Talk:Greece: The Hidden War

Vandalism
What is is about Greek History that seems to bring out the lunatic fringe of both Greek and English-speaking countries?

'To start a page called Talk:Greece: the Hidden War (television series), type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.' Why is this so hard?

I have removed the somewhat hysterical edits inserted in the text itself, which must be seen as vandalism.

Is this editor claiming that there was no such documentary, despite references by notables such as Heinz Richter and Marion Sarafis, and accompanying copies of the programme on the web? The editor is certainly saying that it is not possible for the BBC to have banned the programme and destroyed almost all copies. How strange when that is precisely what happened! Bougatsa42 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, the programme WAS shown, I saw most of it MYSELF on UK television and do not recall any uproar, mild controversy in the newspapers about some of the claims that's all. Anyhow how do you measure 'the biggest uproar'?


 * The broadcast dates can be seen on the National Film Theatre database (a slightly more reliable source I believe).


 * How can the BBC ban a programme shown by a different channel, Channel 4? Do you know anything about the television set up in the UK? The BBC can neither ban nor destroy copies of a film it would never have had a copy of in the first place(unless it illegally copied it like you or I).


 * Yes I agree that I should have edited HERE however the page is a joke at present and I think you should be asking YOURSELF the question why you believe an online documentary blog, but cannot either answer my "hysterical" questions nor find any established UK source for any of these events having taken place.


 * So to repeat my questions, gave rise to the biggest uproar in the history of British television ..... says who?


 * the series was banned (banned by whom?, there is no central power of banning in the UK! Nor does anyone have the power in the UK of preventing foreign sales as claimed in the source article).


 * all but one copy destroyed, and letters were written to major newspapers in defence of Britain for months afterwards.[1]  A series caused uproar in the UK and was banned and yet not a single UK newspaper reported it? Only a Greek online documentary channel! Please be serious, this page at the moment is a joke.


 * You cannot vandalise a piece of unsupported, unsubstantiated, irrational nonsense which does not even understand UK television or British legal powers. I'm going to prune the page to KNOWN FACTS and reliable sources until such time as these questions are answeredPincrete (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that my comments have been broken up and the signature lost for most of them - more vandalism. I will be re-editing this and the article. Bougatsa42 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the constructive thing is to discuss WHICH claims are supported by reliable sources. I have not been able to find ANY reliable sources that support the existence of a ban nor by who. Nor can I understand why anyone would bother to ban something that had already been shown, it simply doesn't make any sense nor would it be possible under UK law.


 * As for claims such as the one that it 'was the biggest uproar etc.', how on earth does anyone manage that and yet leave no trace whatsoever in newspapers, journals, media commentatory or press freedom sources (all of which are very active in the UK). Please can we discuss this here and not engage in an edit war.


 * As for your comments, I apologise if I have broken them up, my intention was to respond directly where the comment was made, this is normal on some of the pages which I have edited.Pincrete (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just removed the one comment of mine that broke up your text and added indents to my replies.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we agree on a few things, the programme was shown on Channel 4 in 1986, an additional discussion programme about the subject was shown after programme 3, the programme was fairly critical of the role played by British Intelligence (and as I recall of Churchill) in the Greek Civil War. (incidentally I believe that the article would be much improved by saying EXACTLY what Brit Int's role was according to the programme). Accusations may have been made on Greek TV and Greek blogs that the programme was banned ..... All of these we probably agree on.


 * Where we disagree is as to whether these blogs have any credible sources to back up the claims of banning having actually taken place.Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Modest suggestion - a new section on controversy.
Since the claims made about this series (that it was banned, though in what sense banned since it had already been shown? Banned by whom? Intentionally destroyed? etc.), since these claims, are part of the story of the series, I suggest a new section of the article in which these claims are made, similair claims are made incidentally on Youtube.

The main content needs however to revert to the known facts (which are that not a single mainstream Anglo-Saxon source substantiates any of these claims at all).

Does this represent a balanced approach that allows the reader to make up his own mind about whether these claims are true or not?

I apologise if I became hysterical above, however since I was in the UK at the time of these events, worked in the media at that time and read the newspapers in which the uproar is supposed to take place, I know that these claims are nonsense.

