Talk:Amateur theatre

Amateur Theatre

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)

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)

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)

I have just copy-edited the article. Please don't let it degenerate with original research and casual commentary on the subject. Rintrah 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Copy-edit

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)

Removed "Criticism" section

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)

"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."

Merge

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)

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)

Non-Professional Theatre

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)

Critical Response

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)).

Merge and re-write/clean up but restore "criticism"

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))

Editing of Amateur Theatre in the United Kingdom

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)

Little Theatre Guild

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)

Restored/Rewrote Criticism section

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))

• Yes, that is vastly better expressed. However it still has a serious WP:WEASEL problem. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. What "many true theatrical performers" think is far too vague. Do most performers think this? 10% of them? 1%? What makes you a "true" performer anyway? Who are the "critics" referred to? The only way to fix this is to find a reliable source for these arguments. (FWIW I happen to disagree with the view expressed in this paragraph: but that's not my objection to it being here. If this is the genuine view of someone specific, sourced from somewhere specific, then it should stay.) AndyJones (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

"I would go so far as to say 90% of trained, professional performers, writers, directors and people who study or write about this field make fun of amateur theatre, criticize it strongly or disregard it. I am a student studying modern theatre. We do not study what amateurs do. Do athletes study what the local cricket club is doing? It's just not part of the actual profession. It's a hobby. I realize that finding a quote in this area is hard, precisely because nobody thinks this is important enough to comment on, -- but it is nowhere near as unfair as the bulk of this article which is unrealistically biased towards amateur theatre and weighs it with too much importance. Examples of nonsense include "support the arts", which is untrue. Amateur theatre does not support the arts. Professional theatre is poorly funded in areas where amateurs thrive, because they undercut and cripple the industry. "Personnel" is not a theatrical term, pointing to the fact that this article has obviously been written by someone with no knolwedge of theatrical practice (most likely an amateur themself, and therefore biased). This is an unbalanced article. Some kind of criticism needs to be included, much stronger than what has been provided. (129.96.112.217 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)) Btw, are we on the same campus?(129.96.112.217 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

• I've no strong opinion on your opinion (so to speak). But as for the what should go in the article, check out WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, which are some of our more important policies and guidelines on content. AndyJones (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for Reference

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))

Further Debate

If this is a debate worth having, let's reflect it in the page. "Opposition to the Amateur movement", "Differing views". (123.2.53.91 (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

User:129.96.53.91 (BTW, have you considered creating a user account here?) - I agree with you that the article is poorly sourced, and should be improved. However, two wrongs don't make a right, so the answer to what you see as an excessively positive view of amateur theatre is not to counter it with equally unsourced negative assertions. Whatever one's view of it, amateur theatre is (at least in the UK, which is all I can speak for) an important part of cultural life and deserves a good article.

I'm worried by the section "Notable Amateur/Community Theatre Groups", which is becoming a bit of dumping ground for a random list of amateur societies that happen to have had articles created about them: there is no indication of why these are particularly notable, either here or in the articles themselves. Maybe I should be bold and get trimming... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you: feel free to go ahead with that.

As for the two anons (or one anon with a differing IP address??) my question is: what sources have you got? If you've got something, let's discuss whether it belongs on the page. If you've got nothing, what is there to discuss? AndyJones (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I am not affiliated with the two anons. But I am anon, and just passing through. I don't really know how to use this site. There is a credible English article which sums up the differing views and it can be accessed here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3204419 (I am sorry if it doesn't work). It outlines what the critics on this board are saying. Specifically the passage which begins "There is, particularly in professional quarters, a deep-rooted suspicion that amateur theatre is really an institution that exists in order to give significance to "amateur dramatics" a frivolous kind of amusement with no pretention to art." It then goes on to outline other criticisms, and how it can be " a base for starring the most popular and politically astute members" (the sort of people who overstate its importance on this site, perhaps?) In Australia, Adele Chynoweth and others make a strong case criticising amateur theatre in Canberra in A new scene for theatre, Panorama, September 20, p21. Here she outlines how amateur theatre erodes the professional tradition in that country. The debate is also shown here: http://www.antiochpress.com/article.cfm?articleId=20444 where the difference is made clear "The difference between professional and community/amateur theater is that we use Equity contract (players)". At the heart of this debate is the reality that amateur theatre does devalue the artform and erode the infrastructure, by gradually undermining the value of Equity contracts for performers, essentially turning an artform/calling into a hobby for enthusiasts. The current state of the arts in India (see: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030830/windows/main1.htm) demonstrates how badly this can cripple theatre as a whole. It seems that the level of passion in this area is attracting people to this site who otherwise don't participate in Wikipedia. This is because an area of study is being misrepresented. Yes, this is a debate that is widely known and written about, criticism of amateur theatre is well-documented and supported and and yes, this should be on the page. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Also, to be totally fair, I don't think anyone wants to replace this badly written "positive" view of amateur theatre with a "negative" view. What is being discussed is a lack of overall balance. Instead of critiscm as a heading you could say "differing views", "academic debate" or even "possible consequences", somewhere between the relationship section and the section on popular parody. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

