On 8/1/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)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