Talk:Walnut Street Theatre

Double challenge/deletion substantiation

 * Howdy -- I removed the thing about the "English-speaking world" because not only was it not clearly cited, I also don't like "English-speaking world." I don't know what it means (meaning, even the WP article isn't clear enough, in my opinion, and it certainly isn't inappropriate in a statistical context), and links pointing me to other places using the identical phrase isn't helping me understand what it means.  In other words, I'm not aware of a geographic location called The English-Speaking World, and I'm concerned that the argument itself is a fancy version of faulty logic, filled with holes (Biggest Orange-yarn String on an Indian Reservation!), and the phrase itself is far too open for interpretation than I think is helpful in an encyclopedic context (i.e., define, "English-speaking world"; define, "continuously operating," etc.). Sugarbat (talk)


 * Additionally, a two-minute Google search gives me enough basis to doubt the veracity of the statement, even if "English-speaking world" or "continuously operating/working" weren't too vague for my tastes. Please see: Sugarbat (talk)


 * |This year's performances at a medieval Cornish amphitheatre...'' Sugarbat (talk)


 * ...said to be the oldest working theatre in Britain...Plen-an-Gwary, a medieval open-air theatre in St. Just, Cornwall, has been the site of performances for over 600 years.... Sugarbat (talk)


 * and


 * |The [Dumfries Theatre Royal is Scotland's oldest working playhouse] Sugarbat (talk)


 * Refurbishment plans for Scotland's oldest working theatre have been rejected by the local council. Sugarbat (talk)


 * Poet Robert Burns was once a patron of the Theatre Royal in Dumfries, where the young JM Barrie, author of Peter Pan, was inspired to write. Sugarbat (talk)


 * A trust has worked for five years to secure £5.2m in funds to restore the dilapidated 18th century building. Sugarbat (talk)


 * I think you'll probably agree that Great Britain is indubitably well within "English-speaking-world" guidelines, whatever they are, and it appears that both of the above theaters have been pretty much continuously used since they were built. So I'm deleting the statement as before, pending further, more-concrete proof than lots of people/websites say so.  Sugarbat (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

“Founded in 1809, this is the oldest playhouse in continuous use in the English-speaking world and a National Historic Landmark. As America's oldest theatre, many of the world's greatest actors and actresses have appeared on stage here.”

http://www.explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=817

Using the language of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, perhaps the concept will become clearer to you. '[Nice! If by "nice," I mean, "Huh"? -- SB]' “In continuous use” is “continuously operating” are synonymous. Markers such as these try to use the most accessible language available. "Pretty much continuously" is not what is claimed by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.


 * That's neat and stuff, but I'm confused by your grammar and syntax. Also, I don't know what a "marker" is (in your context), or why/where it's "trying" to do something.  Also, please don't do that thing where you define a term ("continuously operating") by giving me a synonym (“in continuous use”). That's not how we define things, academically.  What I want to know (among other things) is: 1.) In order to have been "continuously operating," does a theater have to have offered a show every single day without a break?  Every weekday?  Every weekday except if it's a holiday?  2.) I'd also like to know, with regard to "English-speaking world" -- in the context of this statement/article! -- whether that refers to the English-speaking world of the 19th century?  The 20th?  21st?  Because you know Liberia began as an "English-speaking" country.  Is it part of the "English-speaking world" now?  (NOT that all of that isn't moot at this point; please see below.) Sugarbat (talk)


 * And aaaaalso, "pretty much continuously" is my personal quote, above, from this here discussion page, and is not from the "accessible language" cited in the above sources I offered to challenge the statement that the Walnut Theatre is the oldest continuously working theater in the "English-speaking world." Clearly it's easy to refute that statement (as both the theaters I listed above are older than the Walnut, exist/operate in the "English-speaking world," and have been in continuous use since they were built), and frankly I don't care where the Walnut statement (that's in the article, now) originated.  If the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission said it (and please see paragraph just below), then I challenge the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.  Here.  In Wikipedia.  Where I'm allowed to do such a thing.  Sugarbat (talk)


 * Besides: Guess what?  *Nowhere* either in the main text of the article or in the references at the bottom do I see any mention that the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission "claimed" anything, officially or otherwise, about how the Walnut "is the oldest continuously operating theatre in the English-speaking world..."  Where exactly are you getting that?  Will you please share that source (AND the exact quote, please)?  And I furthermore find it SRSLY (still) funny that you have to say that, PLUS add that it's "the oldest in the United States."  Do you see where it's funny?  Do you? Sugarbat (talk)


 * I'm not going to bother committing to an edit war because I don't like to waste my time that way (it's much more fun to "discuss" it, here, backstage [as it were. ha ha. Funny!]).  But I will strongly state that I believe the text I deleted is incorrect, and is therefore not encyclopedic.  If you insist on keeping the text in the article in spite of my reasonable challenge, and without providing any of further proof as I politely requested, I'm not going to try very hard to stop you.  But my estimation of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia goes down a notch every time an editor decides an article is no longer a collection of facts, but personal property. Sugarbat (talk)

"Corrected insanely hilarious and wrong statement. Srsly!!)" I hope your other edits are better than this one.


