![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This version of this page is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of that source. The citation is in: |
On May 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interpellation. The result was keep. — Xezbeth 18:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's a good thing that it was kept as "interpellation" is a significant term in the field of cultural studies and this brief sentence is a reminder of the term's basic meaning. 132.216.228.89 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the neo-Marxist section at all, but have no expectations that I will despite anyone's editorial efforts. I have more hope for the social sciences sense, which I know is fairly widely used in Anthropology. Could someone expand that a bit? DCDuring ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to begin with direct plagiarism from Douglas B. Holt How Brands Become Icons Harvard Business Press, 2004. p1. I am not a wikipedia editor and have no intention of becoming one over this issue, but am bringing it to your attention. 204tutor ( talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explains this:
Keeping it here for the time being, but will transfer here in talk in a very short time. It isn't clear. Santa Sangre
I think it is a typo "...while clothing shoppping or cross dressing" The sentence should come back, because it's a hepful example.-- 89.202.163.174 ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is guilty in this sentence linked? "the police act of interpellating someone: "Hey you!", and the subsequent turning backward of the guilty subject(person)"
The link leads to an article that first and foremost pertains to fact. That goes against his whole argument, the "guilty" person doesn't turn around because he/she has actual guilty reasons for doing so, but rather due to the hegemonic power of the Ideological State Apparatus which Boal refers to at the "cops in your head".
The word appears to be a calque. If that is correct, would it be helpful to put this into the article? -- Wikiain ( talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This version of this page is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of that source. The citation is in: |
On May 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interpellation. The result was keep. — Xezbeth 18:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's a good thing that it was kept as "interpellation" is a significant term in the field of cultural studies and this brief sentence is a reminder of the term's basic meaning. 132.216.228.89 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the neo-Marxist section at all, but have no expectations that I will despite anyone's editorial efforts. I have more hope for the social sciences sense, which I know is fairly widely used in Anthropology. Could someone expand that a bit? DCDuring ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to begin with direct plagiarism from Douglas B. Holt How Brands Become Icons Harvard Business Press, 2004. p1. I am not a wikipedia editor and have no intention of becoming one over this issue, but am bringing it to your attention. 204tutor ( talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explains this:
Keeping it here for the time being, but will transfer here in talk in a very short time. It isn't clear. Santa Sangre
I think it is a typo "...while clothing shoppping or cross dressing" The sentence should come back, because it's a hepful example.-- 89.202.163.174 ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is guilty in this sentence linked? "the police act of interpellating someone: "Hey you!", and the subsequent turning backward of the guilty subject(person)"
The link leads to an article that first and foremost pertains to fact. That goes against his whole argument, the "guilty" person doesn't turn around because he/she has actual guilty reasons for doing so, but rather due to the hegemonic power of the Ideological State Apparatus which Boal refers to at the "cops in your head".
The word appears to be a calque. If that is correct, would it be helpful to put this into the article? -- Wikiain ( talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)