I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
Steve
I would just delete the whole sentence.
Adam
On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV
On 7/31/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV
Obviously specific quotes are the best solution. But the wiki model strongly encourages the addition of "better" while waiting for "best".
At least by saying "some commentators", you're not trying to imply that it was a "general feeling" - it's simply *some* (preferably notable) people expressed that opinion.
Incidentally, the other day I did a google search for "considered to be", "widely considered" and a couple of others at wikipedia, and turned up 700,000 matches. It was amusing.
Steve
On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/31/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV
Obviously specific quotes are the best solution. But the wiki model strongly encourages the addition of "better" while waiting for "best".
At least by saying "some commentators", you're not trying to imply that it was a "general feeling" - it's simply *some* (preferably notable) people expressed that opinion.
Potentially libelous statement? Check. Unsourced? Check.
No, "better" is not better than "best", when you're talking about an unsourced statement like that. The proper solution is deletion unless and until a source can be attributed with the statement.
Anthony
On 7/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, "better" is not better than "best", when you're talking about an unsourced statement like that.
*Cough* What I meant was that "better" is not better than nothing, of course :)
On 7/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Potentially libelous statement? Check. Unsourced? Check.
Lol. Here's the original quote (actually from [[Underarm bowling]], I was confused):
*The match had earlier controversy: in the Australian innings, Martin Snedden took a spectacular low outfield catch off the batting of Greg Chappell. It was disallowed by the umpires, although TV replays clearly showed it was a clean catch. Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good.
Arguing that a player should have accepted another's word is definitely not libellous. In cricket, it's a question of honour or moral or whatever you want to call it: refusing to take a player's word for a catch and letting the umpire decide is perfectly legal and the most common situation.
No, "better" is not better than "best", when you're talking about an unsourced statement like that. The proper solution is deletion unless and until a source can be attributed with the statement.
That's going too far. For a genuinely "libellous" statement, sure. But not that one.
Steve
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV
I get annoyed with people who over use the interdiction against weasel words to the point that I think fewer people understand weasel words than understand copyright. It is only weasel wording if you say "some people" when you really mean "Me personally or the people I agree with". That said, just because its not weasel wording does not mean it is acceptable to put unreferenced material. The problem is that sometimes you really do mean "some commentators" or in some contexts all of the "weasel words" are what you really do mean and what you should use. Its just that in these contexts you should also include a references.
I have seen a number of cases where a general category of people holding a position are referenced to and a single notable example given without the implication that they are the only ones "such as green peace (link to ref)", "such as Roger Ebert (ref)". Personally I think we should not ever refer to ANYTHING as weasel wording since it can be inflammatory but instead refer to the actual editorial policy reason that the specific instance is wrong. This gives people guidance on how to fix it and is less inflammatory.
That said I suppose I am not disagreeing with anything said above but I felt like I had to get that rant off my chest after seeing so many good editors be 100% unhelpful to many newbies by screaming about "weasel words". I have not looked at "avoid weasel words" for a while but I think perhaps we shoudl add the suggestion that: If you find a problem with unreferenced or inappropriately referenced facts don't try and weasel out of supporting you position by saying "well its weasel words".
Dalf
On 8/1/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I have seen a number of cases where a general category of people holding a position are referenced to and a single notable example given without the implication that they are the only ones "such as green peace (link to ref)", "such as Roger Ebert (ref)".
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).
Another option, when the body is getting too cluttered with "A said this, and then B said that" is to leave it to the footnotes. "Some commentators, such as A, take this position," with a footnote citing similar commentators B, C and D in addition to A.
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
Steve Bennett wrote:
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...)
I guess I rather prefer "critic" to those, at least in the cases I have in mind. For example, in many scientific fields, someone will propose an approach, and others will sometimes criticize it. Sometimes camps develop, and you have for example, "Bayesians" and "critics of the Bayesian approach". Or in philosophy, you have "critics of cognitivism". In many cases critics are a bit stronger than skeptics, but not in such an all-out ideological disagreement that they ought to be called "opponents". Essentially they're skeptics who have put forth some arguments.
Perhaps this varies by field, but it's the terminology I usually see (and use myself) in academic papers, especially in the stock phrase "critics of this approach".
-Mark
On 8/1/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I guess I rather prefer "critic" to those, at least in the cases I have in mind. For example, in many scientific fields, someone will propose an approach, and others will sometimes criticize it. Sometimes camps develop, and you have for example, "Bayesians" and "critics of the Bayesian approach". Or in philosophy, you have "critics of cognitivism". In many cases critics are a bit stronger than skeptics, but not in such an all-out ideological disagreement that they ought to be called "opponents". Essentially they're skeptics who have put forth some arguments.
Perhaps this varies by field, but it's the terminology I usually see (and use myself) in academic papers, especially in the stock phrase "critics of this approach".
I suppose that seems reasonable in academia. However the phrase seems to get employed outside of academic pursuits leading to: - Critics of "The Family Guy" argue that... - Critics of top-posting point out that... Some genuine examples follow: - Critics of private health insurance claim that... [[Health insurance]] - Critics of the term have argued that its proponents are "neo-snobs"... [[Chav]] - Advocates of nonviolence have argued that many critics of nonviolence focus their critique on the moral justifications for nonviolence while neglecting to...[[nonviolence]] - Critics of the invasion claimed that it would kill thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians...[[Opposition to the Iraq War]] - Critics of the record industry today have compared it to the buggy whip industry, fighting the disruptive technology of file sharing by all possible means. [[record industry]] - Critics of their income-tax policies point out that the Irish economy was already growing at 9% before they came to power in 1997...[[Progressive Democrats]] - Supporters and critics of nuclear power agreed that the promotional and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different agencies
Ok, so how does this stack up against your use of the term? Perhaps it comes down to good faith - we can assume that generally academics start out fairly open minded and if they come to disagree with a theory, it's probably because they've studied the field for a long time and have good reasons for their beliefs.
On the other hand, a "critic of the Progressive Democrats' tax policy" is probably a Republican.
The last example "supporters and critics" is even clearer - the "critic" isn't someone who is academically arguing against it, it's just someone who opposes it. With, or without a valid reason.
Hmm.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
I think it depends on the subject. If it's a controversial subject, sometimes it's reasonable to broadly group some commentators as "critics". For example, I think many critics of mainstream psychiatry can be neutrally described as such, and doing so provides more information to the reader than being really vague about it. In some cases, like with political groups, one might even go so far as to say "opponents".
I do agree that we shouldn't invent camps where they don't exist, and in those cases (like the one you quote), simply calling people "commentators" is more appropriate.
-Mark
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
-- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. --
I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event.
Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
The name of the source or sources.
Fred