Talk:Amateur theatre

message: Can you add anything here to help expand this important section of the arts?  What other groups are in Bristol and the surrounding areas?  I'd be glad to add more info about amateur theatre, but I would expand it to a more general term than simply Britain's scene.  
I'm going to recommend this be merged with Community theatre. That article already mentions the English term for it, so the content here can probably be merged in.
Munificent 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me - perhaps we could add sections on how the amateur theatre culture operates in various countries.  (I've added a mergefrom tag to Community theatre.) AndrewWTaylor 08:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like someone disagrees with you Munificent, and has changed the description of the English term. (It directly contradicts the redirects from amateur dramatics now, but I don't feel qualified to make the call on that one. Mootinator 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateur Theatre

message: Corrected minor typos, reworded some sentences to try to give a more encyclopedic tone. Added the bit in the intro about WHY there is debate about quality, and the bit about lower cost and greater accessibility. Wikified several more words.
I also think there should be some examples of professional actors who began in amateur theatre, since that sentence is just kind of hanging out there, and there should maybe be some support for "millions of people."
This is my very first edit on Wikipedia, and I tried to do my best. If I messed something up, please just tell me--I want to learn (and I'm pretty sure I did the edit summary wrong). Also please note that I am American, so if I didn't use British conventions, it was unintentional.
IrisWings 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Copy-edit 

message: I've removed this section, as it's uncited and seems very POV to me. (Not to mention the many spelling mistakes.) AndrewWTaylor 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Criticism" section 

message: As there appears to be no real consensus on merging this into Community theatre, given that the two have differing meanings in different countries I'll remove this tag if theres no further discussion before the end of February. Gnangarra 03:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are quite different things and both this article and the Community theatre article are pretty dire so merging them is not going to help. I'll do some research and come back to this article when I have a moment (which may not be for some time!) In the meantime, I'm going to remove the merge notices in view of comments here and on the other article's talk page. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Community Theatre

message: Just to confuse things even more, many "amateur" theatre groups, particularly musical theatre, use the term non-professional as they feel amateur has negative connatations, not in keeping with the standard of performance and production.Robhar174 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Professional Theatre 

message: Amateur companies are strongly criticized in many countries. This article should include that. Amateur Theatre is in no way comparable to real theatre. (122.215.127.16 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Response 

message: As an academic and member of the professional arts community, I want to clean-up wikipedia's articles in relation to amateur theatre. Criticism of this movement is widely expressed in reputable journals, reviews, symposiums and the mainstream media worldwide. I work in a theatrical library and hold a doctorate in contemporary theatre. Whilst the section on criticism was poorly written and contained spelling errors, the views expressed were completely accurate. Amateur performers are untrained and unqualified and almost never make the leap into the professional arena, for precisely the reasons stated in that section. They have no proven skills but often come with a lot of attitude - as evidenced by the way these articles have been biased in wikipedia towards an amateur perspective. Even those few professionals who may have participated in amateur theatre in their youth inevitbaly leave it well behind as they hone their craft, and train, and study. There's a lot of twisting the truth going on here. Labels such as "non-professional" theatre are just smoke and mirrors. The negative connotations are justified, as the standard of performance and production is inevitably inferior to trained, qualified, experienced, proven, hard-working professional artists. All of the articles on amateur theatre and community theatre and the various companies listed on wikipedia that fall under that banner should be merged together and held in the correct context. As far as the arts are concerned, amateur theatre is merely a footnote and held in low regard. As I wrote elsewhere, artists (actors, directors, writers and producers) can study for anywhere between 3 - 8 years to achieve professional skills and qualifications. They work hard to earn the right to be called professional and to be treated accordingly. Wikipedia should concentrate on expanding its professional coverage and keep its standard consistent with reputable sources, rather than be an unreliable source of information with contentious statments and dishonest articles. I mean no disrespect to any of the fine writers and editors on this site, but this debate has been totally one-sided and nobody is backing these articles up.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and re-write/clean up but restore "criticism" 