• Yes, there's some useful stuff in the Schoell article. What do you mean by "Panorama"? I'd assumed that was the publisher of a book with the title you gave, but "new scene for theatre" (in quotes) gets no googlebooks hits. I can't see how we use the Antioch Press article. It doesn't seem to have anything to say in the debate except for the quotation you pulled out of it above: and the statement that the difference between professional theatre and amateur theatre is that professional theatre employs professionals strikes me as a statement of the exceedingly obvious. I'm not sure I see anything in the Maharishi article that is directly or implicity critical of AmDram. On the contrary, his thesis seems to be that Bollywood drains India of all its trained theatrical professionals, and that India would have almost no live theatre at all without the amateurs. If we want to expand this, perhaps build on the existing "Relationship with Professional Theatre" section, which already starts to cover this subject. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An earlier "anon" here. I think the obvious statement does need to appear on the article. It's totally obvious but that's the point. The article should open with "Amateur Theatre is theatre performed by untrained actors, who are not members of Actors Equity groups and have no formal qualifications" instead of the "theatre not performed for financial benefit" opening which immediantly casts professionals in an unfairly negative light as somehow greedy. It's ridiculous, and misleading, and disrespectful, as though working for free at an amateur level is somehow laudable. All that does is destroy the artfrom. If these guys were truly dedicated to their cause they would train and study, and contribute to a professional arts practice. Instead they undermine the hard work of real artists and insult them in the process. They're putting forward the idea that people who devote their lives to an artform, and expect to pay the rent like any other human beings, are to be undermined. It's unfair and it's wrong. The opening needs to be rewritten, the "Relationship with Professional Theatre" needs to be brought to the top and the crticism section should be reworded and restored. (129.96.113.46 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

• I've fixed the {expert subject} template, and I've left a message about this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. I note your anger, but this project is about what we can verify, not about expressing our own opinions here then trying to incorporate those into the article. Does anyone have a scholarly definition of "amateur theatre"? It seems clear to me that yours is wrong: trained actors or people with qualifications do sometimes act on the amateur stage (although that isn't the norm) so that clearly isn't its defining factor. AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Incidentally, I do agree that a statement of the obvious in the opening sentence of any article is a good idea. My point wasn't so much that the article shouldn't say it at all, but that it is simply a statement of an obvious fact: it doesn't support (or not support) the anti-AmDram thesis being discussed here. AndyJones (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Amateur" Definition

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))

Outcomes

I've been bold and tidied it up a little. Moved the most relevent section "relationship with Professional Theatre" to the top where it belongs (could someone add the article references we think are useful?), along with the fun parody section. I've also brought the obvious opening statement to the beginning, defining amateur theatre accurately. It already reads as much, much better and more truthful. As a fair comprimise, we can then list as many companies as we like. Now that the opening sections place these companies in the correct context, I don't think it reads as ridiculously and unfairly as it did and there's no reason why amateur companies can't be mentioned. A "criticism" section at the very end would still be welcome, though.(129.96.115.48 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

And can anyone verify the claims made about Liam Neeson and others?(129.96.115.48 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Lastly, if you actually read the outdated (2002) report that is referenced here you will see that this entire article is a spun version of that data, which itself acknowledges that "public support in the UK for amateur theatre is patchy" (though, admittedly, only to put forward the arguement that more public spending should be placed in this area). The author of this wikipedia page chose to omit that sentence, which neverthless points to the real level of public interest (or lack of), and to plagerize the entire article -- one single, isolated, six year old study -- to serve an agenda of promoting amateur theatre. If wikipedia is committed to unbiased writing, then that single politically motivated study should be weighed accordingly. (129.96.115.48 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

