Talk:Plain English Campaign

Precision

"The language often used resembles special English and has been criticised as over-simplified. This points to the challenge facing those who communicate with the public; how to get their ideas across in plain language without losing force or precision."

Removed the above text as it assumes that the use of clear English is in conflict with precision - the whole point of "Plain English" is that it is not! This is different to "special English" or simplified English aimed at those with a limited mastery of the language. Please don't re-insert without resolving the weaselly "has been criticised". 84.92.241.186 10:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

There are rather too many quotes, giving this the air of a vanity article.

Also, surely the P.E.C. shouldn't be categorized as a political pressure group? Ben Finn (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be characterized as a company, since it is for-profit, and not an educational or political organization. As for the vanity article issue, how about this sentence for starters? "With over 40 full-time staff it has had incredible success in persuading many organisations in the UK and abroad to communicate with the public in plain language."

Angela Harms (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these quotes are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. The facts provided in the others should be presented in a different format. This is no more than a corporate brochure. -- Cheryl Stephens

------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.117.28 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any informative value in any of this huge section from the PEC website, which is also far from NPOV, so have removed it. Flapdragon (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Crystal mark or logo

anyone got a picture? Seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoing

Someone has been undoing changes that I've made to make the article more factual, and less of an advertisement. I have asked that person to use the talk page to discuss it before using undo. I'm starting this topic here to possibly help that along. -- Angela Harms (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had the same problem when trying to insert links to articles critical of the quality of work done by PEC--some of the criticisms coming from the British government's own auditor. What further steps are available here? I have not been able to discover a way to file a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Stephens (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all the articles should be unbiased. Please try to include information that is factual and objective when editing the page. To Cheryl Stephens, there are additional steps available, outlines on the page that the dispute box links to. Angela Harms (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

I am adding a tag today to request that we work out a problem with verifiability. This article makes claims that are largely taken from the company's website, and I think that's not optimal. What objective facts can we come up with, that can be found in outside sources?

I have also added "citation needed" tags to the quotations. I think they should probably just be deleted, but am trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly, I'll replace the neutrality dispute tag that smackbot killed because it had no date.

Angela Harms (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving up?

While I was adding the tags, our anonymous poster came and undid everything again. I don't know what to do about it.

Angela Harms (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)