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

I think the difference, Pin, is the extent to which you use the italicised text. Whereas in Orgreave you're using it to describe large parts of the 'action', in the Blake Entry you use it almost exclusively to introduce new ideas. Here it *looks* like you've made up large chunks of it, where you haven't - in fact your research has been meticulous, even (from what I can see) reading transcipts of interviews with people like David Bell to come up with a very factual narrative.

I think, from an editorial point of view, it's probably unclear which parts are pure fact and which are more narrative, as you use the italics an awful lot. Some parts that are italicised now could be in normal text, as they don't read differently to the rest of the text. I reckon if you blockquoted the bits that are seen through someone else's eyes and got rid of the italics in the bits that aren't, it would be much clearer. For example, of the first four paragraphs under 'Setting the scene', only the fourth really needs to be in italics - this bit is your narrative device, I suppose. So blockquote that bit and take out the italics from the rest of it. Then it's clear which section is dramatised and which isn't.

Anyway, it's up to you, mate. Good luck, whatever you choose to do with it.

Entry: The Battle of Orgreave - Monday 18 June, 1984 - A9361334
Author: Pinniped - U183682

Hello there,

Thanks for this. We appreciate your disappointment but, as we explained, our position hasn't changed. Jimster explained very clearly why our writing guidelines don't allow us to accept this Entry in its current form. It's important for us to explain that our writing guidelines aren't just a vehicle for our pedantry; they're there to ensure that we keep to wider BBC Guidelines.

Anything written about a political event, especially when those involved are still living, has to be handled extremely carefully and in line with BBC Producer Guidelines and Editorial Policy. In this case, it wouldn't merely be a matter of taking italics from the text.

If BBC News (who work closely with legal teams in order to ensure that their content is not, for example, defamatory - something we don't have the resources to do) chose to write an article on this (for example) it would have to comply with the highest journalistic standards - all statements would have to be clearly attributed and checked. A BBC website - regardless of disclaimers - cannot carry content about potentially contentious matters unless that content keeps within certain guidelines.

In short, this is not the place to experiment stylistically with sensitive subject matter. Obviously, being a bit more creative when writing about William Blake, for example, doesn't pose the same potential problems.

Hope that helps explain,

h2g2 Editors

That sounds pretty clear and reasonable to me - thanks Eds

With that explanation, my position has moved very firmly to move it to AWW, Pin, I'm afraid. The Eds couldn't really risk accepting it if they wanted to, but at least the door is open for you to have a play with less 'sensitive' subjects.

I still think this should be in the EG. It's an important record of a historical event. The non-italic text would be publishable as it stands - a straight history. The italic text would be publishable as it stands - the human story. The Eds have a problem with them being intertwingled together.

I'm amazed that the political sensitivity issue applies. This is over 20 years old. The pits have closed. The communities have died. The protagonists have left politics for good. The police are now accountable to the media. There's no-one left who could consider this political.

It's the italic text that's the problem unless I misunderstand, Icy. It's not the Editors that are stopping this from going in, it's guidelines and policy handed down from higher up. It's not the first time; an Entry on the Nestle Boycott was recently pulled for similar reasons - h2g2 doesn't have the resources to make sure Entries like this are legally watertight. Let's not forget that the Eds are in a difficult position too, after all, they're faced with a great Entry they just can't accept.

I'd like to see this go in, too - I am one of those who has recommended it in the past - but it's not going to, regardless of any further debate.

Time to let it lie, for me at least.

Yeah, clear enough. Thanks everyone, Slants included.

I'll move it to AWW (in a couple of days time, because it could be helpful for a few Scouts to read the recent postings before we squirrel them away). If anyone wants to extract the non-contentious parts and make an EG Entry of this, I wouldn't mind, but I won't be doing it myself. I feel strongly that the piece is more valuable as it stands.

I want to say for one last time that I researched Orgreave assiduously. Every word is true, as far as I'm concerned. I've been far more thorough with this than with most of my Entries, and (I think) appropriately thorough for the seriousness of its content. I'm pleased that friends have recognised that, and still more pleased that they've enjoyed reading it.

Of course, we had to go to special lengths to find evidence for the most doubtful bits. If anyone wants to see a photo of the ice-cream van, let me know

We've learned a bit more about the boundaries of the EG from this too, which is always good. As usual, the learning prompts more questions. Is there a higher standard of veracity for Entries with a potential for litigation? That wouldn't be good. Blake should be treated just as respectfully as Thatcher.

Where from here, then? Jimster found me tiresome by the end, but he's gone now. We shouldn't any of us stop exploring the EG's limits, not least because they're also our own limits. I'm inclined to interpret this as possible leeway for experiments in Entry style, provided that the subject matter won't spell trouble for the BBC. Suggestions welcome, as always.

Pin

This should certainly be published somewhere.

As for pushing boundaries ... I'm going to have to form an opinion. I'm not yet sure what I think. I do think fiction should be kept out of the EG, but there probably is room for storytelling.

TRiG.

This needs to be on the front page somehow soon. It's nearly 20 years since this happened.

Blimey, is this back again? Hooray. I think it was factual and well-written back then and I still do now. It's about historical events. I may be over-emotive as I too lived through them. But I'm glad it's been flung back into the arena

First to Sho : 20 years? You wish, girl

Second to TRiG : I think I know what you're getting at with the 'storytelling' description, but I didn't set out to romanticise the event. I just wanted to 'tell the story' from the local perspective, and I wanted (still want) it to be right.

I just wish people would accept this account as being true. If anybody can point out any parts that aren't true, I want to remove them.

I don't want to criticise the Eds, who have a tricky position with insufficient time and justification to do the substantiating research. I can't even claim that I did the research myself to quite the degree that a post-Gilligan BBC journalist might have to do before committing this to a broadcast, though of course I don't have their resources and their level of access to contemporary records. I did do a hell of a lot of research, nonetheless. For some reason, the things I research most diligently seem to be the same things that the Community of the Guide finds it hardest to receive.

I wondered about sending the piece to Harry Gration and the BBC Look North team, who are asking for Strike recollections for a website airing. I didn't do so because the inference of playing off the BBC against itself would be a distraction. The history, social and political, is definitely more important than the journalism.

Anyway, the real point of this post is to alert you all to this:
http://www.cpbf.org.uk/body.php?id=2112
It's out next Thursday, and will in all likelihood precipitate a re-write, particularly by throwing light on the photograph of Lesley Boulton, which is definitely the most contentious and mystery-shrouded part of the whole tale for me. I have two copies on order. The other one is supposed to be for AB, but I'm wondering about making Dad wait and posting it FAO Charlotte aka Jim Sangster, c/o the h2g2 Eds, instead

Would it dilute the piece just to include an introductory paragraph (rule it off from the rest of the text) explaining exactly what the italic and non-italic text represents? Explain in a couple of sentences how the author researched it and what their sources were.

Maybe this could be an interesting Stretch for you?

Probably not, Icy.
(In answer to both questions)

I'm just exploring ways to have pieces like this in the EG. Maybe an 'above-the-line - below-the-line' mechanism would satisfy the BBC but allow the author to retain the original.

Oh, did you catch last night's BBC Four documentary on the strike? (I guess it might be on the iplayer thingey if you didn't)