message: I have added detail and citations to this area as well as sub-sections to group related information. I have also attempted to clarify the subject of organisations and associations that act as umbrella organisations in the UK. In so doing, it seemed that the theatre groups mentioned in the article should be placed in a "notable groups" section, to maintain the integrity of the article as one meeting "notability" criteria. A number of the groups mentioned have no article and I cannot find their names amongst the winners of national competitions. I have therefore removed those groups' names. I am happy to accept that I am wrong in taking them out if their notability can be verified. (although they groups I have removed can be seen in an edit history, for the sake of clarity they were: Woodhouse Players; Kingswood Players; Bristol Players; Romsdal Players; Downend Dramatic Society; Washington Theatre Group; The Garden Suburb Theatre; The Actonians Drama Club; Parkside Players; Mow Cop Players Theatre of Comedy Company (Stoke On Trent); St. Andrew's Players; St. Christopher's players. Kwib (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of Amateur Theatre in the United Kingdom 

message: I have removed much of the following:
*The Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain (LTG) - Playwriting competition.
:These are run every two to three years. Adjudication is done by a professional, the last adjudicator being Samuel French. The winning full-length play from the last competition was performed at the Edinburgh Festival fringe. The one-act winner has been published by French’s.
Samuel French died in 1898. If the company is meant the article needs to say so. "Last" can mean "most recent" or "each most recent" or literally "last": and the sentence is meaningless if it doesn't tell us which. If it means the most recent the article will be out of date when the next competition happens, unless we specify which year's competition we mean and (ideally) which show won. There is no "the" one-act winner: either it means "every" one act winner, or "a" one act winner and in the latter case it needs to specify which one.
Sorry to nit-pick, but this section is better not included unless someone can go back to the source and unscramble what this means. AndyJones (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Theatre Guild 

message: In response to other user comments, I have tried to tidy this section (below). 
"Many theatrical practitioners frown upon amateur dramatical groups, do to many directors / actors bieng un-trained and having little or no experience or knowledge of theatre appart from that read in books. This also causes considerable problems when these groups come to work in professional theatres, as trained technicians / stage managers find it difficult to work with some amateur personall, as many bilieve themselves to be very important and knowledgable but have little idea about how professional theatres are run." 
And replaced it with the following:
Many true theatrical practitioners frown upon amateur groups, who give authority to untrained directors and actors. The majority of those associated with amateur theatre have little or no professional training or experience. As a result, their knowledge is extremely limited and they lack a demonstrated skill base. Many believe themselves to be very important and capable but have little idea how to interprete or perform a theatrical text. They are largely ignored by the professional industry, but some critics argue that they do the community a disservice by lowering the overall standard of theatre as an artform. Critics argue that if they cannot dedicate themseleves to training professionally or they lack the demonstrated skill for professional employment, then they should not be on the stage at all.(129.96.112.189 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spot on, Andy. Among other problems, it's a fine example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored/Rewrote Criticism section 

message: And here it is:
Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
This article is not from a reliable, third-party, published source. A critical section would address the hyperbole and lack of balance, as a more sceptical and critcal approach to the amateur theatre movement does reflect the popular view, the scholarly view and the artistic view of the subject. What wikipedia presents through this article is an unsupported, minority view. 
where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly
So why does that not apply here? (129.96.112.36 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for Reference 

message: Andy, with all due respect, you are incorrect. Since you have already stated that you have no real opinion or interest in this area (though your posts indicate otherwise), and no expertise, who are you to define what is and isn't "wrong"? The people posting here do have expertise in this area. If you scroll up, you will see that one of the other anons posting identified him or herself as a student of modern theatre! I myself am just beginning my honours degree in drama! We do know what we're talking about! We are scholars in this area. Amateur theatre is a complete joke. It is disregarded by the academic and professional arts community. It is laughed at and ignored. Professional actors do not work on the amateur stage. Why would they work with unskilled people for no money? That's idiotic! At worst, professionals resent amateurs for pretending to know what they're talking about and for eroding the artform. (But most just laugh) And this is not an "anti-AmDram thesis" this is glaringly obvious fact. Amateurs should not be, and outside of wikipedia are not, taken seriously. 
If you're at all confused, the word "amateur" is defined on answers.com as:
1 A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2 (Sports.) An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
It is that simple! That is what we're talking about. That is what this article, if it exists at all, should reflect. All this nonsense promoting the "importance" of amateur dramatics or, wose, putting it on a podium is just plain bad writing. Wikipedia has rules preventing this sort of unsupported hyperbole and they need to apply here. The burden of proof is on those writing the article, not those stating the obvious and saying "well, this is nonsense." At the moment, the entire article is unverified, unsupported waffle and clearly an amateur's opinion only, save for a few honest sections which need to be given more weight. {129.96.115.48 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Amateur" Definition 

