Talk:Joint Stock Theatre Company

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Communist?[edit]

Deleted the commie ref as a POV problem. The idea is an interesting one, and is proposed to be merged into Repertory in a section head. JohnClarknew 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Joint Stock Theatre Company is an important British company rather than a generic category (such as Repertory). The company has a well documented history and connections to several major figures in British theatre (David Hare, Max Stafford-Clark, Caryl Churchill etc.). It has also given its name to the Joint Stock Method of creating plays that is widely referred to in British university Drama courses. --Elwood90 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational nature of Joint Stock[edit]

I have deleted the following paragraph from the main article as it is not evidenced, and doesn't properly represent the nature of this theatre company. I will shortly write a new paragraph - referenced - which gives a better description.

"As its title suggests, it was run as a Joint stock company; the capital of the company being formed by the contribution of each member, its profit was to be measured in the success of its productions. Thus, it became cooperatively owned by its members. What their contribution was and whether it included the actors in lieu of their salaries was not revealed, nor was what the union Equity had to say about it."

Skeowsha (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]