Talk:Adelaide Repertory Theatre

Replacement stub created to avoid copyright issue

Paul foord 12:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Validtory of Information

All information is supplied by me ( Stephen Dean) a board member for 12 years and activily involved with the company for 20 years.

Stephendean 09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In any event, Wikipedia does not allow original research, but instead requires information to be verifiable to reliable sources.--cj | talk 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All information can be found in the State Library and the Performing Arts Collection. Also the Rep has extensive archives. Thanks:) Stephendean 09:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

COI and notability

This article is clearly written from a biased source. A more balanced perspective is required. I have issues with All cast and crew are volunteers who give freely of their time to present professional productions to the theatre going public of Adelaide. This is a very misleading statement. In Australia, there is a clear distinction between amateur theatre (which this company is) and professional theatre. These are not professionally-trained actors giving up their time to work for the company, but amateur performers sharing a hobby. The article implies otherwise. In keeping with wiki's standards for presenting accurate information, the article should not be written by a member of the board citing the theatre company's own archives as credible sources. This is especially true when wiki doesn't yet have an article on either the State Theatre Company of South Australia or Brink Productions, which are in fact the leading theatre companies in Adelaide.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)).

Further to this discussion; perhaps articles such as this should be merged with amateur theatre? (Moviefreak26 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia. Even the associated "AusStage" link describes this company as amateur. There are literally hundreds of amateur and community-based theatre companies in the world and wikipedia should not be a forum for them to promote themselves, especially with a total lack of third party, non-biased research. Perhaps merging articles like this with amateur theatre is a sensible option, but I would argue that they don't belong here at all. We don't list local cricket teams or football teams, do we?(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

"An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia." Not only does this statement pigeonhole any company as culturally insignificant (inadvertently denying the existence of the Adelaide Repertory Theatre prior to the creation of the State Theatre Company of South Australia, and subsequently Brink Productions, thereby disregarding the significant role it played in the South Australian Arts from 1908 onwards), but its use of the term 'amateur' is itself amatuerish, and a strong indication of that gross human tendency known fairly as 'intuition'. The working definition of the term amateur, as supported by the South Australian press, is 'for love, not money', without categorising the calibre of its work; and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia isn't yet a business directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primo veritas (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but is it a place for people to promote irrelevent information? Or hobbies? Does all the press in South Australia support this view? If so (and it's highly quesitonable) that would be out of step with the way amateur theatre is regarded elsewhere, indeed in the rest of the world. But, each to their own. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

"An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia" - see WP:Notability/WP:Reliable sources - these are used to decide what belongs in Wikipedia. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those guidelines demand more than this article provides. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

And can anybody verify that this is "the longest surviving theatre company in the southern hemisphere." Can an amateur company even be classed as such? Vote for deletion!(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

An amateur theatre company can meet the notability guidelines. I believe the article now shows this. Paul foord (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a touchy issue on this board, but clearly the tag has been improperly removed in this case. (Moviefreak26 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)).

I removed it and disagree. Only minor notability but I think there are adequate independent sources. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

To 129.96.130.210: the comment about Southern Hemisphere has been replaced with Australia. This is an equally contentious statement. I am certain there are older companies. The reference cites a biased source. But, I think the wider question you're asking is... "can amateur theatre companies be classed the same as professional theatre companies?" They certainly would not be classed together in reputable theatrical publications (I work at a uni library), or by reviewers (my sister is one), or by the mainstream media. So, why does Wikipedia not follow the same standards? That said, I don't think deletion is a fair response. I vote for merger.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

See the discussion at User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from "User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies" Adelaide Repertory Theatre & your proposal of merger of amateur theatre companies ==

There is a template for merging articles. {{merge}} or {{Mergeto}}. However, what do you want to merge Adelaide Repertory Theatre to? The Amateur theatre article is not very good, the Repertory theatre article is much better but may not be relevant. Community theatre is probably also relevant. Theatre in Australia is only a stub and needs expansion.

If you are suggesting creating a new merged article then do so, are you proposing a new Amateur theatre in South Australia/Amateur theatre in Australia/Australian amateur theatre article? However that may not justify redirecting "Adelaide Repertory Theatre" to that article. If you believe the deletion as non notable is appropriate then place {{AFD}} on the article page. I expect "Adelaide Repertory Theatre" would be kept, as having local notability. I have no association with the company.

Useful references are Wikipedia:Notability & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Theater may be a useful reference.

You may also want to look at Category:Australian theatre companies, there is a major need is for more articles.