message: AndrewWTaylor raises an interesting point. Is this article intended to cover Amateur Theatre worldwide? Or is the USA covered by Community Theatre or something? Unless it is worldwide, its geographical scope really needs to be defined at the start. AndyJones (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Britain

message: I'd like to weigh in on this discussion.  I have a degree in drama and have done professional acting work.  However for the past 15 years or so my involvement in theatre has been with amateur theatre groups.  Yes, I do it as a pastime rather than a profession.  And I take exception to the idea that somehow this article needs to be a critical attack on the legitimacy of amateur theatre as an art form.  Why can't it contain a factual discussion about what amateur theatre is and its history?  I have no objection to critical discussion of the role of amateur theatre but I think that making it the focus of the article is not necessarily in the spirit of Wikipedia.
So why does the article need to open with a debate about the legitimacy of amateur theatre?  Someone want to explain that to me other than an anonymous poster with an ax to grind?
In an earlier comment on this page an anonymous user posts three definitions of the word "amateur" but chooses to focus solely on the third.
1 A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2 (Sports.) An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
What about the first definition?  I have met plenty of people with theatrical training who for multiple reasons have chosen careers outside the arts.  Amateur theatre provides an outlet for those people's creative impulses.  And no group I have ever worked with purports to be anything other than a group which engages in theatrical productions as a pastime.  Do we hope to entertain, provoke thought, affect people in some way?  Absolutely.  And I think sometimes we succeed.
And here's another quote I must take exception to:
Professional actors do not work on the amateur stage.
That's patently false.  I have worked with a number of people in amateur productions who violate the terms of the membership in their union and perform under a different name.  Maybe this is because I have been involved in a lot of amateur productions in the immediate vicinity of New York City.  In this geography amateur theatre gives unemployed professional actors a convenient venue to keep their skills sharp and expand their portfolio of roles.
At any rate I would like to propose that the article be reformatted to lead with the verifiable facts about amateur theatre and then progress to a debate as to its role.  I'm not proposing that amateur theatre be given a major place in a Wikipedia article entitled "Theatre" but as an institution unto itself it deserves explanation first before a lengthy criticism of its existence. Wtp512 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments and edits, Wtp. I'll look at them in detail when I have more time that I do now, but in general I agree with you about the purpose of this article, and would endorse (from a UK perspective) what you say about the crossover of "professional" and "amateur". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Discussion of the Purpose of this Page

message: Ok, well, this old wound seems to be open again. I was the poster with the "ax to grind". Just want to clear my name on that point. It's clear that we are divided between amateurs saying "where is the evidence that amateur theatre is derided?" and everyone else saying "we deride amateur theatre"... so, isn't it all there, plain as day? It's not about grinding axes, it's just the way it is. Amateur is amateur, professional is professional. Nobody is being intentionally mean or vindictive. It's a great hobby, so go for it, just don't write a bunch of waffle on wikipedia about why amateurism and professionalism are equal in art. It just isn't true. 
The reference to sport is apt. Amateur clubs and the professional league are not the same thing. There are lots of people who work hard and perform well at an amateur level, but they don't play nationally. There's no article saying amateurs in sport are equal to NRL players, and it'd be attacked if there was. 
All professional artists want from wikipedia is the same level of respect, which they've earned. If you don't understand the difference, that's okay, but then you're not qualified to write this article. But nobody is being mean here. I think everyone is just interested in a fair and accurate article, that portrays this topic honestly. I just wanted to get that out, because "ax to grind" was unfair. I'm happy to see there are others arguing this case strongly, and with objectivity. 
If you actually look at the article, as it exists right now, most of it isn't too biased in either direction. It's just a few of those unsourced, unverified sentences that need to go. I hadn't noticed them until they were pointed out, but, yep, they're there and they're silly. Let's work this out without the name-calling. (129.96.115.47 (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping it friendly 

