Talk:Theatre of the Oppressed

Bad references/links
the website www.theatreoftheoppressed.com (first reference at the bottom of the page) is in Japanese and is a spam site advertising hair creams.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.70.140 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

the website http://theforumproject.org/ (first reference in the third section entitled "Major Branches") either no longer exists, or requires additional information in order to access. (Dr.BenEditsThings (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC))

Showing an example.
I notice that the article has the definition of each theater types under the history section, but there are no example. Would it be alright to add in examples of how the theater works by directly citing from the article itself? Just want to make sure, before I perform actions, that people might consider unnecessary or does not fit the guideline. Bithop90 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Wardrip-Fruin? I'm assuming that that is just an excerpt from Boal's book, isn't it? It would be better to cite from the book (it's a primary source and is perfectly valid for what you're proposing) directly itself, not least because that would make it clear to the reader that we are "hearing" Boal, rather than a critic called Wardrip-Fruin. You'd need secondary sources to support any statements like "this form of theatre is particlarly effective/important/revolutionary" etc. Hope that helps. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have I done the citation right? Just want to make sure. Bithop90 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooo, Bithop, I understand what you mean now. The citation is formatted fine, but I'm afraid we can't include such a long quotation. When you wrote "directly citing from the article" I didn't realise that you meant quoting directly. I'm afraid that it's a copyright violation. I thought that you were asking if it was okay to take examples from Boal's own writings, rather than from a secondary source. It is okay to quote small bits directly from Boal's text, but only small bits. For the rest, I'm afraid that you need to re-write Boal's text yourself--that is, describe what Boal says, but in your own words. You can intersperse quotations from Boal in this description, but most of it has to be by you. For each part of the description, you should then add in a citation that directs the reader to the particular page of Boal's book where they can confirm that what you've described is an accurate description of what Boal suggests/argues, etc. It's a little more work than just typing it out, I'm afraid. I'll leave it in the article for the time being to give you a chance to re-write. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright how about this edit? I'm not sure if this part of the article needs to have solutions to show the whole process off the theater.  Reason is that by now, the reader will probably understand what happens next, base on the general description of the Simultaneous Dramaturgy. Bithop90 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Similarities with crowdsourcing" section
I added the "crowdsourcing" section, because I noticed many similarities between it and Boal's models. Do you find this section relevant to the topic, or veering towards the off-topic? Feel free to edit it, or delete it altogether if you believe it has no relevance. Echalhou (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that it has important similarities other than involving a large group of people. Crowdsourcing is a form of outsourcing which takes advantage of mass communication technologies to distribute a task to an enormous group of people, but the results come back to the originator of a task, like a corporation who has a contest on youtube to produce a promotional video. The Theatre of the opressed is an interactive form which follows no such hierarchy, its form and goals are fundamentally different. I consider the section to be slightly confusing and not generally contributing to the article in a way that will promote understanding of Theater of the Opressed. I am deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal.lunchbox (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

History?
The History section doesn't so much give a history of Theatre of the Oppressed as it does describe different facets of its practice. Putting these things on an actual timeline would help. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree Morganfitzp. Some of the history section is covered by the introduction, and the rest has a lot of problems: - It describes Theatre of the Oppressed as a series of theatrical "analyses and critiques". TO is a set of theatre techniques/forms, not just academic analyses and critiques. - It describes Boal as an "avid supporter" of interactive theatre, which grossly understates his role as someone who revolutionised theatrical forms through TO - It says his ideas are considered as a "a new media perspective". By who? Who even uses that term (aside from the New Media Reader which is referenced a few sentences later?). It doesn't seem to be a significant or important description. - It states these ideas served as a framework for the "development and evolution of stronger ideas". I cant see anything in the reference (New Media Reader) about development and evolution of stronger ideas beyond TO (it does describe development from Boal's Simultaneous Dramaturgy to Forum Theatre). I would suggest that section is deleted, and agree that an actual timeline would help. I'll look into it.Edwin Kemp (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense?
What does this mean "Boal emphasizes that as much as we can, to prevent the isolation of the audience. It is quite hilarious. The term "spectator" brands the participant to be less than human hence is necessary to humanize them, to restore them their capacity of action in all its fullness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.20.167 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)