Talk:Little Theatre Movement

Good grief
"As the new medium of cinema was beginning to replace theatre as a source of large-scale spectacle, the Little Theatre Movement developed in the United States around 1912" - around 1912, cinema was not 'replacing' anything. That would come many years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.19.173 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Er?
According to the entry on Margo Jones, she founded Theatre '47 in Dallas in 1947, long, long, long after the start of the Little Theatre Movement. (In fact, one of the major points of the Little Theatre Movement, completely unaddressed here, is the vast number of women involved). The Harvard story seems at best apocryphal. In fact, the closer I look at it, the muzzier this little stub appears. I am so not a theatre person, but I'll try to improve this if I can. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not EVERYTHING is about women vs. men.

How's the Tone/Style?
I've worked on this since that tag was added. I think it's a better version. Any thoughts as to whether the tag can be removed? Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago/Goodman
There is no mention of Kenneth Sawyer Goodman in the section on the Little Theatre Movement in Chicago (See http://mms.newberry.org/html/Goodman.html for a short biography; see Hecht, Stuart J. “Kenneth Sawyer Goodman: Bridging Chicago’s Affluent and Artistic Networks,” Theatre History Studies 3 (1993): 135-147 for his role in Chicago theater). He was important enough to have the Goodman Theatre named after him. 211.225.39.76 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Placement of information on the Community Arts Association, Community Arts Players and Lobero Theatre in Santa Barbara, CA
The following section was added to the Little Theatre Movement page and then removed. Can you advise of the reasons for the removal and suggest where it would be better placed on Wikipedia? Thank you. Justinrizzoweaver (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The part I removed was a badly sourced irrelevant part. It was about half of the whole article, with a long list of sources that, in fact, bring you nowhere. When I did a more thorough search, I found that the piece was very close paraphrasing this. The Banner talk 19:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)