Talk:Oral interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding the below, I *have* seen the textbook and the article based on it was clearly and unabashedly plagiarism. More importantly, whoever wrote it simply repeated what was in the text without bothering to provide even a basic, common definition of the term. Basically, there's a *lot* more to oral interpretation than just Charlotte Lee.

I have rectified both problems by completely re-writing the article from a neutral perspective, including expansion of the list of references and sources for further information. Key to understanding any discussion of oral intepretation is the realisation it is an essential component of any performance, as well as a term of art for a particular set of performance styles. It should also be remembered that Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia, not an Ameri-centered one. The American academic argument over the meaning of the term "oral interpretation" is thus put in its proper context as an *American* academic argument. Outside of the United States, there simply is no controversy over whether "oral interpretation" and "acting" are or are not different names for the same thing. The argument only happens in American academia; and even then only in certain arenas of American academia. 172.194.141.26 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Possible WP:COPYVIO? I haven't seen the text book, but the wording in this article suggests it might be a lift from the book ("Examine how the text may appeal to the general public. Will it offend? Will it be too confusing?") QuiteUnusual 13:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)