Talk:Criticism/Archive 1

Where did this section go?

An entire section was deleted, and now links from other wikipedia pages go nowhere. Great work!

Psychopathology The psychopathology of criticism refers to the study of unhealthy forms of criticism, and of unhealthy kinds of response to criticism. Psychologists often associate these with particular categories of mental disorders, especially personality disorders, as classified in the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (this manual is also used in other countries, although the forms of personality disorders can be somewhat different in different countries, reflecting ethnic differences and differences in social systems). Low self-esteem: emotionally vulnerable individuals that are often excessively sensitive to criticism, or to being defeated, they can't handle it. Narcissistic personality disorder: although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may "haunt" or leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, revenge, narcissistic rage, or defiant narcissistic personality disorder.[12] Narcissists are extremely sensitive to personal criticism and extremely critical of other people. They think they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground.[13] Paranoid personality disorder: these people are often rigidly critical of others, but have great difficulty accepting criticism themselves.[14] Avoidant personality disorder: these people are hypersensitive to criticism or rejection. They build up a defensive shell. If the criticism seems to imply something bad about them, a defensive shell immediately snaps into place. Dependent personality disorder: individuals that will often apologize and "self-correct" in response to criticism at the drop of a hat. Hypercriticism: these people are often regarded as anal retentive or nitpickers (see nagging). Nitpickers engage in minute, trivial, and unjustified faultfinding to excess.[15] Nagging means endless scolding, complaints, and faultfinding.[16] Hypocriticism: these individuals are hypocrites who criticize and accuse others about the vice that they are guilty of themselves.[17] Hypocrisy contains some kind of deception, and therefore involves a kind of lying.[17] To understand pathological criticism and pathological responses to criticism, it is often not sufficient to see the individuals concerned in isolation - they should be placed in the total context in which the criticism or the response to it occurs. Particular situations can "bring out" the "bad side" of people, which in the normal run of events would not occur. Pathological criticism occurs especially in situations of intense conflict or competition, where the normal internal and external controls on people's behaviour begin to break down. Not just personal change but also a "change of scene" may be required to get rid of the disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewalsterda (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology Intro

The introduction to the etymology section is not necessary. It reads "This section is about the origin and evolution of the meanings of the expression "criticism"." The rest of the etymology section would be fine without this introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding suggested merger with "critcisms"

strong oppose'. It's a terrible idea. The enterprise of criticism in terms of art, dance, film, etc. is very very distinct from people's general gripes about whatever. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed. As reviewing administrator, I did not perform the move, but made a preliminary split of the material.

In particularly thisarticle needs to separate the concept of criticism in the arts from criticism in politics generally. There may be a fundamental relationship of some sort, but the terms are used very differently. A major rewriting may be called for. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Criticism of Criticism section

I removed the criticism of criticism section. Citation needed for over a year and not provided. XXVII (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is literally the only reason I went to this article. Put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.254 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hypocriticism

Isn't hypocriticism supposed to be some kind of Tu Quoque fallacy ?

Excerpt from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Example of an illegitimate use : A makes criticism P. A is also guilty of P. Therefore, P is dismissed.

Unless I'm much mistaken, it seems to me that with hypocriticism this is exactly the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.106.11 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision

Recently I have tried to improve and revise the article with edits and new material. However, I have not yet put in all the references. I hope however to get this done. User:Jurriaan 13 january 2012 2:10 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not remove chunks of text from the article without discussing it on this talk page. User:Jurriaan 14 February 2012 13:53 (UTC)

"Sophomoric"

This article is sophomoric, the (collective) author insults the intelligence of the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.140.109 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it is sophomoric? Even if it is sophomoric, that is not so bad. It's a general informative article, aimed at the average reader able to read a newspaper, not an academic article for consumption by elite students who are quite capable of consulting specialist works on the topic. If the article is insulting, what is insulting and why is it insulting? Unless this is specified, it is difficult to use the criticism in a way that improves the article. Indeed, the "sophomoric" criticism of the article is proof of the need for its content. Namely, the criticism provided does not give any clue about how the article could be improved. It is mere name-calling by an anonymous academic. user:Jurriaan 26 July 2012 23:51 (UTC)

I could add the following observations while I think of it. (1) In the ten years I studied at university, I never once encountered any academic who was able to provide a comprehensive, readable introduction to the concept of criticism. So if something like that is provided free on wikipedia, it may be helpful even to academics (even although I've aimed more at the average reader). (2) If I look at the feedback about the page, most of the comments and ratings are positive. Since I have worked on the page, the number of hits has indeed gone up by between 9,000 and 10,000 per month, and the ratings are generally favourable. I think the text can still be improved more and referenced more. User:Jurriaan 12 November 2012 9:30 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

Unfounded claim regarding literary criticism in the 21st century

"In general, there is less money in literary criticism, while it has become easier for anyone to publish anything at a very low cost on the Internet - without necessarily being vetted through critically by others. People's attention span is much shorter, they don't cope very easily with lengthy criticisms and explanations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoryjm (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism but why in your opinion is the claim unfounded? What evidence should we be looking at to decide either way? It would be helpful if you provided a bit more detail so that we know how to improve the text. User:Jurriaan 10 January 2012 20:55 (UTC)