 * You don't have to hope -- you can read them yourself and find out how magnificent they are! :) XO - SB

breschard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breschard (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated deleted half of above conversation
Hi Breschard: I've undone your "edit (i.e., removal of your part of the above conversation)" because I think it's possible you misunderstand how Wikipedia discussions work. First: Please sign your postings on the discussion page (by typing four tildes ( ~, or, for brief notes you don't want time-stamped, three tildes:  , which will just display your user name, e.g., "Sugarbat (talk)").  Second: When you post/ask a question, etc., it's ok for the editor with whom you're conversing (or anyone else) to type things in the middle of your posting in order to address specific points you've made.  The polite way to do this is to indent a bit by typing a colon [:] or two (or three, depending on how far in you want to indent) prefacing such a response.  This helps readers, visually, understand what's going on. (Where I've indented within my own narrative, I've italicized to show that I was quoting. The link at the beginning of each block-quote also helps w/contextualization.) Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to make the above even clearer, though, I've signed every one of my paragraphs, and I've taken the liberty of signing yours (with your user name), as well (including your original post, which was also unsigned). The only time I actually interrupt a line of yours (as opposed to waiting until the end of a paragraph), I already signed it (see "SB"), so I'm leaving that alone. I had also bolded it and put it in brackets (brackets being sort of the universal tool for a writer's making an comment within another writer's text). Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm basing my reinstatement of your comments, and my explanations, above, on the assumption that you might have been worried that people would be confused by the format of our back-and-forth, when the truth is that format's okay, and I've made it even more okay so you won't worry. Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's never a great idea to delete stuff from discussion pages, even if it's your own stuff, because it usually makes things even more confusing for other editors who might be following a discussion. Oh, and please don't forget to sign. :) Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps! Sugarbat (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to Breschard
Please don't delete any part of this conversation again, especially since you seem not to be able to restrict yourself to deletion of your own contributions. If you don't wish to have a public conversation about this article, please don't post comments on the discussion page.

If you continue to be disruptive, I'll have no choice but to ask for admin to help with dispute resolution (specifically, I'll report an instance of vandalism). I don't want to do that because it's the least fun (and productive) activity for me as a WP editor, so please try and play by the rules so we can all just keep working together peacefully. Please?

Because I truly don't want to make you feel as though your words are being fiddled with, I've removed the signatures I added to your paragraphs before. I added them to reassure you and not to antagonize or worry you, and I have no problem with leaving your words alone, for any reason. Just please do show me the same respect. Sugarbat (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. I don't know why the (my) title of this posting is so big, typefacewise -- I didn't use any code to do this, and can't see any that might make the font big like that. It is not intentional.)

Conflict of interest risk
( Logical Premise Ergo? removed text from this talk page, based on a quick Google search. Please feel free to revert me if you feel I've acted unappropiately.)

Unless you can show some evidence that the Breschard family owns any part of the Walnut Street Theatre, I suggest you are attempting to spread misinformation on Wikipedia and will proceed accordingly. - (Above two sentences may not be parsed unless original is left intact.) -   - Breschard (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A word of advice to each of you: Sugarbat - provide good citations for your assertions. Breschard - withdraw your legal threats, or you will likely be blocked, as legal threats are strictly against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to rectify the situation and avoid legal action. Breschard (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point, you're attempting to compel Sugarbat to put up or shut up, i.e. to either provide evidence or retract his COI complaint which, if unfounded, could also be a blockable offense. But regardless of that, if you don't withdraw your legal threat, you will be blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are perceiving a legal threat where there is none. Breschard (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking about libel constitutes a legal threat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His COI complaint is entirely unfounded and he should be blocked immediately. I hope my other edit is sufficient.Breschard (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the legal threat. Now the ball is in his court (pardon the ironic metaphor). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else I need to do so the false charge, and purposeful dissemination of misinformation, will be further investigated?Breschard (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the COI post made by Sugarbat here is a serious bad faith posting. I found this and this with a BASIC Google search, substantiating the claim that it's the oldest in the English-speaking world. It is simply impossible that Sugarbat was unable to find this on his own, which means his action must be viewed as disruptive to suggest there is a COI on Breschard's part. I'd really like some kind of very clear, firm answer on what Sugarbat was doing with this or else I see no reason why his comments should not very simply be struck. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 03:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid scattering too much, please join the ANI discussion: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.Breschard (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is the oldest???
Both this article and the article for the Fulton Opera House in Lancaster, PA are said to be the oldest. Fulton is said to be the oldest in "America" with the Walnut Street Theatre the oldest "in the english-speaking world".

Of course, looking at the years they were built, the Walnut is obviously the oldest. But was it continuous? This needs to be more clearly worded. Logicwax (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Preposterous! This theatre is most definitely not the oldest working theatre in "the english speaking world". Now I don't know what world the author is referring to, but in my country, where English is an official language, the National Theatre (Manoel Theatre) is thought to be the third-oldest in the Commonwealth, and it was built in 1731! The Royal Opera House in London is as old.

Someone needs to revise.

Sapienza (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "oldest" controversy
The discussion about the statement that the Walnut is the "oldest continuously operated theatre in the English-speaking world" is all over this talk page, so it's very difficult to follow it. However, let me make two points: So, until someone can put some research into evaluating the counter-sources, I have made the change of adding the words "[It] is said to be..." in front of the statement. Although normally we would avoid WP:WEASEL words, in this case I think it is appropriate, since the new statement is undeniably true - it is indeed said that the theatre is the oldest etc. I think the added words should stay there until someone can do an unbiased evaluation of the competing claims. What would be best would be to find a reliable source which itself discusses the controversy and picks a "winner" (so to speak), so that we don't have to do any original research. BMK (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source which makes that statement
 * We have some sources, the reliability of which I haven't examined, which seem to cast doubt on the statement.

Infobox and text are not really saying the same
The infobox leads to think that the theatre was built in 1809 by William Strickland. The article text, however, says that he built "a stage and orchestra pit" in 1811. Also, the infobox gives three "rebuildings" (1828, John Haviland; 1903, Willis Hale; 1920, William H. Lee). How much was changed then? Were these just renovations or remodeling of the auditorium or was the building torn down and built again? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)