[WikiEN-l] An alternative to "critics"

[Delirium]

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