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

Entry: The Battle of Orgreave - 18 June 1984 [Original Version] - A19104905
Author: Pinniped - U183682

This Entry was rejected by the Guide Editors in 2007, as was a revised version. The reason given was unsubstantiated assertions about living persons. I invite today’s Guide community to reconsider it. I can state that everything written here is a true report of the statements of real people, and that I discussed these events with them personally. I can further say that, as a resident of the city with a normal route to work that took in Highfield Lane, I know the terrain, the events of the strike and the political context personally. I have tried to be even-handed, because there was irresponsibility on both sides.
The Guide needs an Entry on Orgreave. It still affects our nation today.

Thank you.

I think if you put what you have said here "I can state that..." in a BLOCKQUOTE in italics at the top of the Entry, then that would set the scene for this Entry to be in the Edited Guide before too long.

I see your other version received good feedback from the other Editors in the Alternative Writing Workshop.

My comment would be that the other version is over 5,000 words, and this one is almost 6,000 words, so both are what would be classed as 'very lengthy' - if an Entry can't be tightened up to be less than 5,000 words, then ideally it would be split into two parts so that people aren't being expected to spend 20 minutes reading in one sitting without a break.

I like the flavour of this Entry better than the other one - there are no Headers but the alternating italics add texture to the Entry, and the contrast of the personal experience with the external events is much stronger.

The Guide needs an Entry on Orgreave indeed.

It’s long, certainly.
I’ve never written Entries to a target length. They keep going as long as I’ve something worthwhile (in my opinion, of course) to say.
I would rather not change this Entry at all. It means a lot to me.
Here’s an alternative suggestion then: if this Entry is OK for the EG in this form (with the addition of that explanatory headnote, which is fine by me) then I would be happy to write a short version in a more conventional EG style, on the condition that the two Entries are cross-linked, each one from the other, and that both are included in the EG.
I would also like to propose reconsideration of another idea that was previously rejected, that EG and UG Entries on the same subject could be similarly cross-linked if the author(s) permit it.
The pair of Entries that the original debate revolved around were about John Lee, “the Man they could not Hang”. I could dig out and post the A-numbers if anyone’s interested.
I see no reason why the EG shouldn’t link to other peer-reviewed writing elsewhere on the h2g2 site. I’m not saying that the UG is equivalent to the the EG (it clearly isn’t, on grounds of volume and comprehensiveness let alone factual accuracy) but wherever we have other high-quality content that brings additional insight on the same subject, surely we should give our readers the opportunity to read it.

At nearly 6,000 words it wouldn't be the longest Entry in the Guide if it were accepted as is. It is challenging for a reader to sit for 20 minutes at one webpage, though, so I confess I have not read the whole Entry yet.

Yes, there is a precedent that at least one Entry edited by the Post Team has been linked to in an Edited Entry since 2011 so that pair of Entries would be worth looking at again

Is it a deal then?
Should I write and post the shorter version?

It has been 2 months since Pinniped last posted, which means he is classed as having ed. I'd like to propose Writing-FleaMarket in the hope that Pinniped will return to add this to PeerReview on his return.

<BB<