• I've reconnected some but not all of the sections which were split out, above. It's important that a response to something happens in the section it's responding to, and I've particularly applied that where I was the responder.
• When I say I have no opinion on the subject: of course I do, but I meant I was refusing to engage with a discussion-forum debate here, and frankly that's still my view.
• I've got to say your adjustments to the article were actually significant improvements. As I pointed out at the Wikiproject, the current form of the article is pretty bad. In fact, we find that one of the prime-movers in improving articles is when they generate controversy.
• WP:V. Really, I can't stress this enough: source your statements, don't just make them. Nobody here is going to be impressed by the fact that two ANONs say they go to university. Many of us here do: it's not a big deal. Besides we've no way of knowing whether that's true and we don't much care. One of the basic principles of this project is that we do not rely on the authority of Wikipedians. We rely on published, reliable sources.
• Sources, sources, sources. AndyJones (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like the definition that anon (again, please get yourself a username if you're going to pursue your cause here) thinks is "obvious":

• Amateur theatre is theatre performed by untrained actors, not necessarily, I have worked with trained actors in amateur theatre
• ...who are not members of Actors Equity groups is "Equity" a worldwide term? (and "Actors" should have an apostrophe)
• ...and have no formal qualifications. no formal qualifications? I know many amateur performers who have all sorts of formal qualifications. Perhaps you mean qualifications in acting, in which case this would be covered by them being "untrained", though as I said above I don't agree that this in universally true

I also don't agree that "we can [or should] then list as many companies as we like", as per my previous comment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, all those concerns are valid. Also remember that there are formal qualifications in acting which are lesser than most professionals have: NVQs and so-forth. AndyJones (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Britain

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)

Hi Andrews, I've taken a shot at tidying this up further and all comments are held against referenced sources. I adjusted the qualifications issue, and backed it up with the Actors' Equity definitons (its "Actors' Equity" in the UK, USA and Australia, for those asking). I think the page has sufficient evidence to back up these definitions and the debate is now outlined fairly, with academic quotes. People may not agree, for personal reasons, but this definition is well-sourced and we've yet to see a well-sourced alternative (if there is one, taken from an external source that isn't an amateur theatre practitioner... then let's see it).

I feel there has been some clear hypocrisy with this discussion. Unsourced comments supporting amateur theatre have been permitted on the page and allowed to thrive, but truthful, sourced comments reflecting the more widely held, sceptical view of amateur theatre result in vilification and controversy. It's as though any tripe can be written on the page and the burden of proof is on others to disprove it. Surely the burden of proof should be on the original writer to back-up claims? One outdated study, taken broadly out of context, isn't enough to support most of the claims in the latter half of this page. I hope I have now provided significant quotes and evidence to measure against it, in the interests of a balanced structure.

Re: listing companies. This was my suggestion to compromise and allow amateur companies in. Personally, I don't think wikipedia should acknowledge such companies but in the interests of a good-will compromise I thought it's fair enough to list them once their correct context had been established. The most important part of this page is that it represents a fairly balanced view, in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines.

This is the last post from me. I don't wish to become a member, only to help with this single article. I hope I've added something. (129.96.113.240 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Dude, this is much, much better with these changes. The second half is still pretty shoddy, though. Why is it a bunch of facts and figures on Britain? What about the rest of planet earth? (129.96.252.38 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

• I'm not sure I understand this last comment. Is it from the same user? If yes why does it start "Dude"? AndyJones (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that one wasn't from me. Goodluck with the article everyone!(129.96.113.23 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I am pleased to comment that this article has been greatly improved! (123.2.53.91 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Further Discussion of the Purpose of this Page

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)

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)