Television programmes inventing stories to make the programmes sound more daring and controversial than they actually are is not an unknown phenomenon ANYWHERE in the world, I'm afraid that this is probably the case here.Pincrete (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no controversy about whether there was a controversy, except in one person's tiny mind - see below. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a world of difference between "a controversy", (the existence of which has never been doubted by me, look back and tell me where I say there was not a controversy) and "the biggest uproar etc." which I claim is overheated. Thinking that the claims are overheated does not mean I have a 'tiny mind'.Pincrete (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-edit / restoration
I have restored the original text, which is well-supported. I have however, separated out the references (even if it is poor style), as the less literate amongst us have great difficulty in reading them as was. Bougatsa42 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RWF is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, since its principal interest is to advertise the film, it is likely to rely on publicity handouts, unlikely to verify information passed to it, and likely dress up the facts in as dramatic a fashion as possible. That is what advertising is after all! This source could only be used to verify that it WAS shown on RWF and that the banning claims have been made, not to verify the truth of the claims themselves. I used the word 'blog' as shorthand for 'unreliable source'.Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to know that this documentary is freely available on loan from the Imperial War Museum in London in videotape form, I cannot find out how long it has been part of their library collection, since it is videotape, probably for quite a while but I will continue to look. If you don't believe me go to http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060016322 Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC) As far as I have been able to ascertain, the video at the Imp War Museum mentioned above has been publicly available for nearly 20 years.Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Partial apologies After extensive research, I have discovered that this series WAS banned from being reshown by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, in its present form, this, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was because the IBA ruled that several of the interviewees had been intentionally misrepresented by dishonestly selective editing.


 * The enquiry by the IBA was published with reasons, which were basically poor journalism, lack of balance, dishonest editing, dishonest use of film (eg film from Albania used to illustrate Greek activities/film from 1920's being used to illustrate events in the Civil War) factual errors (dates etc.) and other criticisms. The stories about copies of the film being destroyed, 'greatest uproar', ban on foreign sales etc. are I still believe hype, and indeed impractical. Also I still believe that talk of banning of the film without saying who, why or in what sense it was banned are meaningless. I am still looking at the judgements and articles of the time and will provide appropriate links when I have them.


 * I called this a partial apology, because it actually casts no credit on the film that these judgements were made, and is proof that banning did not take place without valid journalistic (ie not simply political) reasons. None of this is even hinted at in the article, or the sources used.Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More and More! .... Marion Sarafis was apparently employed as one of the advisers on the film, further she is the widow of General Sarafis, the commander of ELAS, neither of these make her an ideal objective source on the film!Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed two references, leaving only a quote from Richter which sums up the situation well, and after all outside the strange world of Wikipedia there is no disagreement about what happened.

1)	Richard Clogg ‘few television documentaries can have caused such a stir as the TV-South production of Greece – The Hidden War, which was shown on Channel  4 in three one-hour instalments in January 1986.  For the best part of six months a fierce controversy raged in the columns of the Times and the Guardian.’    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/Encounter-1987feb/72-80/ Clogg launches a virulent attack on the programme, and there appears to have been a war of words between Clogg and other well-known historians such as Ole Smith of Copenahgen and  Papastratis of Greece -- Clogg refers to ‘the onslaught on me … by Dr. Procopis Papastratis of the University of Crete in defence of The Hidden War’. (I have not cited Cloggs article so far as I am getting together material for a balanced assessment of responses.)

2)	 In the volume of Contemporary British History devoted to Channel 4, the Timeline at the beginning lists ‘Controversy over Greece: The Hidden War’ as one of the major events of 1986 ( Contemporary British History, Volume 12, Issue 4, 1998, Special Issue: The Making of Chanel 4, p. x)

3)	In an interview reproduced in Greek on RWF, the head of Channel 4, Jeremy Isaacs, described the situation as a ‘catastrophe’ (given in Greek as χαλασμός / halasmos), and attributes to the documentary his subsequent failure to be made head of the BBC. http://rwf-archive.gr/interviews_senaria-new.php?id=167&interview=1&interview_id=400

4)	A Greek Communist Party website has this to say: ‘Another case in point [regarding the suppression of unacceptable viewpoints] was the British documentary "The Hidden War" (broadcast on Channel 4 in 1986), which for the first time showed interviews with former ELAS and DAG partisans and was extremely critical of British involvement in Greece and the "White Terror". As a result of the outcry from the British ruling class the documentary was banned from being shown again on British TV and the career of the producer seriously damaged’.  http://inter.kke.gr/News/2006new/2006-09-ciivl2/

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS CONTROVERSIAL - I really think Pincrete should apologise to me and to other readers of this page for wasting our time. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we are at present the only readers, however I have already said I was partially wrong, I still maintain that to speak of bans without saying exactly in what sense banned or why is meaningless and implies conspiracies in what was an open process. I am already currently reading Clogg, both the Encounter article and one on Index of censorship, but you can't quote him without saying that most of his criticism is levelled against the programme and quite a lot of it against Sarafis.

