Talk:Theatre X/Archive 1

recent anonymous edits
To editor 68.249.3.20, who made several unexplained changes : Hi. Any more background you have to contribute on Theatre X, especially if you know of any published references, would be very welcome. But what on earth made you think an encyclopedia article was the place to accuse anyone of "egomania" and "betrayal"? Please read Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Also, if you think The Independent Eye shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, you can bring that up for discussion (I admit I have a personal connection there), but don't just delete it without explanation. &#8592;Hob 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

recent anonymous edits
The demise of Theatre X was caused by the actions of certain of its members, management and board, and the consequences of those actions. To attibute X's demise to financial difficulties is as truthful as saying that Enron failed because of financial diffulties, rather than the public airing of lies and damaging behaviour by those who claimed to lead it, and the subsequent loss of faith in the organization by the public. Let no cause be stated, since there is contention about that. Independent Eye has its connection and seems germane, let there be no contention about that.


 * All I can say is you need to read the Wikipedia policies I mentioned above. And take a look at the Enron article too - there's a story that many, many more people already know about (as opposed to the recent history of Theatre X) and yet the article takes care to back up its claims. &#8592;Hob 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

back up?
I read the policies. I was at the table when it all happened. I wrote down everything that occurred immediately after it happened and then checked it with corroborating witnesses and my lawyer, who attended many of the meetings, said it would be good in court. I was in the company for thirty years. Do you have any more advice?


 * Yes, my advice is to read Verifiability and No original research. The point is not whether I believe you (though I can't imagine why you expect everyone to believe an anonymous voice on a web site), the point is whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article. If you want to say those kinds of things, you're perfectly free to write a magazine article, book, play, song, blog, etc., or proclaim them on the street corner. Wikipedia is none of those things - and it's not a court either; it's an encyclopedia which is supposed to contain summaries of information from published sources. That standard is not very consistently applied, but that's what we're here to do. &#8592;Hob 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

published sources
Conflict chips pieces out of Theatre X core By DAMIEN JAQUES djaques@journalsentinel.com Last Updated: Dec. 27, 2002

Theatre X schedule exposes rift in troupe By DAMIEN JAQUES Journal Sentinel theater critic Last Updated: Aug. 9, 2002


 * Thank you. Those pieces can certainly be used as sources to show that there was a falling out within the company because part of the ensemble was shut out of season selection and casting, and that some of the company members described it as "betrayal" - which is very different than Wikipedia describing it thus. And it's not evidence of your claim that the company was done in by "loss of faith...by the public". Look, I'm not trying to take sides, and I don't care if you're Kishline or whoever (though if so, hi - I'm Eli B. - still you ought to get a WP account under some name if you're going to be talking on discussion pages; unsigned comments are really frowned on here). What you wrote previously would be inflammatory and unacceptable whether you were personally involved or not. What's in the article has to be backed up by sources listed in the article, not by what you know personally or what you say here on the talk page, and the article has to be from a neutral point of view. If you think you can write neutrally about people you're this angry with, give it a try, otherwise let someone else do it. &#8592;Hob 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)