Talk:Walnut Street Theatre

message: http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22walnut+street+theatre%22+%22english+speaking+world%22
numerous citations for the Walnut being the oldest, etc. 
If you are aware of an older continuously operating theatre in the English speaking world, please post a link. comment added by Breschard (talk
:"The Theatre Royal at the Bristol Old Vic in England opened in 1766 and is famous for being the oldest continually operating theatre in Britain. With its horseshoe-shaped auditorium and sumptuous red and gold decor, the Georgian building is one of the most beautiful in the world. Audiences still enjoy entertaining and inspiring productions every week. From classical theatre to modern plays, the theatre also works closely with the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, which has turned out brilliant actors like Jeremy Irons and Daniel Day-Lewis".
:http://www.britevents.com/features/the-oldest-theatres-in-britain/
:http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/bristol-old-vic-has-facelift-to-make-it-look-250-years-older-8933466.html
:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/9506962/Bristol-Old-Vic-Curtain-up-on-a-Georgian-time-capsule.html 
:Bristol Theatre Royal is celebrating it's 250 year anniversary in 2016.
:http://www.bristololdvic.org.uk/redevelopment.html
:http://www.bristololdvic.org.uk/257.html
:I am sure the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia is a wonderful Theatre and is indeed one of the oldest English speaking Theatres in the world and the oldest Theatre in the US,  however to make such outlandish claims in respect of the Walnut being the oldest in the entire English speaking world is clearly a bit over the top.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.206.217 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2015‎ (UTC)
"A bronze marker, placed there by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, announces the Walnut as “the oldest playhouse in continuous use in the English-speaking world.” That is reaching a bit. The Walnut is certainly the oldest theatre in the United States, and it predates any of the London theatres: Covent Garden dates back to 1856, rebuilt after a fire, and Drury Lane was constructed in 1812 after a similar disaster. The honor of the oldest operating theatre in the English-speaking world rightly belongs to the Theatre Royal in Bristol, England, which has been standing since 1766. The basis for the claim that the Walnut is the oldest playhouse “in continuous use” is that the Theatre Royal was shuttered for most of World War II. By that measure, the Walnut has been in continuous use only since the Great Depression, for it too was dark for several years".
http://www.psupress.org/books/SampleChapters/978-0-271-03578-9sc.html 
So you have to be careful when declaring either Theatre the oldest in continual use, however the Theatre Royal in Bristol did put productions on during World War 2. This is highlighted in the Theatres timeline link below which commemorates it's 250th Anniversary next year. Indeed in 1942 the CEMA (the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts and forerunners to Arts Council England) leased the building and the Theatre Royal Bristol became the first State theatre in the country, whilst in 1943 the theatre put on a production of “She Stoops to Conquer” starring Dame Sybil Thorndyke. So the plucky Theatre Royal Bristol was even putting on productions despite the threat of German Luftwaffe bombs.
http://www.bristololdvic250.org.uk/250-years/
Both are wonderful Theatres and I look forward to seeing the progress made restoring the Theatre Royal (Old Vic) and also wish the Walnut Street Theatre all the best for the future. As for which one is the oldest in continual use that is up for debate, although the Theatre Royal Bristol is clearly the older Theatre.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.206.217 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Hi Breschard:  I've undone your "edit (i.e., removal of your part of the above conversation)" because I think it's possible you misunderstand how Wikipedia discussions work.  First:  Please sign your postings on the discussion page (by typing four tildes (~~~~, or, for brief notes you don't want time-stamped, three tildes: ~~~, which will just display your user name, e.g., "Sugarbat (talk)").  Second: When you post/ask a question, etc., it's ok for the editor with whom you're conversing (or anyone else) to type things in the middle of your posting in order to address specific points you've made.  The polite way to do this is to indent a bit by typing a colon [:] or two (or three, depending on how far in you want to indent) prefacing such a response.  This helps readers, visually, understand what's going on. (Where I've indented within my own narrative, I've italicized to show that I was quoting. The link at the beginning of each block-quote also helps w/contextualization.) Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinstated deleted half of above conversation