RWF is not a reliable resource for reasons given and there is a world of difference between why Jeremy Isaacs THINKS he may not have been given the job and fact (I have all sorts of ideas why I was not given jobs in the past), also you seem willing to ignore that the majority of Isaacs' comments are criticisms of the films and its bias, and that he personally felt betrayed and lied to about the kind of film it was going to be, besides, going from head of Channel 4 (which he did excellently),to head of the BBC is like going from Mayor of Washington to President !

Please don't crow, my intention was to get to the WHOLE truth as opposed to a very partisan take on the truth. I had already said that the article would be hugely improved by saying what the film's content was and what any ban was for and by whom and what form it took.

I am currently looking for the original IBA judgement but am unable to find it, only others' references to the reasons. I still say that this actually weakens the conspiracist slant of the page (which is what is repeated throughtout the web), since it isn't possible to mention the ban on Wikipedia without mentioning the reasons (and without mentioning that it has been freely available at the Imp War Museum!). I will look at your sources. I am happy that the RWF ref has gone.

I still say that the opening is overheated and that there is no evidence for all but one copy being destroyed (unless of course it's the one in the Imp. War Museum!). Needless to say I am unlikely to be impressed by a KKE site's credentials for reliability on this matter. If you think that objecting to an article that had NO reliable, verifiable content is wasting your time amd which repeated 'hearsay' then .... what can one say ?Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that I have actually won this argument in the sense that there is no evidence of it being banned for political reasons, only for intentionally dishonest editing and factually inaccurate content and other failures. Besides the ban was largely academic since there was little likelihood of it ever being re-broadcast as recycling is unusual and discouraged on UK TV unless the programme has exceptional merit.

I am somewhat disconcerted by your remark "after all outside the strange world of Wikipedia there is no disagreement about what happened", since the evidence on the web is that people are ready to believe ANYTHING about this film, especially if it supports their favourite conspiracy slant, I have read variously of it being banned by the BBC, by Thatcher, of the only surviving copy being smuggled out to Greece etc.. … in fact I now notice that you yourself confidently assert above that the film was banned by the BBC. The BBC is a rival channel and could not ban this film anymore than Coke could ban Pepsi ! … You also confidently assert above that there was an extreme response to the programm by the British governmnent, where is there any evidence of the Government of the time becoming involved AT ALL? Certainly not from any of the writers/commentators who were actually in the UK at the time.Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know realise that the opening sentence may be what you mean by 'the Richter quote'. Richter is, I believe, Professor of History at Univ. of Crete, he is a fairly respected writer about Greek history. Is he really the most reliable source on British Media controversies of the 1980's? The opening sentence suggests not (I can point you to many other media controversies which were much more heated ... besides at the time he wrote these words the film was available at the Imperial War Museum library, hardly convincing proof that 'all but one copy were destroyed').

