Promise in a 20 page letter of complaint submitted this week to the SBS ombudsman by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)". (via PressDisplay -- though I can't see how to create a direct link); also an editorial (p.16) and more of the complaint quoted in an interior story "SBS's Broken Promise", together with a columnist's approval (pp. 18-19). One blogger found it all a bit much [54]. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a report from an Aus TV blog, with an initial public response from SBS [55]: "Not unexpectedly there was a strong audience response to Peter Kosminsky’s drama series The Promise and SBS has received a number of letters and e-mails – both positive and negative – regarding the series. All feedback is being considered as part of our long established complaints handling process." Jheald (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, just for contrast, here's one Australian blogger's twenty page rebuttal of assertions that The Promise should be seen as antisemitic, complete with its own 62 references... Jheald (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SMH report. SBS expects adjudication of the complaint well before the projected DVD release on 8 February. Jheald (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sister paper the Melbourne Age ran a slightly enlarged version of the same article, which it put on the front page, adding a quote from Kosminsky warning about criticism of Israel being labelled "antisemitism", and a quote from the "General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific". Newswire JWire calls out The Age's piece for being unbalanced, highlighting the differences [56], and carries a comment piece from a staffer/volunteer for the Zionist Council of Victoria criticising criticism of the criticism, and restating language of the complaint [57].

Feedback from the next day's letters page, largely backing Kosminsky. Jheald (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile national public broadcaster ABC carries a comment piece from an executive member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, defending the series. [58]. Jheald (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) The author of that piece has also been participating in a lengthy comments thread at online Jewish magazine Galus Australis discussing whether the way the ECAJ formulated and presented its objection was productive. Jheald (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The UK regulator Ofcom has now made accessible the full text of its decision, which sets out what grounds of complaint it considered in April 2011, and why it rejected them. Jheald (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The SBS Complaints Committee considered the complaints on 17 January 2012, and took the view that there were no grounds to find the programme had breached SBS's code. In particular, it found that "the characterisations in The Promise did not cross the threshold into racism, and in particular that it did not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes". Complainants were advised that they could take their concerns to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for external review. Text, via Galus Australis. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jwire has some response from the ECAJ's Wertheim [59]. Comparatively defensive; suggests the ECAJ will not take it further, in particular will not appeal to the Comms Authority; denies that the ECAJ "threatened" to refer the series to the Australian Senate: "The Senate Estimates Committee reviews SBS and other government-funded bodies on a regular basis and will make its own decisions about what matters it wants to investigate." But stands by the complaint's claim of "75 examples of negative stereotyping of Jews" [every single Jewish character in the drama, according to the complaint], and questions whether the complaints committee -- five of the seven members of which are from SBS's senior management -- had "the expertise and insight to deal adequately with complaints of racism". Jheald (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Accompanying its article, JWire is feature-linking the YouTube clip of Kosminsky's Q&A about the series on The Fabulous Picture Show, where (according to the uploader, anyway) Kosminsky "owned" pro-Israeli critics. Jheald (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Complaint rejection and ECAJ response now also noted by AJN [60], with some additional comments from AIJAC taken from a piece here [61] Jheald (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JWire reports that Stepan Kerkyasharian, longstanding chair of the New South Wales government's Community Relations Commission (bio), has written attacking The Promise as "the portrayal of an entire nation in a negative light", noting "concern that the series negatively portrays the WHOLE of the Jewish People", and that it was crossing the line to be "condemning the whole of the people of a nation collectively". Kerkyasharian was a founding exec at SBS, and also served ten years on the complaints committee at ABC. There doesn't seem to be anything on the CRC website, so it would appear that his words were in a personal capacity.

ECAJ has now put up a copy of the letter [62], which is on the CRC's formal paper, and cites the CRC's legislated responsiblity, so it looks like this is indeed a formal CRC missive. No doubt there will be a response from SBS in due course. Jheald (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's another comment piece from a member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society cautioning against hysteria, this time in the Australian Jewish News, saying ECAJ had given the drama "a level of publicity... SBS could only dream of", and questioning whether the charges of antisemitism, in particular based on the disputed EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, did not make the concept so nuanced that it "works against its easy identification spoils the effort to fight it". [63][64] Jheald (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a long thoughtful piece considering the series and the ECAJ complaint, by Hal Wootten AC, QC, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, that's just appeared in Inside Story, an online current-affairs and culture magazine published by the Swinburne Institute of the Swinburne University of Technology, articles from which are frequently taken up for the op-ed section of the Canberra Times.

