Talk:Shen Yun/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Gish Jen Article

I think to maintain NPOV on this article, a particular message that has not been given due weight in the article's content is the idea that Falun Gong share much the same propaganda tactics (and even imagery) as its arch-rival, the Chinese Communist Party. Several sources have made the comparison between Shen Yun and the CCP's "Revolutionary operas". Moreover, Shen Yun performances (and its Wikipedia page) is a ready microcosm for the polarization that comes with everything Falun Gong. I quote the article from The New Republic article by Gish Jen:

I am all for inclusion[...] I suspect that, like us, many of the audience members did not realize in advance that their tickets were supporting Falun Gong. (The manager's welcome note in the program does mention that many of the dancers of the troupe are Dafa practitioners, but nothing in its promotional advertising suggested any religious link.) I likewise wonder whether WFAS-NY, which advertised the show heavily, or any of the troupe's many supporters (the thank-you list at the back of the program lists some 44 assemblymen, city councilmen, congressmen, and mayors, including Michael Bloomberg) had any idea what was afoot. My guess is that they simply thought, "nice Chinese dance group," and coughed up their blessing.

Meanwhile, this canny arts group now has three large troupes touring worldwide. There is a breathtaking chutzpah to their approach: As my husband observed, it was the first time he found himself paying to be proselytized. Online reactions to the show range from warnings to "avoid, avoid, avoid" this group to ecstatic claims that everything about the show "comes from heaven" and that it will "save us all." My own reaction, besides amazed outrage, included an increased appreciation of why the mainland Chinese government might be leery of Falun Gong. I am, please note, not in favor of its forcible suppression. This is, however, a most worldly otherworldliness, now successfully tapping the West via the large vein that is American ethnic sentimentality: What can a Chinese arts group be, after all, but sweet poor people who of course need a helping hand? As for what inclusion means to them, well: Is not all the world a platform?

This article really tells it like it is, and this basic message has been echoed in the Toronto Star, New York Times, Winnipeg Free Press, the Atlanta Journal Constituion, and various other papers. That positive reviews of the show exist is not to be denied, but these reviews address Shen Yun from a predominantly artistic angle. Meanwhile, many of the articles address the show's controversy focus on the show's misleading advertising and its use as a venue for proselytism on behalf of Falun Gong. I believe these are two fundamentally topics that deserve separate coverage in the article. Linking these two together in the article as though they are 'pro-' and 'anti-' is therefore inappropriate. The position of some users on this page has always been that negative coverage has to be 'balanced' with positive coverage. This is but an attempt to eschew, weasel, cherry-pick, and otherwise obfuscate what has been written about the show so that it presents, on balance, a more positive POV towards the show.

As you can tell, years of being battered and harassed by Falun Gong SPAs have effectively destroyed my willpower to 'intervene' in editing these articles, but allow me to vent my frustration, even if it is just to hearken nostalgia at the good ol' days, a time that I am sure none of us want to go back to. I urge all editors restraint. Colipon+(Talk) 00:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many reviews of the show. If we had some Falun Gong SPAs here I am sure they would trundle out dozens of reviews lauding how wonderful the show is, and insisting that this is what the show is about. The fact is that there are different views on the show. Trying to thrust forward one interpretation of the performance and claim that that is The Truth of it, the one dominant perspective that should frame the article, would not be appropriate or in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No-one is trying to thrust one worldview over another here. I had suggested division into two sections, each exploring a topical area. I don't see why that would not be agreeable. Colipon+(Talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
User:TrailerTrack, whose edits disproportionately relate to Falun Gong, has done exactly what you said and argued that Shen Yun gets mostly positive reviews. Colipon and others have uncritically accepted the idea that the show was uniformly praised for its artistry and panned for its politics, which is not true, because the technical aspects of Shen Yun were criticized also. I came across such negative assessments in my research, but refrained from adding them because then it might look to neutral observers that I was doing Homunculus accused me of; "elevating negative reviews".
Some examples: Buffalo News (2010): "Imagine what it might be like to watch a synchronized swimming team perform in front of a gigantic Windows 95 screen-saver... The costume-heavy spectacle is more of a fashion show than a serious exhibition of the intricacies of Chinese dance"[1] London Evening Standard (2008): "[The show] is dated and sentimental, with comically bad compères, laughably awful film projections and dance routines that would make panto producers blush.... so-so series of dance routines, singers with voices like bags of gravel"[2] Toronto Star (2008): "Art it wasn't. The choreography was consistently banal, with the performers arranged in rows doing identical gestures. The dancers were under-rehearsed and unremarkable."[3] A meta-review from the Winnipeg Free Press (2010): "Arts critics have varied in their opinions of Shen Yun productions, with some finding them dazzling and visually stunning, and others calling them cheesy and amateurish."[4]
I'll leave these here as a starting point for anyone who thinks they can neutrally integrate critics' clearly divergent opinions on the artistic merits of Shen Yun. There is also the issue of many reviewers stating that the politics overshadowed the dance, so the question of Shen Yun's artistic legitimacy (e.g., can it be compared to the American Ballet Theatre) is another question some section must address. Ultimately, however, keeping critical information out of this article in the name of DUE or NPOV is not sustainable. Also, any discussion of the positive reviews should note, as reliable sources do, at least that Shen Yun solicits positive reviews from unqualified politicians, and that The Epoch Times contains most of the positive reviews, in addition to promoting the show. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I had taken issue in the past about "the show has generally received praise for its artistry" but I didn't get too worked up over it. But now that Shrigley brings evidence to the table, including a 'meta-analysis', it would seem disingenuous to leave that phrase in the article. Colipon+(Talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Performers (again)

