This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

English Language This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Why is this page linked to the anti-intellectualism article? As stated below, there's nothing inherently anti-intellectual in concise, precise language. I would suggest removing this link. 193.195.219.34 (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The "Plain English Campaign" is most definitely anti-intellectual. It's aim is the dumbing down of the English Language. PEC is campaign of the illiterate and lazy to reduce English vocabulary to the barest minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

[edited this 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) to say that I am not fixing the latest bit of undo-ing that the anonymous editor has done. I'm going to try to find out if it's possible to find a long-term solution instead. I will maintain the tags if they are removed, but won't try to correct the text.]

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

[Removed Request for Comment 7 February, 2008]

While I was adding the tags, the anonymous poster came and undid everything again. I don't know what to do about it. I'm starting a dispute resolution process.

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

No need to take this to RFCecon: it looks as if the anonymous poster will be blocked from editing. Simply undo what he has done, as this appears to be a single purpose account created only for vandalism. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flapdragon, I took out a couple of your links that didn't lead anywhere. I'm not trying to be a pain, though. If you really think they should be there, it's fine with me. Angela Harms (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it's not a problem in principle for there to be red links to things which might reasonably deserve an article even though they don't have one yet. They shdn't be deleted only because they "don't lead anywhere". Flapdragon (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Dec 03 Economist article support the assertion "and of using its awards for political purposes"? I've just read it, and TBH I can't see the connection. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read the whole article? It seems to me that the implication is that they're picking on Rumsfeld because they don't like his politics. Angela Harms (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken some time to research the background for this article and have made the following changes. I am happy to discuss these if absolutely necessary, but hopefully this will be a more satisfactory entry. I have made the following changes.

Removed Ltd as it is unnecessary.

Added ‘for the intended audience’ (see PEC website)

Checked PEC website and amended Crystal Mark figure.

Have altered customer list to include examples I could verify in third-party sources.

Added pressure group paragraph. It is apparent Plain English Campaign does partake in some non-commercial lobbying, (see references), and can therefore be described as a pressure group (defined in Oxford as ‘a group that tries to influence public policy in the interest of a particular cause’ - in this case, plain English) as well as a for-profit organisation. My research indicates that the group is often asked to comment on language-related issues.. Whether it benefits commercially from any publicity surrounding such activity is a separate issue, but not relevant to an encyclopaedic article.

(A quick Google search reveals that a few of the people on this article’s discussion/edit history also provide commercial services very similar to those of Plain English Campaign. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest there ... )

I have amended the reference to Germaine Greer article as she does not directly accuse PEC of being ‘anti-intellectual’ (this accusation is made in the reader comments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michigan books (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(A quick Google search reveals that a few of the people on this article’s discussion/edit history also provide commercial services very similar to those of Plain English Campaign. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest there ... )

It's true that I'm an editor. It never occurred to me that this was a conflict of interest, and I apologize for that oversight. The corrections I made were to edits that had been done on the company's behalf, in a very *clear* conflict of interest. I will be happy to step back if the page is now safe from that sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Harms (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a link to the Simple English Wikipedia? There is a different between plain English, which aims to remove unnecessary jargon, and simple English, which tries to use simpler words in order to aid foreign speakers etc. (personally I disagree with simple English as "dumbing down" the language). I think the PEC also gets this wrong sometimes, as I read recently in a BBC article about discouraging Latin terms (according to the article, their spokesman "said the ban might stop people confusing the Latin abbreviation 'e.g.' with the word 'egg'", which is a bit over the top I think). Stanlavisbad (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter part of the article starts with a contentious statement about the status of the Plain English Campaign as being a commercial organisation rather than a pressure group, and then moves into clear criticism in claiming that the Plain English Campaign has profited from confusion over its status. There is a serious issue hiding beneath that but the wording at present is not acceptable and the factual basis needs a better source (the statement that 'journalists wrongly describe it as a pressure group' is sourced to a Reuters report which describes the campaign as a pressure group, which does not prove that they were wrong to do so). The next paragraph is unsourced. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ivor Robinson, who made the changes. I have sourced the report about Plain English Campaign posing as a pressure group to a national BBC radio 4 programme in which they specifically said this. It is a matter of undisputed fact that Martin Cutts was the second of the two co-founders of Plain English Campaign. This is stated in the Oxford Companion to the English Language, page 785, 1992 and of course in numerous press cuttings of the day and the Campaign's own literature including the first edition of The Plain English Story published by Plain English Campaign in 1984 and written by Martin Cutts and Chrissie Maher. I reject the notion that my changes are vandalism. They are attempt to put a touch more objectivity and truthfulness into this page, which otherwise would be largely a commercial puff. I apologize if my way of doing so has offended established Wikipedia users. This is a new area for me and I'm not used to making these amendments. Ivor Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plain English Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090216035439/http://www.plainenglish.co.uk:80/foot_in_mouth_award/ to http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/foot_in_mouth_award/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain English Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409002720/http://www.worldbowlsltd.co.uk/laws/index.html to http://www.worldbowlsltd.co.uk/laws/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]