Wootten considers that all parties "... can still be grateful that Kosminsky has put the fundamental problem on the table in a high-quality film with great human impact"; and, regarding the ECAJ complaint, writes "There is a striking irony in a Jewish organisation’s striving to show that every Jewish character is a demon and every Arab character a saint. One by one, the ECAJ’s submission proceeds to do a hatchet job on every Jewish character of any importance, rejecting the humanity with which Kosminsky endows each of them, and substituting an anti-Semitic stereotype of its own manufacture." [65] Separately, Wootten also offers a detailed point-by-point assessment of the ECAJ submission.[66] Jheald (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Senate Estimates Committee

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.

“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.”

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)

Dear Editor,

I have no difficulty with your desire to include a full range of views. I would suggest that the views of 2 elected Senators of the Australian Parliament who were members of the Senate Estimates Committee who questioned the Managing Director of SBS deserve to be heard and made available to Wiki readers as much as those, say, of Professor Wootten. The fact that Professor Wootten is an academic does not mean that he is any more “independent” or a “non-aligned third party” than the Senators. If other Senators who were involved decide to issue statements then I agree with you that those should be added.

Included here are links to 3 news articles on the same subject that appeared today in Australia’s mainstream media. I am happy for you to include them if you think appropriate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/sbs-knew-israel-drama-would-offend-jews-lib-senators-insist/story-e6frg996-1226272150984

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/angelic-arabs-and-murderous-jews-add-up-to-televisual-propaganda/story-e6frgd0x-1226272133311

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/that-dog-from-red-dog-awarded-20120215-1t73h.html

Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie ECAJ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As access to articles in The Australian newspaper often requires subscription, is there a way for me to attach a document containing these articles? If not, what do you suggest? Julie ECAJ (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I was able to get to the articles on The Australian website with no bother; but I see that copies have also been posted on the ICJS website and the Australians for Palestine website that we could link to if necessary.

The AIJAC op-ed is available on AIJAC's own site, and at ICJS, as well as The Australian. With luck at least some of these should get preserved by archive.org, even if those websites were to fall off the net. Jheald (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Julie.

I note that the official Hansard transcript of the hearing is now available; that is probably the most authoritative source we should cite.

SBS certainly seem to have come in for some pointed questioning from Senator Ryan and Senator Kroger. On the other hand also evident is the stance of the chair of the committee Senator Doug Cameron (Lab, New South Wales):

"I enjoyed the program. I thank SBS for sending copies of the program. Because of parliamentary commitments I had not seen it. I have now managed to see it. I knew there was going to be a controversy. I enjoyed it. It has had some critical acclaim, hasn't it?"

and his closing quip:

"Thank you. I hope tonight has helped the DVD sales for The Promise."

Senator Kroger then put out a press release that was picked up by The Australian, and we should report that; but the bulk is probably best carried by citations and references. Jheald (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for further coverage today, the Australian Jewish News is reporting the story as "SBS head: I would run “The Promise” again", and I suspect this may be the most interesting angle -- what Ebeid said -- rather than the tallying of +1 Likes and +1 Dislikes. Senator Helen Kroger has also expanded on her views in a piece for News Ltd website The Punch, "SBS shouldn’t be allowed to re-write history". Articles there apparently often also get syndicated to some News Corp print titles, but I'm not seeing anything yet, at least not on Google news. Jheald (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from the net for the weekend now, but I'll probably try to add something on Monday. Jheald (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now added something. Sorry not to have done it yesterday, as suggested, but I had a miserable cold & various other things to attend to. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 21 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

New York

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)