Paul foord (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on Category:Australian theatre companies, there was a stub on Patch Theatre Company Paul foord (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find that reviewers review amateur and professional productions and you will often see them together in the print media. The same reviewer will see both amateur and pro productions and they do not often distinguish between the two. Since the Rep has had a major influence on the performing arts in Adelaide surely it then has historical importance. some well known people have performed or directed Rep plays over the years. these professional people are happy to be involved. Names such as Keith Michell, frank ford, benton Whittle etc. --Stephendean (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality/Notability

The neutrality of this article is highly questionable and the article does not meet the notability guidelines as provided. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, list all the random amateur theatre companies in the world(129.96.252.38 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

So you have a problem with amateur theatre, Adelaide Repertory Theatre appears to have a number claims to notability fairly clearly stated. The recent addition of the Alan Brissenden newspaper article attests to that. (Alan Brissenden is a critic also published in The Australian.) Paul foord (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And that one article makes it noteworthy for an international record? Vote for deletion! (129.96.130.46 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

It seems to me that 129.96.130.46 is a hater of the Adelaide Repertory Theatre company. Surely an encyclopaedia should have information about all theatre companies if it is provided. Why should it only contain info about professional companies. Amateur companies have provided much to the world in the area of theatre. Why should historical information be deleted. Stephendean (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Notability and POV tags - there are multiple secondary reliable sources on which the article draws. Paul foord (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With all the enthusiastic deleting Paul does, I am amazed this article is staying. Are you a member of this company, Paul? Are you authorized to remove those tags without open, democratic discussion? To 129.96.130 and Stephendean, I think you both make good points and maybe the solution is to add a list of amateur companies to the amateur theatre page? I agree with: Wikipedia cannot, and should not, list all the random amateur theatre companies in the world and I think most people (outside of amateur theatre circles) would feel the same way. Wikipedia is meant to be a worldclass record of information! No other proper encylopedia would store info of this kind and present it with such importance. This company is obviously not notable outside of a limited circle (people overseas certainly aren't writing about it), and nowhere near historically relevent (that was a pretty big stretch haha!) BUT I also see Stephendean's point that amateur theatre has its place. So why not list these very small, local companies as part of the amateur theatre page? Isn't that fair? (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I just scrolled up and realized this has already been suggested. Sorry. I also scrolled up and saw that Stephen Dean is a BOARD MEMBER. That's a bit fishy. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

As I believe this article to be non-notable (as other users have said), biased (as other users have said) and completely unbalanced in its representation, I think the best way to move this discussion forward is to nominate it for speedy deletion, so that it can be discussed by someone other than personally invested participants and either scrapped or merged. The discussion on this page has gone in circles and seems to be controlled entirely by a biased POV.(58.160.172.57 (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

It is interesting that the person caling for the deletion of this article does not name themselves. Surely all theatre companies amatuer and proffessional are all part of the rich history of theatre. Our should the general public only have a censored history of theatre available to them. This deletion smacks of censorship, changing history to suit themselves. So I am a boardmember, but I do have access to the history etc of the company. Stephendean (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can tell this means a lot to you, but please be reasonable. Nobody is going to look at this as "censorship" or "changing history." The argument is about whether this company belongs on a quality encylopedia or whether it is really just a small, local, non-professional entity that is only relevent to a select group in a single city and should therefore be merged to another article, or deleted as per the website's guidelines. To be crystal clear, I have never seen a show by this company. I have no opinion about it. I do not live in Adelaide. I really don't care. That's the point, it is not something that the average person would care about. This is not personal for me, or anyone else who has raised questions on this board. The only "censorship" that is going on here is the constant shutting down of people who have pointed out wikipedia's policy and guidelines in this matter relating to notability and biased writing. Local press is not enough to justify this page's existence. A similar page could be written on a tennis court or bowling club in any city of the world, with local press and it's own history of local awards, but wikipedia can't make room for them all. I care deeply about my local soccer club, my street, and my pet cat, but they don't belong on wikipedia. That's why I added the tag. If registered users and editors decide to disagree, that's their call, but this is not intended to make anyone angry. It's about the integrity of the project. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)) What claptrap. And is Wikipedia really a quality encyclopaedia, that has yet to be determined. The relevance of this company is in fact nationwide. maybe you need to do more research into theatre in Australia and the world to find out the relevance. And who are you to decide what the everyday person should know about.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephendean (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The relevance of this company is in fact nationwide. maybe you need to do more research into theatre in Australia and the world to find out the relevance./ This company has been a breeding ground for major professional actors and technicians. Surley deleting history is like censoring the truth Yeah man, stop censoring with your common sense... everyone knows Mel Gibson and Russel Crowe started in this major major company ;) (129.96.114.160 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Guidelines

Well, I AM from Adelaide, and I have a degree in creative arts, so I know this area extremely well, and I can say with total confidence that this is an amateur company, a little known company, and the press referenced is all local and of very little consequence. Here are some objective points from the guidelines to this site:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

As a member of the board you are not expressing a neutral point of view

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias.

