On 8/1/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
That's usually a good way of doing it. Even better would be to provide some sort of (useful, not derogatory) label to identify the category of people being referred to. For example, "Marxist critics, such as John Doe <ref>, say this". If the category has already been established with a few examples, then the category can be used again later in the text, and further footnotes would not be necessary (although direct quotes and contentious or particularly complex points should always be footnoted).
I'm not sure what a "Marxist critic" is. The term "critic" really is ambiguous isn't it. Some alternatives:
"Commentator" - implies someone who regularly commentates on current affairs and would be expected to be relatively neutral "Opponent" (as in, "opponents of the plan") - someone who has chosen to actively take a stance against the thing "Skeptic" - someone, especially with power, who has pointed out perceived flaws with the thing, but does not claim to have been thorough in their analysis
I think I like all of those alternatives better than "critic", and also prefer them to "anti-X people" etc, which implies that, being biased, their opinion is worth little.
It'd be good to even reserve "critic" for professional critics (film, theatre, restaurants...)
Steve