Talk:Critic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] A reversion
I've added the above title here now for obvious (but trivial) reasons. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit introducing an inconsistency in the article's spelling of "judgement" (vs. "judgment"). Both forms are widely considered acceptable (see e.g. [1] for some discussion), and following Wikipedia common practice, the article should pick one and stick to it consistently. -- Rbellin 21:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wiktionary
Should much of this article be trans'd to Wiktionary? --Dpr 08:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this article seems more like it's defining Critic and how to use it rather then talking about the job "Critic". Plus, it uses quite a deal of big words and phrases, which took me a while to read... Steven 18:37, 30 December, 2005 (UTC) (PS. My suggestion would be to move the current article to Wiktionary, then take all the other critic artices and put them toghether, since they seem very similar and the what they do is mighty repetative.)
[edit] The German Link
I've changed the link from 'kritik' to 'kritiker'. 'Kritiker' in German is the person while 'kritik' is the act of criticising.
[edit] Wikipedia criticism
It seems im not the only person that thinks this page should link to a self reference -- is there no acceptable way of doing this?? --Davelane 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Purpose of Critical Thinking: Positive and Negative.
If 'nothing' is perfect, literally and figurately, then what is the purpose of finding error...?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move to Criticism
It seems that this article should be moved to Criticism (which re-directs here) and expanded to become an introduction and overview to the field. Any objections? -- Samuel Wantman 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- This move seems like a good idea. On this occasion, the article could also be rewritten a bit, since it seems slightly POV focusing too much on presenting criticism as a good thing only. 62.235.137.140 12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Constructive Criticism
Re OTHERS. Constructive criticism, the article informs us, may have to appear harsh and judgemental. Well, criticism directed towards our own work will certainly never "have to" be harsh and judgmental, so what the authors of the article have in mind can only be the well-founded criticism that we ourselves direct towards other people with the intention of generously offering them our assistance. And, as luck will have it, we find this explicitly confirmed in the following passage: Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others with the intention of helping the reader or artist (emphasis added). --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Re KRITES. But what , the reader might ask, will our offering of opinions about the work of others accomplish? The work that we so constructively and with the best of intentions criticize has been done, after all. The books have been written, the songs composed, the plays performed. True, these we cannot change, but we can change the behavior of their authors. And this, the article makes clear, is what constructive criticism is all about: a diplomatic approach about what another person is doing socially incorrect. Now, in every society the task of trying to correct the behavior of another, and, if this is not possible, at least to let the rogue author know what society thinks of his behavior, is the job of the judge, which is, of course, the original meaning of the Greek term krites. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism is pessimistic
There is a view that pessimists tend to be generally more critical than optimists. Is it true? 83.228.89.2 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Critique
- I have split Critic#Critique into page Critique. I have corrected the link to "critique" in page Anders Westenholz. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)