Talk:Simplified Technical English/Archives/2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Simplified Technical English. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Revert
I've reverted this addition to the article:
Sceptics counter that Simplified English is:
- linguistically naive
- commercially astute
I've never seen these particular criticisms of simplified English and I couldn't find anything on the web. Not that that necessarily means anything, but I think I'd like to see a source. --Lee Hunter 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aerospace standard
I have made some changes to this page in order to clarify the nature and history of the aerospace standard. --Rick Wojcik 20:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The reference to the "U.S. Government's Plain English" seems to indicate that there is such a thing, while the reference merely quotes the Paperwork Reduction Act that says that documents should be written "using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond...". Is there a reference to a governmental reduced English language? I know of none and it is likely that the governmental and NATO work built on the Aerospace standards is the only related effort. Jbottoms76 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your point. The problem is that Wikipedia has no direct reference to the US Government's Plain Language program (see http://www.plainlanguage.gov). The Wikipedia entry for Plain language contains a link to the government web site, but the article content does not refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 February 2007
I removed the claim that Simplified English can help with second language acquisition, since that is not one of the claims made by those who advocate controlled language writing standards. --Rick Wojcik 20:07, 29 October 2007
I removed a recently-added final paragraph because it recommended products and services that are not really descriptive of the aerospace standard. While it might be useful to have a software checker and support from a commercial service in implementing the standard, these are not strictly required. rwojcik 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)
We seem to be having a dispute about the Shufra paragraph, and I will refer this to dispute resolution if that dispute continues. I ask whoever is insisting on inserting that paragraph to cease trying to keep it in the section on the aerospace standard. It might be appropriate to start a different section on support tools and services for STE, but tools and training should not be included in an information section on the aerospace standard. RickWojcik 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Label on link to simple english wikipedia
Why does the label on the link to the simple english wikipedia render as "Simplified English edition of Wikipedia?"
It's misleading, since the simple english wikipedia is not written in Simplified English. I actually clicked it thinking that there really was an "ASD Simplified Technical English" wikipedia. martin 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)