message: Please don't delete any part of this conversation again, especially since you seem not to be able to restrict yourself to deletion of your own contributions.  If you don't wish to have a public conversation about this article, please don't post comments on the discussion page.  
If you continue to be disruptive, I'll have no choice but to ask for admin to help with dispute resolution (specifically, I'll report an instance of vandalism).  I don't want to do that because it's the least fun (and productive) activity for me as a WP editor, so please try and play by the rules so we can all just keep working together peacefully.  Please?  
Because I truly don't want to make you feel as though your words are being fiddled with, I've removed the signatures I added to your paragraphs before.  I added them to reassure you and not to antagonize or worry you, and I have no problem with leaving your words alone, for any reason.  Just please do show me the same respect. Sugarbat (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to [[User:Breschard|Breschard]]

message: ( Logical Premise Ergo? removed text from this talk page, based on a quick Google search. Please feel free to revert me if you feel I've acted unappropiately.)
Unless you can show some evidence that the Breschard family owns any part of the Walnut Street Theatre, I suggest you are attempting to spread misinformation on Wikipedia and will proceed accordingly.    
- (Above two sentences may not be parsed unless original is left intact.)    
-    
- Breschard (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A word of advice to each of you: Sugarbat - provide good citations for your assertions. Breschard - withdraw your legal threats, or you will likely be blocked, as legal threats are strictly against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: More to the point, you're attempting to compel Sugarbat to put up or shut up, i.e. to either provide evidence or retract his COI complaint which, if unfounded, could also be a blockable offense. But regardless of that, if you don't withdraw your legal threat, you will be blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Talking about libel constitutes a legal threat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for removing the legal threat. Now the ball is in his court (pardon the ironic metaphor). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but the COI post made by Sugarbat here is a serious bad faith posting. I found this and this with a BASIC Google search, substantiating the claim that it's the oldest in the English-speaking world. It is simply impossible that Sugarbat was unable to find this on his own, which means his action must be viewed as disruptive to suggest there is a COI on Breschard's part. I'd really like some kind of very clear, firm answer on what Sugarbat was doing with this or else I see no reason why his comments should not very simply be struck. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 03:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid scattering too much, please join the ANI discussion:  Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]] risk

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Both this article and the article for the  Fulton Opera House in Lancaster, PA are said to be the oldest.   Fulton is said to be the oldest in "America" with the Walnut Street Theatre the oldest "in the english-speaking world".      
Of course, looking at the years they were built, the Walnut is obviously the oldest.   But was it continuous?   This needs to be more clearly worded.
Logicwax (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the oldest??? 

message: The discussion about the statement that the Walnut is the "oldest continuously operated theatre in the English-speaking world" is all over this talk page, so it's very difficult to follow it.  However, let me make two points:
*We have a reliable source which makes that statement
*We have some sources, the reliability of which I haven't examined, which seem to cast doubt on the statement.
So, until someone can put some research into evaluating the counter-sources, I have made the change of adding the words "[It] is said to be..." in front of the statement.  Although normally we would avoid WP:WEASEL words, in this case I think it is appropriate, since the new statement is undeniably true - it is indeed said that the theatre is the oldest etc.  I think the added words should stay there until someone can do an unbiased evaluation of the competing claims. What would be best would be to find a reliable source which itself discusses the controversy and picks a "winner" (so to speak), so that we don't have to do any original research. BMK (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "oldest" controversy 

message: The infobox leads to think that the theatre was built in 1809 by William Strickland. The article text, however, says that he built "a stage and orchestra pit" in 1811. Also, the infobox gives three "rebuildings" (1828, John Haviland; 1903, Willis Hale; 1920, William H. Lee). How much was changed then? Were these just renovations or remodeling of the auditorium or was the building torn down and built again? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and text are not really saying the same