I do insist that if the ban is mentioned, then the details of WHY and WHO and in what sense banned be included, otherwise it's like saying "poor man he was banned from driving", without mentioning that he had drunk 2 bottles of whisky half an hour before, which to me is how the previous page read. Slightly improved now, but hardly complete.Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also an account of the controversy at http://books.google.gr/books?id=_gO2ZOaglrsC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Greece++the+Hidden+War+I.B.A.&source=bl&ots=-wY_FAFVmi&sig=gYrhjUEUClVvvC0cAxOYzGD6xQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dsPqUOqgE474sgbBx4C4DA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Greece%20%20the%20Hidden%20War%20I.B.A.&f=false ..... This is an account by Peter Catterall, who I understand was chiefly responsible for commisioning programmes at Channel 4 at that time and privy to the internal enquiry, the relevant bits can be viewed online.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this quote: … … … "Jane Gabriel is the founder and editor of openDemocracy 50.50. Jane directed more than thirty documentaries for Channel Four Television and the BBC international current affairs series "Correspondent" before joining openDemocracy. Jane won the Royal Television Society award for the film ' Island of Outcasts' filmed in Greece, and the One World Media award for the film 'Whose Life is it Anyway?' filmed in India. Jane was a member of Britain's first all women television production company, Broadside." … … … This is from :http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/jane-gabriel .… … … the great majority of these 'more than 30 docucumentaries' were after the making of The Hidden War, this does seem to refute the remarks that Jane Gabriel is alleged to have made on Greek TV, namely that her career suffered badly as a result of punishment because of making this film. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW I have just had an email from the Imp. War Museum who say that their copy of The Hidden War has been in their archive since 1986, I realise we cannot use it (original research), however I thought you might want to know. Also, copies of all the correspondence between Jane Gabriel and League for Democracy in Greece and all the newspaper cuttings about the series are kept at the Nat Govern Archive in London http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=099-mga&cid=-1#-1 unfortunately they can't be viewed online … … … incidentally the part-time archivist was Marion Sarafis. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that whilst I have admitted to being partially wrong about the ban, you have not apologised for (variously above), claiming that the BBC, or the British Government suppressed this film, nor do any of the sources support any actions being taken by either of these organisations.Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking of names to Wikipedia pages
Quite a few of the names seem to be for people who have pages on Wikipedia ... I don't know enough to know whether these names are the same people as the ones with pages on Wikipedia … Monty Woodhouse would seem to be a yes, but perhaps someone can trace whether these are the same people.Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added links to Wikipedia pages and fuller names to two British and one Greek interviewee, I have done this where there was fairly clear evidence that the interviewees were the same people as the ones on Wiki pages. There are several British interviewees where it is unclear whether the person named is the same person, perhaps someone who knows these people better might add links where appropriate.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for improving this article.
Bougatsa42, first of all I think it would be useful for us to establish some ground rules as to what the character and purpose of this article is and should be. This is an article about a UK TV programme and about the controversy/actions that followed its showing. The fact that this may be "of interest to Greece watchers" is marginal, its purpose is to accurately reflect what ACTUALLY happened in the UK, using reliable sources to do so. I have already said many times that there may be room in the article for the accusations made about the film, (principally in Greece, or emanating from Greece), however these should not be presented as objective historical fact, nor as 'the whole story'.

There seem to me to be four strands to this story, first of all there is the strand of what the actual content of the film was. (I note that both here, and certainly around the web, nobody seems to have any interest in what that content actually was, nor on whether the content was accurate and balanced. The whole focus of interest is on the banning/supression story … I wonder why that is?).

Secondly there is the controversy in the UK. That controversy itself seems to have many elements, some of which can only be understood in a UK context (in which broadcasters operate within a particular set of laws, rules and guidelines which place obligations on them to operate 'fairly' and impartially … regardless of whether the subject matter is political, historical or simply some trivial subject … a huge distinction is made between the EXPRESSION OF OPINION and PASSING OPINION OFF AS FACT, the first is freely allowed, the second is not. Nor is it allowed to intentionally misrepresent an interviewee by 'dishonest' editing. There are other constraints, all of which aim to produce honest, responsible broadcasting).

Thirdly there is the process leading to the banning of FUTURE broadcast of the film on UK TV (by the Independent Broadcasting Authority). I repeat what I have said many times, namely that this is only meaningful if it is stated WHO the IBA are, what there REASONS were, and what the PROCESS was (which led to a published ruling by the IBA). Otherwise all this article is doing, is repeating the more absurd claims being made around the web (your remark above after all outside the strange world of Wikipedia there is no disagreement about what happened seems to imply that you think those claims are true, and that it is the job of Wikipedia to repeat those stories as facts). There is also in here, the question of what ACTION was taken against the film or its makers, for example, were all copies of it destroyed, and if so by whom and why?

Lastly there is the International aspect to the controversy, the claims made in (mostly non-UK media) about what happened and the motives of the participants. I am quite happy for this to be covered, my objection has throughout been to this being 'all the reader needs to know'.

I raised many questions above and hoped that you might try to answer them, you have not done so, possibly because you are busy. I intend here to begin a rewrite of the article to which I invite you to contribute and respond. I do not want us to get into an edit war, however unless we can agree that this is first and foremost a UK media controversy story (with reactions from elsewhere), we are not going to get very far I think.Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article
I intend to start a rewrite giving a fuller picture of what happened. My intention is to give a slightly fuller picture of the CONTENT of the programme, the NATURE of the controversy, and the specific ACTIONS taken by the IBA or others in refusing to allow the programme to be reshown.