Your view is very clearly biased. You are a boardmember and you are presenting this local company as world news. It is not. It is not even newsworthy in South Australia. The messenger is a small, local paper and for a company to have existed that long and only have that level of press further confirms this is not a significant theatrical company and it is dishonest and disrespectful to those who know theatre to claim otherwise. Can you find articles published interstate or overseas to support your biased view that this company has real relavence equal to such professional companies as Brink and State Theatre?

From the guidelines:

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.

As for your comment And is Wikipedia really a quality encyclopaedia, that has yet to be determined. the people who frequent this board expect reliable, non-biased, relevent, truthful and accurate information. If you don't support the ideals of the site, why post here at all? Are you just interested in adversting and promotion?

To quote from the guidelines again: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

So, no, with all due respect, this article does not belong. It obviously does not satisfy guidelines for inclusion. Perhaps instead of accusing people on this board of "censorship" you should provide some real evidence to support the existence of this article? Or why not stick to your own website site to advertise your company? (129.96.113.36 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)) Due to harrassment my friend has recieved as a result of this discussion, I am bowing out of the conversation.(129.96.113.36 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

maybe you need to do more research into theatre in Australia and the world to find out the relevance. I teach Australian theatre. There is no doubt whatsoever that this company is non-professional and of very poor notability. People have a right to question its inclusion in wikipedia. Still, I think it overstates the importance of the company to continue to even debate it.(123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Sources

• • The fact that anonymous editors claim authority to decide the Adelaide Repertory Theatre is unprofessional and not notable does not change the fact that there are independent reliable sources attesting to its notability. Paul foord (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

independent reliable sources attesting to its notability do you refer to the messenger, a local newspaper that also covers local sporting events, or the ruby awards that have sperate catergories specifically for amateur, non-notable theatre? Or do you, perhaps, refer to the Australian Performing Arts Database which is obligated to list all companies but makes a very clear distinction between amateur companies and professional companies, so that serious qualified theatrical researchers can navigate through precisely this kind of hyperbole and misrepresentation that amateur companies are notorious for? I think there are people who need to do more research, but it's not the people raising objections on this board. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I apologize if that was blunt, and I mean no disrespect to either Paul or Stephen, but is it not usual for people on this board to take on the opinion of teachers, scholars and experts who have studied the field in question... so that the articles are accurate? Or is it majority rule, instead? Or the rule of people who contribute most often? The editors who have contributed their professional opinion and "claim authority" have done so in accordance with the guidelines in order to provide a balanced perspective, so that wikipedia is regarded as a quality, truthful, non-biased account and not a platform for shamesless self-promotion. This company is unprofessional. That is not a "claim" or "decision" by people on this board. It is an objective fact. It is also not covered by any reputable theatrical journal, newspaper, news report, academic publication or anything at all other than small, local press. If that is enough for the seasoned editors here, that's okay. But I would think it lacks the standard of proof required for anyone to take Wikipedia seriously and it's a great pity because, as many people here have said, wikipedia is a project that should have clear standards. I will no longer be using this site or encouraging my students to use this site, because the information on theatre is exceedingly biased and poor(123.2.53.91 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The opinion of 'the opinion of teachers, scholars and experts' holds weight based on the evidence they can draw on and bring to the article. The Arts SA Ruby Award Adelaide Repertory Theatre, Sustained contribution (organisations) 2008 Winner, Ruby Awards, ARTS SA and the review by [Alan Brissenden, (16 Oct 2008), Stirring the intellectual pot, The Adelaide Review] are what I was particularly thinking of. Arts SA being the South Australian Govenment arts agency and whilst the Brissenden review is not in The Australian where he regularly publishes reviews of dance, he is I expect a relable source. Paul foord (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi Paul. I have responded to your private messege and I think your solution is an outstanding one. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Notability again

Does Wiki include other amateur theatre companies? If not, there is a notability issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.131 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This question has been discussed earlier. There are a number of WP:RS attesting to the notability of the Company. See Category:Amateur theatre companies in England for English companies. Paul foord (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adelaide Repertory Theatre/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a very low level of importance. Suggest the professional companies in Adelaide be given greater importance. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Last edited at 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelaide Repertory 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/20070604093025/http://www.adelaidecritics.com:80/html/theawards.html to http://www.adelaidecritics.com/html/theawards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelaide Repertory 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/arts_entertainment.php?subaction=showfull&id=1222303971&archive=&start_from=&ucat=18&
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arts.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2008_AbaF_Ruby_Book.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706100014/http://www.pacsa.asn.au/pac/cf/compinfo.cfm?id=13 to http://www.pacsa.asn.au/pac/cf/compinfo.cfm?id=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)