Criticism v. critique

This may be the worst article I have ever read on WP. The section on 20th c. criticism (criticism v. critique) is laughably bad. It sounds like sour grapes of a student who didn't like his theory class in college. It also contains quotations which are unsourced and probably aren't quotations at all. "Often the connotation is, that if a deliberation is a "critique" and not just a "criticism", then there is "a lot of extra thought and profound meaning" behind what is being said." Wow. mcoverdale (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism, Mr Coverdale, but aside from your bad mood and high-falutin' flourish, it is not clear what the ground of your criticism is, and what could be done to improve the article (if you can provide reasonable grounds for doing so). Perhaps you ought to read the article first. As a matter of fact, since I worked on this article from 2010 onward, the number of hits per month has gone up about 70%, suggesting that we are not doing so badly. Incidentally I studied at university for 10 years, including philosophy at an advanced level, and I've worked as research statistician. So I am well aware of what theory is. Few ordinary people use the term "critique", it is more an academic word. But the question really is whether saying "critique" adds anything that is not meant by "criticism" already. If you think my interpretation is wrong, where are your reasons? The trouble with your approach, which plagues wikipedia a lot, is that you just want to slash and burn through other people's articles without properly explaining why you are making the changes. That means often that a lot of valuable information is lost from the article, simply because of somebody's mood or whim. User:Jurriaan 18 March 2013 20:27 (UTC)

Atta Mohammad Zardari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.155.55 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Constructive criticism

Criticism contains much more detailed, broader and more in-depth information on constructive criticism than the article Constructive criticism. Suggest we consider merging the two articles. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is going to work. Constructive criticism is just a subtype of criticism, and it is also already discussed in Varieties of criticism. This lastmentioned article was specifically removed from the Criticism article and made into a separate article, because the Criticism article was already too long. I don't think anybody wants the Criticism article to be any longer than it is in the present format.Jurriaan (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel we can merge without making the 'criticism' ('c') article longer, because, in my view, the 'c' article already contains everything in the 'constructive criticism' ('cc') article. I believe the 'cc' article duplicates a portion of the 'c' article, and thus the 'cc' article is essentially redundant. Regards, Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, because the latter is redundant. --Stranger195 (talk) (guestbook (on Wikia)) 08:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose; rather, merge to Varieties of criticism#Constructive criticism - that section already exists and the move would remove duplication on that page, and not need to lengthen/change the criticism page.Klbrain (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

hyper- and hypo-

In the section: Psychopathology of criticism, there is a box with description of various types of inadequate attitudes towards criticism, the last two of which are Hypercriticism-Hypocriticism. My suggestion would be to change either the place of the last one (hypocriticism) or to find a different word for it.

My reason for suggesting this: hyper- and hypo- are usually meaning something "over-" and "under-". In this case the word "hyocriticism" is not hypo+criticism, but a derivative of the word "hypocrite", but because of the hypercriticism (which indeed is hyper+criticism) and hypocriticism beinig next to each other, it can be confusing for the reader. If hypocriticism would be moved a few lines up, this false-notion of connection between hyer- and hypo would be lessened. Perhaps it would be even better to find another word for it (hypocrisy, maybe?) which is more common, more familiar to the readers eyes, easier to avoid the confusion of thinking about hypo+criticism.

Also please, don't take it personally, but although the weight of my personal impression could be weakened by the fact that I am not a native speaker, I had an uneasy feeling while reading the article, about the style, the wording. Some of the statements sound more like judgements than neutral Point of View descriptions of (people exhibiting) faulty attitude tovards criticism received, or others to be criticised.

Perhaps it would be helpful to divide more clearly the parts of the article (perhaps to subsections) that deal with (the attitude of) someone being criticised, and parts dealing with the attitude of the one delivering a criticism to someone. At the present state it is a little hard reading because of the not so obvious distincition of the sections dealing with these two opposite perspectives. I hope my input can be used in some way for the further improvement of this article, it is drawing the attention of many readers after all. Cheers! 94.64.25.234 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The bit on the psychopathology of criticism was a text which I did not originate, I merely tidied it up a bit. I do not pretend to be an expert on the psychology of criticism, and if there are other wikipedians with special skills, knowledge and competency in this area, they're welcome to improve the story as far as I am concerned.Jurriaan (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Critique

WP:BOLD → With respect to all the non-banned editors who have invested time in this article, I merged this 8-year old, rambling, largely unsourced, POV article written by 2 blocked members and sockpuppets (e.g. one editor with only one 3,000 byte career edit). Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-psyc, WP:BRD - I've reverted the redirect. I don't think it's plausible to call it a merge since there were no edits to Critique in the 6 weeks before you made this page a redirect, and none of the content was moved across. A merge needs more work than just a redirect if it's to be done at all. Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference:

Criticism : You shouldn't have redirected the page to another article without WP:CONSENSUS.

Critique : You executed the redirect well, even using a not-often-seen redirect template. However, there are differences between the two terms and they are not synonymous. The lack of consensus before enacting the redirect, and the fact that no material from this article made it to that article, undermines it's credibility.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)