Unfortunately I have so far been unable to find a copy of the original IBA ruling anywhere and am reliant on others comments about that ruling. I do not accept Richter as the most reliable commentator on this programme, for whilst he may be an excellent Greek historian, there is no reason to believe he is the the most knowledgeable commentator on British media or society, though it may be appropriate to include his comments as part of the story of how this documentary has become a phenomenon on the internet and to some extent among 'Greece watchers'.

Both the IBA and Channel 4's internal inquiry found that the views of some of the British interviewees had been intentionally misrepresented by the film makers, by selective editing and in other ways. Therefore the IBA ruled that these interviews be removed from the film in their entirety. This appears to be the substance of the ban. Considering the seriousness of the accusation against the programme (accusing someone of actively stimulating a civil war and complicity in multiple murder is pretty serious stuff!), considering the seriousness, banning from reshowing seems to me to be a fairly mild punishment. (If one does not accept what Channel 4 and the IBA concluded, one has to believe that Jane Howard suddenly got Woodhouse, Myers and others to say to camera, beliefs that completely contradicted what they had said over many years of speaking, writing and lecturing. She managed to do this without wasting a single foot of film, since when asked for 'original footage', the film-makers said that what was shown was all there was, the cameras had not been switched on for the rest of the time.)

Please note, I am not saying that the accusations in the film against these people are either true or not true, merely that their apparent 'confessions' were obtained by dishonest editing and are not confessions at all. There are various letters to newspapers which are online in which Woodhouse says that he did not object to the filmakers and historians having the opinions they had about him and his actions, what he objected to strongly was the dishonesty of the filming and editing.

btw … I find myself wondering how many copies of this film ever existed, and, how many copies Richter and others imagine are ordinarily archived by TV South (or any TV company) since there would be no reason for there EVER to be more than 2 (one for use, one for safety), and probably no reason to ever archive more than one. 'All but one copy destroyed' is probably the fate of 95% of TV programmes, with a further few percent of which ALL copies are destroyed.

The more I have found out about this story, the more I have concluded that the British actions concerning the film reflect a flawed, but open and responsible media set-up in the UK, not the repression implied around the web (and to some extent in Richter).Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Update Sorry, adding some UK material to this article remains on my ' to do' list, I believe it will offer a more 'rounded' picture. Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

An I for an I ?
Bougatsa42, Bougatsa (or should I call you Mpougatsa ?), can you possibly explain to me how "Υ for ypsilon … is better style", (I will ignore the fact that I didn't change any 'e's or 'eta's)?

I at least gave a reason for my change (that Spiros is a more common substitution, more likely to be familiar to the reader and phonetically more helpful to someone unfamiliar with Greek). Any system of substitution is flawed, Wikipedia policy is to use the substitution most likely to be familiar to the reader (though this is not universally applied, we have Chania, but Hersonissos on Wikipedia). You will notice that I didn't change Ypsilantis, I didn't do so for two reasons, firstly because no 'normal' spelling of this name exists and secondly because a Y in that position is probably more helpful phonetically.

I am of course familiar with the 'official' substitution scheme. Your substitution is no doubt better for those who already know these 'official' substitutions, (and probably already know Greek), in which case what on earth is the point of rendering the names in Latin script? If you wish to show respect to their 'Greek-ness', you could add their Greek names.Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack
I've added a 'pov' tag to the article. My actual meaning is not so much that the article is POV, so much as the article appears to be WP:Coatrack. It doesn't appear to have any interest in telling the story of this programme, (contents, nature of complaints, investigations, results etc.), merely to record reaction OUTSIDE UK, much later.

A great deal of the necessary material for expanding the article, does exist online, some is mentioned above. I intended to fix this myself, but have so far, not had time. The article remains on my watch list, and, if am able to, I would gladly help someone else 'fix' it. Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So the POV tag has been added, even though the article is not POV. Why does this not surprise me ...  Bougatsa42 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bougatsa42, yours is a VERY selective mis-reading of my attempt to explain WHAT KIND of pov. The article has no interest in giving details about the programme, or the controversy, only in hanging a judgement made many years later, by an historian with NO expertise in UK media events/law etc., it is clearly therefore coatrack. Richter (and others perhaps), might belong in a 'later/international reaction' section, but at the moment HE IS the article. Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ps added indents, hope you don't mind. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)