
Checklist for Plain Language - gits1225
https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/checklists/checklist/
======
empath75
The reason that government writing (and institutional writing in general) is
often so bad isn’t because the people writing it don’t know how to write
plainly, but because they don’t want to.

When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily
obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is
usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad.

There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that
went into this:

[https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_a...](https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_and_the_Deconstruction_of_the_Institution.php)

And of course the classic Orwell essay:

[http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/)

~~~
ryandrake
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made)

~~~
jwilk
Non-mobile link:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made)

------
CalChris
The height of government writing would be Rachel Carson. She's best known for
_Silent Spring_ but her Sea books are just as good. Much of her writing was
published by the GPO.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#List_of_works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#List_of_works)

But as for writing advice, the CIA isn't so bad.

 _Thinking and Writing: Cognitive Science and Intelligence Analysis_

[https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/Thinking-and-Writing-
Feb2010-web.pdf)

Also, the earlier _Bestiary of Intelligence Writing_.

[https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000619161....](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000619161.pdf)

------
DanBC
See also the Accessible Information standard from the English NHS.

[https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/accessibleinfo/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/accessibleinfo/)

(I have a few problems with the NHS England accessible info stuff, most of
which are around how inaccessible it all is.)

~~~
joelanman
Also UK Government Digital Service guidance on writing:

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-
gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk)

------
melicerte
Don't try to replace a good dictionary. In other words, don't fill your
writing with definitions.

~~~
PrimHelios
Most words have multiple definitions, hence legal definitions.

~~~
drdaeman
Legalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and
obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra
proferentem principle[1]. It's basically a defense against a chance someone
may invent some interpretation (different from what's intended) that would
look plausible enough.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem)

~~~
walshemj
yes there is one big case in the uk concerning pensions the outcome depended
on what seemed to a layperson trivial wording differences in the scheme of
arrangement

~~~
drdaeman
Interesting. Can you please share a link to this story, if you have one?

~~~
walshemj
Its in connection with BT Section B and later DB pesnions

[https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-
cou...](https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-court-over-
pension-inflation-switch/)

This switch to CPI was bared a few years before for British coal - the two
schemes of arrangement differ in a very minor way - that a lay person would
say where identical

------
happy-go-lucky
If anyone is interested, here's _Strunk, William, Jr. 1918, The Elements of
Style_ :

[http://www.bartleby.com/141/](http://www.bartleby.com/141/)

~~~
rspeer
However, remember not to take a 99-year-old book literally as a style guide.

Strunk & White contains _some_ timeless advice. Most (but not all) of the
habits it identifies as bad writing are still considered bad. But for positive
examples of how to write _well_ , you can't follow the example of a book from
1918. Its language is inherently dated and it predates linguistics as a
science. You need a newer style guide.

------
consultutah
Defines any word as the speaker intends, not as the word is normally defined.
;)

------
pvinis
Also, doesn't omit anything in the name of "simplicity" or "plain-liness".

