Talk:Critic

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 9 September 2013 for a period of one week.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 21 March 2016 for a period of one week.

A reversion

I've added the above title here now for obvious (but trivial) reasons. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Wiktionary

Should much of this article be trans'd to Wiktionary? --Dpr 08:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

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.

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)[reply]

What would be the implications of a self referential topic ("All criticism is self criticism") linking to a self reference? Where would the nested loops end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.78.126 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm. Then perhaps there should be a new article. Criticism of Criticism? (-; --Munkel (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- Good work! Now can you create the necessary Disambiguation page? Thanks. Ludvikus (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive/Destructive Criticism

Not only is the lack of sources misleading. The article presents them in an archaic and inaccurate manner. -Atosecond (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of Criticism

There is little here about the psychology of criticism for example no mention of nitpicking or the fact that narcissists often hate being criticised.

Also the article should be called Criticism not Critic which has a narrower meaning. --Penbat (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move some of the material, without redirect. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critic → Criticism — - [The Critic article covers criticism in general which has a much broader meaning than critic. There is also much more that can be said about the psychology of criticism and nitpicking.]--Penbat (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a case for leaving the critic (in the sense of art critic etc) specific material in Critic. It doesnt have much text at present but potentially could be expanded a lot.--Penbat (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I agree with moving this article, but I also agree that "Critic" is a valid separate topic. The technical way I will do it is by moving some of the sections with a link to preserve attribution. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changed "psychic inverse" term to "Dialectic"

I removed the term "psychic inverse" because there is no definition given for that term. Since the hyper-link pointed to Dialectic and the Harvard quote fits the term Dialectic, I changed the terminology to Dialectic. Please do not revert without an explanation and definition. XXVII (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll suck -_- i was looking for something else and i get this wtf

Definition of a critic

My problem with this page is that a critic can actually mean 2 different things. The first meaning, covered on the page, is a person who offers judgements on creative works etc. However there is also a second definition and that is someone who expresses a negative opinion of something. In my view this definition should be included alongside the one already given. Firestar47 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]