Thanks Andrew. I haven't "heard" any further objections. I think it would be reasonable to move the whole "Definition of Amateur Perfomer" to the end of the article so that it leads with the facts about Amateur Theatre as an institution (whether it is art we can argue about over a pint) in both the UK and then the US (since the UK has been around a bit longer). I still have not seen a lot of citations of articles which provide definitive proof that amateur theatre is universally derided by members of the professional theatre world. Bill Wtp512 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New person here. To be frank with everyone speaking above, you have to be realistic about the function of amateur theatre as an institution. We seem to be asking only the opinion of those who are in amateur theatre, and that is clearly a biased perspective. I myself have been involved with both amateur companies and professional companies in NSW. Of course there is a difference in the quality of the work! Professional companies have standards in all aspects of their productions because, let's face it, you get what you pay for! (If you pay nothing, well... do the math.) I believe all the definitions were acknowledged by the other posters, who are putting forward a clear, intelligent arguement. The only people with "an ax to grind" are the disgruntled amateur actors. We need to be realistic and objective... isn't that the spirit of wikipedia? Look at it objectively... those who do something as a passtime rather than as a profession are, clearly, not going to be as capable as those who do it for real. Some of the earlier posters acknowledged that, and the article is truthful in expressing that. The only reason I personally performed in amateur theatre is because - and I freely acknowledge this - I was not able to get professional work for a few years in a highly competitive industry. As a result, I picked up bad habits in the amateur stage and had to train extensively to earn my place back on the professional stage. That is the reality. Professional performers, as a matter of common sense, don't want to work on the amateur scene and most do not consider it, even if they are unemployed. I questioned that common sense, and paid the price. They are two different worlds. If this article is going to be HONEST and UNBIASED then it should reflect this division. For those in the UK, be serious, when was the last time you saw a fine actress like Judi Dench on the amateur stage? It's ridiculous. (129.96.130.46 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

And I take strong issue with the second opening sentence, These actors are not typically members of Actors' Equity groups or Actors' Unions as these organizations generally restrict their members from appearing with companies which are not a signatory to an Equity Agreement or Code. The unions do this to protect the individuals and the industry as a whole! Professional actors, directors, designers and so on - those who actually want to make a living through their hard work and skill base - don't want to see their industry go to the dogs. The union protects our standards. It is a totally biased perspective to say that the unions 'restrict'... only amateurs would see it that way. These actors are not typically members of Actors' Equity groups or Actors' Unions because they do not believe people should be paid a basic wage for their work, or - more often - they simply fail to meet the expectations of their peers in the industry and fail to get profesisonal work/contracts. The sentence should simply read These actors are not typically members of Actors' Equity groups or Actors' Unions because they operate outside the professional industry and leave it at that. As it reads now, it's slander on the unions. And this sentence; There are amateur actors and groups who strive for excellence, who study their craft and take their performance as seriously as any professional. Are you seriously claiming this is UNbiased? Amateur chefs may claim the same thing, but I know where I'd rather eat. Finally, this sentence Excellence in art can transcend the categories of "professional" and "amateur." - so the amateurs tell us, but where are the theatre critics, credited directors and trained academics to back it up? This is biased all over.(129.96.130.46 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

If I can weigh in, I don't know anything about theatre but what if you use sport as an example. Does wikipedia have a page for amateur sport? If not, I don't think we need one for amateur theatre. I can understand that professionals would object to amateurs claiming to have their skills and training. In Sport, we know there is a big difference between amateurs and pros. I think that's what people here are getting at with theatre. It should go without saying. I reckon also that the unions would think of that sentence as slander. It should be removed. The other sentences mentioned need to be backed up with authority. "There are amateur actors and groups who strive for excellence, who study their craft and take their performance seriously as any professional". Well, says who? Says the amateurs? If they were really that good, wouldn't they BE professionals? I don't get who people would chose to do something and not get paid for it if they're really good. It's like sport. If you're good, you get paid big bucks. If you're not, you play for the local club. Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.130.45 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it friendly

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))

Distinction between Professionalism and Amateurism

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))

As a drama teacher, I agree that there is a very clear distinction between professional and amateur theatre. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) However, let me add that I also agree Amateurs have every right to enjoy themselves and entertain in local groups and I think this page should celebrate that without attacking the professionalism of the real industry. Perhaps some more history of the amateur movement in different countries? Perhaps a list of amateur companies? The page on Adelaide Repertory Theatre could certainly be linked here as that is a very small amateur company and would be better placed in context, on this page. I don't think that the amateur scene should be discarded, it's just striking the right balance with the professional scene. We need to cut all the stuff about professionals working on the amateur stage (why would they? where is the evidence that people who have worked hard all their lives and trained, suddenly work for free?) and lines that say there is no difference. There is a difference, but both have their place. The internet is big enought for everybody (123.2.53.91 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