message: It's a great hobby, so go for it, just don't write a bunch of waffle on wikipedia about why amateurism and professionalism are equal in art. It just isn't true. 
Exactly! I'm a professional actor who has worked in the industry for 25 years. This is a crazy conversation. Of course, amateurs and professionals are different. People work really darn hard to be called professionals and earn a living. Amateurs should respect that and acknowledge that there is a difference. We're not knocking your hobby, or your interest in the arts, but don't say that amateurs and professionals have the same experience, the same dedication and the same skill level. Don't say we have "axes to grind" or that professionals readily do amateur productions and vice versa, or that you do it for the love and are therefore better, or any of that nonsense people come out with. Professionals train hard and deserve to be paid and treated with dignity for all their hard work and the real love of the artform which they have demonstrated through study of their craft. Amateurs have every right to enjoy themselves and entertain in local groups, but it is not the same level. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Professionalism and Amateurism 

message: I think that Community theatre should be merged into this article.   I can see from the discussion above, that much has been deleted from this article over the years.  I wonder if anything good has been slashed.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Community theatre]]

message: I would argue that experience is the leading qualification for an [Expert] in amateur theatre. Contribution is needed from several authors with knowledge of the subject through prolonged contact with amateur theatre production. Wikipedia has no mandate to represent the views of enterprise; however an enterprise approach would help to give a realistic estimate of the quantity of amateur theatre activity - number of scripts used, most popular playwrights, ticket sales, expenditure, music licenses, number and title of performances and unexpected season extensions, seats per house and so on. Currently I think this type of information is not regarded as encyclopaedic, even where available.Tradimus (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateur expert needed

message: Mentions have been made above, particularly in the 'Britain' section, of the limited geographical coverage of the article. It is essentially limited to three countries; Australia, UK and USA. It is not a subject I am familiar with, but the parochialism rather jumped out at me on first reading. Surely there must be Amateur theatre in Japan, India, Brazil and many other lands? As the article includes musical theatre, that broadens the possibilities. Wishing well.SovalValtos (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth looking in other language versions of Wikipedia. Just as amateur theatre in Britain grew out of centuries of tradition, it's likely it did so in many other countries where it may be related to traditional performances or rituals. But how closely do we define "amateur theatre" as opposed to "public performance by non-professionals", which could include Punch & Judy, sun dances and passion plays?  Tony Holkham (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of 'Sun Dances'. Do you know of a good encyclopedia where I could look it up? Seriously though, I understand how tricky it is to focus the article. As the page has evolved as being UK based with its colonial derivatives, maybe in due course the article may be re-named to limit a too broad a spread? I thought that amateur dramatics might be a tighter title, but see this is a re-direct from there. Ho Hum. A subject I might best leave to others.SovalValtos (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking along similar lines myself. There seem to be enough differences in amateur theatre in different countries to warrant their own articles, leaving this one as a (fairly brief) general introduction with "see also"s. I'm tempted. The redirect is not a problem. In the meantime, we could chop out a lot of this article because it contains a great deal of unreferenced text, much of which doesn't make sense anyway. Tony Holkham (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any  mention of school, college or Uni theatre. Maybe no need? SovalValtos (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I deleted something in my enthusiastic cropping ;o). Probably worth a mention. Tony Holkham (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some trimming and I hope the article is now more encyclopaedic. I know the lead doesn't adequately reflect the content, but I will have a look at that soon, together with some examples of dramatic societies' activities. I can only do this for the UK (there is more to be done), so hope someone else can look at amateur theatre in other countries. Tony Holkham (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work User:Tony Holkham I was looking at some of the sources only to find you were two steps ahead. Best, I think to leave the ground clear for you to finish, rather than fiddle. It would be good to hear other editors opinions when you are done.SovalValtos (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. I was going so fast at one point I even caused an edit conflict with myself. But feel free to edit - more than one pair of eyes is good. I've looked at the amateur theatre category where there are examples of amateur theatre in other countries, such as India (example: Madras Players). Tony Holkham (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Could you expand on that? I haven't understood (maybe because it's late). Ta. Tony Holkham (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially pointing to an example (in the 1960s) where amateur theatre, writing and performing, was of a standard as high or higher than Pro theatre. Perhaps not needed as the antagonism of Pro's to Ams is being removed from the article. SovalValtos (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of current coverage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amateur theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141118140544/http://www.actorsequity.org/AboutEquity/aboutequityhome.asp to http://www.actorsequity.org/AboutEquity/aboutequityhome.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified