Talk:Michael Croft

New article

I was astonished to see that there was no article on Michael Croft, and even more astonished that an earlier version had been deleted because it had apparently not provided enough of an indication as why it should be included. Since there really is no question that Croft is notable enough (the fact that he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography should be evidence enough) I can only assume that the earlier article failed to mention this fact, or the major impact his work had on countless British actors (many of them famous) and on theatrical education throughout the UK in general. I have tried to remedy these omissions, and would appreciate some discussion here beforehand if anyone is again tempted to delete it. Thanks. Peter Farey (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One aspect which bears consideration is the school's own heritage, which you fail to bring out. Alleyn's was established by one of the foremost actors of Elizabethan England, Edward Alleyn, who had an occasional working relationship with Shakespeare. As Henslowe's son-in-law and heir, Alleyn added from his own resources the Manor of Camberwell to Henslowe's holdings in Southwark, and much beyond: so great was this wealth he was able to obtain the help of the Attorney-General, Francis Bacon, who would become Chancellor (who fulfilled in those days the function now undertaken by the Prime Minister) during the negotiations. These negotiations would result in the foundation of a Charitable School for "12 poor boys of the parish of Camberwell" who were, it is thought, in practice the child actors of the Southwark theatres who played the female roles: they needed to be able to read to learn their parts! This would in time become the different Foundation Schools, principally Dulwich College, Alleyns, and James Allens' Girls School. As a result, Alleyns always had a relationship with the stage: when you talk of "the dramatic society", are you referring to The Bear Pit, the pupils' own autonomous Company? The tradition in the School was that one production would be staged each term, once a year from each of the English Department (which Michael headed), the Bear Pit, and the Music Department, which in those days had an active relationship with Benjamin Britten.

If you are, then dismissing the Bear Pit as just a "drama society" is rather disdaining. This Company in my day (1966-74) claimed direct descent from the original 12 boys of Shakespeare's company. It was entirely self-financed, with the entire production coming from within the pupils, in every respect, acting, production, staging (including sets, lighting and effects), marketing, sales, front-of-house, the lot. As a result, the pupils who pushed Michael into the Toynbee Hall production knew very well that it was entirely feasible to establish an autonomous company, as the School seems to have been hosting the rump of Shakespeare's for several hundred years!

Thanks for your comments, whoever you are. (It would be helpful if you would 'sign' your comments with four tildes (~) by the way.)

My personal view is that "the school's own heritage" regarding Edward Alleyn had nothing at all to do with the formation of the NYT, but if you can find a reliable source (see WP:RS) in support of your claim I would be happy for us to give it a mention. That it was generally believed to be the case around Alleyn's in the late 60s/early 70s isn't quite enough, I'm afraid!

Your claim that the "12 poor boys of the parish of Camberwell" are thought to have been the boy actors is news to me. Again, who is it that thinks this? I also rather doubt that you will be able to find any evidence supporting your claim that the school hosted "the rump of Shakespeare's [company] for several hundred years". When was the Bear Pit founded?

I'm sorry that you consider the remark about Croft finding the dramatic society he found on his arrival at Alleyn's a bit dreary rather disdaining, but that is what he actually said. Listen to his Desert Island Discs (8 minutes in) if you don't believe me. Peter Farey (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions re: improvement tags

Thanks to Cdtew for his prompt response! The question of citations was one which exercised me considerably, since the whole article was essentially created by amalgamating the information given in the three sources I cited. To provide inline citations is of course possible, but could well result in just one of the three being cited at the end of each sentence. I had decided that, on balance, the help this might be to the reader (especially given how relatively short each of the sources is) would be outweighed by the confusion caused by such a multitude of note numbers. Can be done, but is it really the best way?

You also comment on the possibility of it not being written from a neutral point of view, and I would appreciate your explaining in just what way this is. I'm not aware of being on any particular "side" where this is concerned! Peter Farey (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for bringing this to my attention. First, let me say that I think the article is very well constructed, and provides a lot of good information about this gentleman. I know you're not new to editing, so I'll spare you any discourse on WP:GNG, but I will direct you to WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, both of which discuss how it's best to, at the minimum, place an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, provided that entire paragraph's information came from one source. I believe that, although most information on this article is non-controversial, inline citations provide a way for a reader interested in learning more (or in citing that information in their own work) to quickly and easily find that information.

As for the prior deletion, I don't believe I had any role in that. Putting these notifications on new articles, however, is routine, and isn't meant as an insult. It's merely meant to encourage the author -- or any other editor -- to do certain tasks to improve the article or bring it into compliance with Wikipedia standards. No matter how new an article is, once created, it's liable to be reviewed. That's why most people work on unfinished articles in their Sandbox space. Finally, as for neutrality, there are a few phrases in the article that appear to express adoration or praise, which are un-encyclopedic. No matter how genuinely great a subject's contributions are, the article should remain cut and dry, unless such praise is sourced to a reputable publication's review of the gentleman's work.

I hope this clears things up a bit! Thanks again, and good job creating this article! Cdtew (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S., I removed the POV tag, but I think there are still a few spots where adoration or praise shines through. Cdtew (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S., I've taken the liberty of adding templates for various projects that are related to this gentleman. I am relatively un-knowledgeable about the theater, and am not English, so I would suggest going to those project pages, where resources might be found to help assess this page and give you suggestions for improvement. Cdtew (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clark, thank you very much for your response, for reducing the number of negative comments on my article, and particularly for the kind things you now say about it! You do leave me with one or two problems, however.

The remaining tag says that "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear" which is of course, baloney. There are only three "Sources", all of which are clearly listed at the end. My problem is in disentangling which of them said what.

Let me give you a simple example, using Croft's place of birth. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography he was born "in Oswestry"; in Weston's article he was "a Shropshire lad, born ... on the English side of Offa's Dyke in the hamlet of Hengoed near the small town of Gobowen"; and in Desert Island Discs Croft himself said that he was born "In Shropshire in a tiny little place called Hengoed". I wrote that he was born "in the small hamlet of Hengoed, two or three miles north of Oswestry in Shropshire, just on the English side of the English–Welsh border". So who do I cite? Should I simply choose one of them and reflect only what that one said? Mine is, I think, a far more helpful description than any of them. Oswestry is well-known; Gobowen (admittedly nearer) is not.

Now all I am saying is that most of the article has been written on this basis. So to find an example of where the "entire paragraph's information came from one source" is far from easy. And I question the usefulness of it anyway. (Incidentally my usual hunting ground is in a really controversial area, where WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY are required reading!)

This was an article which I had spent several days in writing (making full use of my sandbox!), and which I thought followed those Wikipedia guidelines pretty well. ("...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".) I gave a clear indication of where all the information came from in the form of general references, and thought that a straightforward indication of this would be the best way of providing verifiability. Not that I could see why anyone would want to challenge any of it anyway.

As for NPOV, all I can say is that there is nothing in the nature of "adoration or praise" ("adoration", really?) I include which doesn't come from those sources. And I know of no source – reliable or otherwise – who says anything different.

I have just noticed your addition of those templates, which may well prove valuable, and I will certainly follow all of them up in time. Meanwhile, I will try to find places where information provided in the article can be supported by a specific source. It would therefore be greatly appreciated if you would remove the remaining tag, since, intended or not, it does imply to the casual reader an untrustworthiness in the article which I really don't believe to be justified. Peter Farey (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this -- I'll leave the removal of the tag up to you, once you're satisfied by the level of citation in the article. As for cites, I see your conundrum. What I'd advise is that for very basic, non-controversial information, you may omit a cite, but for others (like the statement saying that he had received "wonderful notices" which sounds sort of adoring, btw -- a better phrasing would be positive or something of that like) you may need a cite. People would naturally be led to believe that he never received a negative review in his life -- which may be the case, but nonetheless requires citation because it's not basic, common-sense material.

I'm also of the opinion that CITE almost mandates a citation to a specific source when a quote or paraphrased quote is present. Other un-cited statements like "Croft's reputation as an internationally recognized director" convey a non-NPOV when no cite is present; if you cite a reliable source calling him that, then I think the statement becomes neutral. There is one set of sentences in particular, stating "There is hardly a play at the National or Stratford, or a British film or television series that does not contain someone whom he has influenced, directly or indirectly. The list of famous actors who have started out with the National Youth Theatre is huge. Furthermore, there are few British towns nowadays which do not have some sort of youth theatre of their own which is not to a large extent based upon his original version" that is entirely a mixture of our least-favorite animals WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.

My point is this: I'm your target audience -- someone who knows nothing about the subject, who doesn't even live in the UK, but who is interested in the subject because he sounds like a fascinating guy. When I first read this (and now re-read it), these three things come to mind:

1. Was this guy so good that there was never any criticism of his artistic output?

2. The person who wrote this clearly admires the subject.

3. There are a number of British-isms in here ("notices", "put paid", etc.) that are incomprehensible in American English, and I think they are likely colloquial in nature.

These are just a few thoughts. No need to be offended by a few tags; I get them occasionally on articles I write (including the dreaded "notability" tag), but they should just encourage us to sharpen our product! Cdtew (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Clark, it is most helpful and I will do whatever I can to amend the article in line with the points you make. Funnily enough, the phrase "wonderful notices" was one that I had already noted as probably being what you had in mind. Although it is in fact a direct quote, I agree that it does rather make it read like fanzine! Thanks also for pointing out the "British-isms". If you had anything specific in mind with your "etc.", please let me know what that is too.

One small point I would like to make, if I may. You say "No need to be offended by a few tags". I wasn't offended, but was, I confess, a bit irritated by their appearing (as I said) within four minutes of my posting it, and there being nothing else. Had you written something on this page reflecting the positive remarks about it which you have made since then, and given the clarification of precisely what your concerns were (which I now understand) there would have been no irritation at all. On their own the tags are really not helpful, and could for some contributors be a real disincentive to contribute again; but a few kind words and constructive criticism from an individual would, I believe, be far more productive for Wikipedia in the long run. Peter Farey (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

NYT STATEMENT

Should be included under Michael Croft

https://www.nyt.org.uk/about-us/news/national-youth-theatre-statement Southlondonboy1947 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)