In a round-up of the year, Tom Luddy of the Telluride Film Festival gave the series a plug in a radio slot with a Chicago radio station ([75] at -18:30), saying it had been recommended to him by Stephen Frears as one of the best things of the year; Luddy called it "really exceptional", but regretted that in the U.S. "no network or cable show will dare to show it". At least one blogger took up the recommendation [76], though considered the series weakened by being "a tad one-sided". Jheald (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hulu

Released for download from August 11, 2012 [77]

• Lengthy promotional interview by Kosminsky: Josh Klemons/Foreign Policy Blogs, Sept 21, 2012
• And another [78] Shmuel Rosner/Jewish Journal September 30, 2012
• "An Exercise in Bias": Zacahry Solomon/Jewish Boston Blogs Oct 17, 2012
• "Distorted... The producers had a perfect chance to tell a real story about what actually happened but instead chose to misrepresent history.": http://www_examiner_com/review/the-promise Larry Hart/examiner.com (blog platform) Jan 4, 2013

Canada

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 broadcast has apparently been postponed, according to an email circa 2 April it has been "rescheduled to air in the future." [79]. In response to a query [80], TVO says that the decision to instead show How the Earth Changed History with Iain Stewart was "motivated by the recent success of our Water Week programming", and that the channel has "not been lobbied by any group to not air The Promise", affirming that "[a]lthough the series has not yet been rescheduled, we do still plan to broadcast it in the future". Jheald (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Having suggested February 2013 as a likely transmission date, TVO again deferred showing the series. [81] Jheald (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Denmark

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)

Sweden

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)

• • SVT pages for the series [90] [91], including links to Kosminsky's article in The Telegraph, and the chat sessions on Channel 4.
• Short tv-guide preview-stub from Aftonbladet [92]. TV columnist Karolina Fjellborg writes: "Drama about a burning topic. This British miniseries in four parts tries to shed some light on the run-up to the complicated Israeli-Palestinian conflict... The series has been criticized for taking the view of the Arabs, and at times the transitions between past and present feel a little clumsy, as if you are looking at two different series. But the subject is of course a burning one, and "The Promise" in all events deserves a large A for ambition." Jheald (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Piece in Svenska Dagbladet begins by citing the comments made by the Israeli embassy in the UK; but concludes that "Anything that can add nuance and complexity to the perception of the conflict is to be welcomed" (compared to a diet of purely pro-Palestinian films) [93]
• Dagens Nyheter uses the screening of episode 1 as a hook for a review of an implacably anti-Zionist book. [94]. Of The Promise the reviewer Nathan Shachar writes "...Channel 4's acclaimed and railed at docu-drama about the Palestinian question. The drama is annoying and full of cliches, but it makes a bold attempt to highlight the topic from more than one direction," in contrast to the book he then reviews, which would have no time for any diversity of view.

Israel

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 in Jerusalem. [96]. Jheald (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• A columnist for Arutz Sheva has a go at the series, though it's not clear whether this is related. [97]. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some Hebrew-language comments on the original C4 broadcast (Google translate): [98], [99]

• A Ynet piece [100] (Hebrew), 2 April 2012 -- appears to be based on quite a lot on the "Series Mania" interview. (Includes some incredibly annoying overlay advertisements that appear to be impossible to remove).
  • Also a previous piece by the same author on "Series Mania" [101] (Hebrew), 20 April 2011.

• Preview/Review in Haaretz : Broken promises, 16 April 2012. "British director Peter Kosminsky's controversial series 'The Promise' comes to the Tel Aviv Cinemateque, where its inaccurate portrayal of Israel is sure to offend." Jheald (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, the original Hebrew-language version of the article, with extensive comments thread. Jheald (talk) 23:20, 15 April 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)

amount of reviews

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)

Language query regarding first paragraph

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404180012/http://www.rts.org.uk/rts-announces-shortlist-programme-awards-2011 to http://www.rts.org.uk/rts-announces-shortlist-programme-awards-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531100407/http://www.ecaj.org.au/news_files/120105_the_promise.pdf to http://www.ecaj.org.au/news_files/120105_the_promise.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321043158/http://ecaj.org.au/news_files/120201_the_promise4.pdf to http://www.ecaj.org.au/news_files/120201_the_promise4.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)