• • The internet is big enought (sic) for everybody -- sure, but that doesn't mean that amateurs should be allowed to spread propoganda and insult professional artists. (129.96.114.160 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Amateurs are not as skilled and as dedicated as profesionnal (except for possibly an extremely small number). There's no point in arguing that "Amateur is better" because it is for free (which is not always the case by the way) or even that it is "equal". Having plaid & observed amateur theater and musical (mainly in highschool and university), I know it's never the same level as "pro". On the other hand, saying that professional only have the real love of art is quite disrespectful. Not everybody can achieve his dream (we're not in Wonderland), don't you think that workers that use their evening & week end for a "hobby" also express some dedication ? As well as for professional helping/working with amateurs, I personally experienced it with a pro actress & choreograph (I don't know if she would like her name to be displayed) which do it every year and an actor who came to direct us. But I'm not sure they do it for free. Aside from debatting what is or not good for the art, it would be good if someone could write something about laws & amateur theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.75.195 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of the writing in this article has been done by theater professionals and academics. As someone pointed out somewhere in the discussion about this topic, professionals don't study amateur theater any more than a professional player would study the hometown cricket match, so those who have written most of the article have never participated in "amateur theater," as it's termed here, aren't interested in learning anything about it, and really seem to think it beneath their consideration. This bias pervades the article, which now defines the subject mostly in terms of how it is different from (and inferior to) professional British theater. As someone who has participated for over 20 years in "amateur theater," as you've called it -- a term almost always used as a perjorative by both professionals and amateurs, I might add -- I can honestly say that there is very little in this article that I recognize. A good start to fixing it would be to use the correct terminology: in the majority of the United States, what you are discussing here is known by its practitioners either as "community theater" or "little theater;" the former is the most widely-used. In the UK the proper term appears to be "am-dram," although looking at the "scholarly quote" provided in the article, even British am-dram companies are dropping "amateur" in favor of "community." Now, "community theatre" in the UK and "community theater" in the U.S. are two entirely different things; that should not mean that the sole definition that you see in Wikipedia for "community theater" should be the British definition, while Americans looking for an article on "community theater" get shunted off to a sneering article entitled "amateur theater." There should be two separate topics: Community Theatre (UK) and Community Theater (U.S.), linking to two separate entries. The "term "little theater" should also link to "Community Theater (U.S.). I would suggest that "Am-Dram" be its own article, because American and British community theater experts would probably find it difficult to collaborate on a single article because of the difference in histories, types of shows done, resources, terminology, etc. I could be wrong about that, but I know that I myself certainly don't feel comfortable making the assumption that non-professional theater in the UK, Australia, France, or wherever is just like community theater in the US. Now, if you want an article on U.S. community theater, there are people who can and will write it, but for that to happen, you have to stop all this cerebral battling over "professional vs. amateur" and accept the fact that a bunch of amateurs probably know a lot more about this particular subject than you do, and let them have this article. As it is now, I'm afraid that any attempt I make to change it is going to be rejected by somebody who thinks I know nothing about it because I don't make my living on the stage. Cpolo (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of the writing in this article has been done by theater professionals and academics. - Wikipedia is a project striving to be a high-quality, reliable and credible encylopedia, so why shouldn't qualified experts be allowed to contribute well-sourced, referenced material as per wikipedia's guidelines? Otherwise it just becomes personal opinion, ego-driven polemic and propoganda, which this article slips into as soon as amateur theatre practitioners start to edit with bias. professionals don't study amateur theater any more than a professional player would study the hometown cricket match - exactly! This is an excellent point, that others here have already made. Would an article on the hometown cricket match be included in an encylopedia? Would an article saying that hometown cricket involves the same level of skill, dedication, training and attention to detail as professional cricket be taken seriously, or would professional cricketers who train hard and make tough sacrifices take offense? As it is now, I'm afraid that any attempt I make to change it is going to be rejected by somebody who thinks I know nothing about it because I don't make my living on the stage. - if you can back up your opinion with credible, third party sources as per the guidelines then your alterations will be accepted. Otherwise it's just unsourced, unverified opinion. By all means, if you have the material to back up what you're saying, then include it. It may improve the article. (129.96.115.97 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

• • The guidelines exist to promote fairness and protect the integrity of the site. It's a way to make sure the articles are not written with bias and misinformation. If what you're saying is undocumented, unproven and unsourced then it's probably not worth saying on this site. I don't see why this article should be attacked for adhering to the guidelines in this way. (129.96.130.207 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC))And, picking up on the above, why shouldn't qualified experts be allowed to contribute well-sourced, referenced material as per wikipedia's guidelines? it shouldn't be about the person contributing and how qualified they may or may not be, but what they can demonstrate using third-party sources. It's clearly ridiculous to accept the fact that a bunch of amateurs probably know a lot more about this particular subject than you do but, if the amateurs have the objective research to back them up, then that should be included too (129.96.130.207 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC))