h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A9361334 - The Battle of Orgreave - Monday 18 June, 1984 for ease of loading the entry

I very much enjoyed reading this entry. I remember the strike well.

I would just like to add some comments of my own. Firstly, many people with left-leaning tendendencies, such as myself, deplored the strike. It was ostensibly to protect jobs and communities, but we all knew that it had a hidden agenda, which was to unseat a democratically elected government, however distasteful. Many of us were, and remain, democrats first and socialists second.

Secondly, Thatcher knew full well that there was going to be this confrontation at some point during her premiership. She therefore made it deliberately made it impossible for the NUM to win a ballot on strike action, by offering extremely generous redundancy terms to miners. She also made sure that the power stations were kept running by stockpiling huge amounts of coal. There was no way whatsover that Scargill could have claimed the democratic support of his own members so he led them into a confrontation they could only escape from by fighting. If ever there was a army of lions led by a donkey, it was this one.

on the ice cream van question.

Plus point is, it's a very striking (sorry) image, I'd be sad to see it go on those grounds. Minus (almost sorry) point is, it's striking (sorry again) enough to be distracting, and wondering what on earth was going through the guy inside's mind is also distracting from both the account and the politics.

But - it was there, it's part of the day, part of memories of the day, and its very strikingness (and again) makes me think that an account of the day should include it.

If you're leaving it, I think the plain text you have is the better choice.
Waz

Thanks FM. I agree personally with all those sentiments.

OK, Waz. Tommy stays! (I still haven't traced a photo, mind. I'd be happier if I was quite sure it wasn't apocryphal)

It would benefit the entry putting the second point in as it explains why Scargill didn't call a ballot: he knew he'd lose.

Thanks all.

Edited to include FM's point (see parag starting 'Until Thatcher came to power...'. OK?)

Also, the ice-cream van section has been made more categorical and is now in to stay - since an intrepid piece of off-site research by one of Our Finest has turned up a photo. The image is truly bizarre.

We wanted to see how this progressed before the usual comments about dramatising real events.

The problem we continue to have with this kind of entry is that it still has the feel of fiction; even if it does come from original research, we don't feel we can trust the evidence because it reads very much like the kind of thing Jake Arnott does in blurring real events with imagined emotions.

We have a House Style that is quite flexible but still has certain parameters. Unfortunately, in its current form, this just isn't an Edited Guide entry. It's much more suited to the alternative writing workshop, really.


All the best,

Jim

Jimster, how does whether something feels like fact or feels like fiction make a difference when it comes to trusting the evidence? The feel of the entry is just writing style isn't it?

When it comes to trusting the evidence of entries written from h2g2 researchers' personal knowledge - well there's unverifiable information in the entry I wrote on my village for example. If someone came here and spent a lot of time asking around they'd verify some of it, but the odds are very much against them running into all the right people to verify all of it. In a few year's time some of those people won't be around.

The very best pieces in the EG, imo, are ones that are based on genuinely original research and first hand knowledge. Especially where they are the only record, or at least the first record.

I know I'm extending what you said to apply beyond entries that feel like fiction, but I don't get how the writing style affects the evidence.

Waz

I agree with Waz. Pin has written entries before this one that are far more fictionalised, which at that time did belong in the AWW or . This entry, I think, doesn't, though. I have no reason to doubt its historical accuracy and it has a smaller level of artistic licence, shall we say, than some of Pin's other entries.

I would certainly recommend this if and when my turn comes round.

And we will certainly reject it again, EMR. As it currently stands, this is not Edited Guide material.

Just to pull out a couple of examples:

"Everybody knew he had a job to do, but only the mercenaries from far afield relished the prospect."

And we know this how? 'Mercenaries' is too strong a term.

"Gary heard the short-shield senior officer instruct his squad quite clearly. 'You know what you’re doing. No heads, bodies only' were his exact words."

We'd need a reputable source for this.

For factual writing, we need to avoid sensationalist *dramatisation* of the events as that turns it into a fictionalised summary. If you happen to have recorded evidence of someone's reminiscence, it's only fair to say 'interviewed in 2006, one witness described the scene.' If the evidence comes from the time, it should say 'interviewed a few days after the event, one witness claimed...'

The entry would be more suitable for the Edited Guide if all of the italicised paragraphs were removed, along with the last two very emotive and unbalanced final paragraphs. As it stands, it's very one-sided, and quite sensationalist.

I'm completely stunned.

A good place to start might be the veracity of the 'no heads' quote. That one's a matter of judicial record. True enough for you, Jimster? You could have worked that out, or checked it out. Like I said, I'm stunned.

Now, I know I have an active imagination, but the veracity of this account is beyond dispute. I chose my words to reflect the balance of public opinion in the community where I live. It's an overwhelming balance. I know from personal experience that most of it is true, and I've listened to a lot of people (including personal friends who were closely involved) and done a lot of research to confirm the rest. If I'm making this up, Jimster, then so are several thousand other people.

Very one-sided? Sensationalist? Honestly, I'd like to buy you a pint in any pub from Woodhouse to Treeton, let you espouse your views on this matter to the rest of the clientele, and see if you get to finish it.

Try to understand at least this, Jimster. Things that are believed by whole communities are true.

I'd like you to remove all my Entries from the Edited Guide, please. I don't think they should be in there, because I can't substantiate them, and I would hate to justify your pretence of editorial consistency. That Batavia rubbish can come out for a start. It's substantially based on the writings of one Francisco Pelsaert, a disgraced 400-year-old who was trying to save his own bacon. It even contains the assertion that the reader would more likely choose to join the mutineers and kill people than stand up to Jeronimus, which is a sight more emotive and unbalanced than anything in Orgreave.

I've worked at this Entry as a labour of love. I ripped off some rubbish in two hours the other day about the World's Oldest Light Bulb, and that's the one that gets accepted. You're largely responsible for the values of this site, Jimster. Congratulations.

Pin

Support and respect, as ever, to the Pin.

Just to let you know, Pin, will certainly run this if it doesn't get into the EG - though I'd still like to express my support for its inclusion therein.

Jimster, what about all the EG entries written from a very personal perspective, that are essentially first-person, even though they don't use "I", or go ahead and use "I" anyway, under special circumstances? How do they have more credibility than Pin's presentation?

Is there any chance that the footnote could be moved to the beginning of the entry, just to firmly establish that everything is true before the reader gets started? Would that help to sufficiently "ground" the entry at all?

Thanks EMR. This has a way to run, though.

Sometimes, my EG spats have been exercises about boundary-pushing and all a bit self-indulgent. But this one is on a subject we should all care about and think about carefully.

Jimster's attitude proves the central point of the piece better than my words ever could. This Entry is true in a way that nothing in his insular world is true.

There are times when to demand evidence is to dissemble.
There are times when diplomacy is denial.
This Entry is not going anywhere else just yet.
Not because I'm waiting for an apology.
Rather because I demand an acknowledgement of its truth.

Jimster,

I'm not being confrontational when I say this - in fact I agree with most of your editorial decisions - but you've made a big mistake here.

This is a very important piece of research, and the style it's written in makes it far easier to understand the underlying issues. It's scrupulously balanced. It educates and entertains, and I don't think I've read anything else on this subject which comes anywhere near the quality of this article.

It's the sort of thing you should be grabbing with both hands.

Please reconsider.

We seem to get into this every six months or so, don't we? The Writing Guidelines are pretty clear, I'd say, so it's not really my fault if you choose to ignore the advice presented there. Nor is it my fault that, having repeatedly stated that we do not want material that appears to dramatise events, you continue to submit material that does just that. We won't accept entries that dramatise real events because that is not what the Edited Guide does, and because such material conflicts with the activities of the Post and the UnderGuide.

I'd prefer it if the mudslinging and name-calling could be kept to a minimum, though. As you might appreciate, I am not allowed to bring my own political beliefs into the public arena while I'm an employee of the BBC. To bring my political position into this is inappropriate, Pin. I can only comment on this from an editorial position.

I think it's a shame that you feel your entry on the oldest light-bulb is in some way inferior because it's less of a personal project. I'd suggest it's an example of quality writing that manages to be unconventional without becoming too 'purple' with its prose. In other words, exactly the kind of thing we love.

As it stands, this entry is both an Edited Entry and an UnderGuide submission. What it possibly needs to be is two entries. All the italicised material should probably be a separate entry because it confuses and blurs the division between factual writing and dramatic presentation. That is not to say it's 'bad' writing - far from it - but it's two different styles that don't work well together within the remit of the Edited Guide.

I'd suggest you should either drop the italicised sections, or work them into the entry in a less flowery way, as I described earlier (citing your sources, even if this means personal interview, and outlining when the interviews took place). This isn't saying that your research is unreliable - it's just saying that currently, this fails basic editorial rules because it looks as if you made up character sto tell your story. If these people are real, why hide them in dramatised scenes when you have the actual research to show that these people existed and that they have somehting to say?

As it's discussing a controversial subject that involves people who are still alive, you have to be extra-careful in the way you present the evidence. Simple as that.

About the UnderGuide in relation to this - I can't speak on behalf of the UG group without checking with them (which I'll do this evening) but I was there through all the discussion that set it up and through all the discussion we've had since.

Based on that, it's quite clear to me that there cannot be any conflict with the activities of the UG because the UG will _always_ give preference to the EG.

As you know Jimster, there was an entry picked for the UG which you redirected to the EG, and we were very happy for that to happen and didn't question it for a second.

If such conflict is arising, it's time to redefine what the UG covers, or it's time for me to leave it. I can't be part of something that is used as reason to exclude material from the site's central and only official project.

I'm running out of break, that's all I can comment on just now.

Waz (with UnderGuide Editor Team hat on)

Calm down, Waz.

The Edited Guide handles factual entries, the UnderGuide handles creative writing and more personal material than the Edited Guide usually can. It's important to keep the criteria of the UnderGuide as distinct from the Post or the Edited Guide as possible. The UnderGuide has always been the diametric opposite of the Edited Guide - it covers all the submissions that the Edited Guide can't or won't.

Or, to put it anotehr way, if the Edited Guide started accepting fiction, why would anyone need the UnderGuide? Ensuring the UnderGudie has a different stance to the Edited Guide is a *good thing* in my book. In fact, it's pretty much mutually beneficial.

Well, I recommended this entry recently with a brief commentary recently, and received a rejection email back. I think it may have been that recommendation that prompted Jimster's post here.

I have to say that I was really in two minds about whether to recommend this or not, but I'm glad I did because at least you now have an answer. As a scout I do this quite a lot - recommend things to get an answer when they're borderline. I've got a thick skin, so a refusal doesn't offend.

I can see this from both sides. It's an excellent piece of writing. As good as I've seen on this site for a long time. The skill it takes to weave the 'local' narrative into the 'national' narrative cannot be underestimated, and largely it works very, very well. It's a great bit of oral or folk history.

On the other hand, I can see why it presents a problem in terms of the style. I actually thought this was one of the most balanced pieces of writing I've read on the Miners' strike - I was too young to understand it at the time, and I've never read the moderate-left view expressed quite so eloquently. I've enjoyed reading the entry and the PR thread too, so thanks to everyone.

But I can also see why the narrative/dramatic elements cause a problem. They do constitute a 'dramatisation' or reconstruction of events which (however faithful or accurate) remains a reconstruction.

I'm really not sure why I'm posting this - I've lost my thread a bit. I suppose just to say that I read it, enjoyed it enough to recommend it, and I'm sorry (but can understand why) it got the response it did.

I hope that there are other ways to bring this excellent piece of writing to a wider audience.