Wikipedia talk:Use plain English

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

"I suffer from some cognitive dissonance" ... that sounds like jargon to me. Off with his head!

That said, your points are well taken. But probably hopeless. - DavidWBrooks 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, it seems, suffers from a sense of irony! Fixed it. - Andytuba 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 'Conflicts of interest and vanity articles'

I removed the sentence "Additionally, an employee is better informed and motivated to provide accurate information about his or her business", because it often doesn't work that way. The rest of the section could use some revision to make it better describe our policy on notability. --CliffC (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell

I've never been happy that this essay uses Orwell's rewrite of Ecclesiastes as an example. The essay exhorts editors to use plain English in our articles, but Orwell's example takes a quaintly-written biblical quote (which no-one would write today) and recasts it in modern periphrastic obscurity (which wouldn't be improved back to anything like the biblical quote). So I don't think Orwell helps our readers understand the point we're trying to get across. Since I've already boldly introduced Gowers' Plain Words into the first para, and since we have a quote from Strunk, I've continued with the bold theme and have replaced Orwell with an example from Gowers which, I think, neatly illustrates the sort of writing which we don't want in WP and how it can be improved.

I've also moved the discussion of NPOV, which has no apparent relevance to the Orwell example, to its own sub-section lower down where the point is "prefer the concrete to the abstract". Happy to discuss, —SMALL JIM 17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Coverage by Wikpedia of Businesses

I have looked up today the Wikipedia articles for nearly 100 private companies in financial trouble. in every case, the wikipedia article highlights the company's positive accomplishments and either omits the difficulties or simply isnt updated after a point. This selective coverage cuts to the heart of Wikipedia's usefulness as source of business information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz word growth has grown exponentially..

Some words in context : Providing a "nourishing/enriched/robust" environment or set of tools and services... People are people. not zoo animals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition 73.83.100.13 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]