Talk:Bell Educational Trust

[Untitled]

I am a newbie but my feeling is that this article is not from a NPOV. It has been written by the company that operates the organisation that the article is about. Does Wikipedia allow advertising? At the very least, phrases like "some of the most expert", "thriving" and "prestigious" have no place in an objective encyclopedia: I believe Wikipedia calls these "peacock terms"! More generally, the whole article reads like a piece of publicity material. Pangapilot 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a piece of information which is historically accurate. It does not address the IMHO advertising nature of the article but I will watch to see if it is removed by User:Bellinternational or any other user. If it is, my suspicions will be confirmed and it may be necessary to alert Wikipedia editors.Pangapilot 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having viewed other comparable sites, I am more than ever convinced that the entry as it stood could not be considered objective. I have added some balancing sentences about staff-management relations and removed various "peacock terms" and non-objective or extraneous phrases/sentences. I have also removed at least one "our" - a real give-away that this was a blatant PR handout. Let's see if User:Bellinternational or associates is willing to let a more balanced entry stand. Pangapilot 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell is now a business too.

Bell has partially tried to keep its trust status although from recent activity in the past two years, it is obvious that it has gained more of a business feel than the original trust status. This has been felt by many staff in its new practices, which have less of a humanistic feel. Angea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.31.244 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]