This is what another editor who edits dance articles wrote previously:

The page didn’t have much information on the performance itself or the performers. It was mostly about the critical reaction and the difficulties caused by the Chinese government. I sought to improve this by adding more information on the content and also giving a list of performers. Looking at some comparable pages like American Ballet Theatre, Ballet San Jose, San Francisco Ballet, and New York City Ballet, it seems that they just list the performers without any biographical information, so that’s what I’ll do as well in my next edit.

That is in this section Talk:Shen_Yun_Performing_Arts#Content_discussion_as_of_1.2F26. There was no dispute at the time and no one called it rubbish. Since those other articles do have lists of performers, I'm not sure what the genuine objection is. Note that I'm not necessarily saying that lists of performers are a great feature of dance company articles. But if it is common practice on Wikipedia to include such lists, I don't see why this article should have the performers deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Unlike those groups, Shen Yun is not a bona fide arts troupe. As many RS's has outlined, its mission is to advance the political agenda and world view of Falun Gong, whether it admits it or not. It should be treated by what RS have reported on it, and no RS has reported extensively about the entourage of performers outlining their names etc.Colipon+(Talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, that section is currently uncited. As far as I can tell its only root is Shen Yun's own website, and as such amounts to WP:SPS. Colipon+(Talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles do something is not a valid counterpoint to the policy-based rationale that was advanced against the list, namely WP:NOT#DIRECTORY supplemented by WP:LAUNDRY. Also, the comparison to professional, apolitical dance companies is very contentious, considering that numerous reliable sources have likened this to pure propaganda. I am not arguing to treat the subject as that, since I know alternate views exist (although mostly sourced to The Epoch Times), but we handle articles on a case-by-case basis. Since the clear rationale for removing the list has not been rebutted, I have again removed it. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I was the one who added the list of performers, and I also volunteered to work on creating pages for them. Someone asked me about my progress, and I came to check on things.

I did a lot of research on reviews of this group, and most reviews are very positive (I would guess maybe 80 – 90%, and I'm not counting the Epoch Times, which seems to be a sponsor of the show. the 80 - 90% positive is also what you see on audience feedback websites like ticketmaster). Based on that, the article might currently be giving too much space to negative receptions and views. Also, most of the reviews aren’t about the controversies. They might mention Falun Gong, because that’s part of the group’s background and philosophy, but for the most part I’ve seen arts reviews. This group couldn’t maintain three companies touring for seven months a year to places like Lincoln Center and Kennedy Center if audiences didn’t enjoy the performances. Also, they wouldn’t be staging shows in venues like that if they weren’t a “bona fide” dance group. Mainstream newspapers call Shen Yun things like the “world’s premier Chinese performance company,” “well known international dance company,” and so on. I haven’t seen anyone say that it’s not a legitimate arts company. That’s a fringe opinion expressed only by the Chinese government. This is a major international dance company, and the page should therefore follow the same format as comparable articles. Comparable articles list performers, so this article can list performers.

About the list of performers, there actually are a lot of articles I found before that talk about the individual performers, but the complete list of lead performers I took from Shen Yun’s website. I don’t think that’s against the rules, is it? That’s what other dance company pages do too. The page SPS says that “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.” So using Shen Yun’s website for factual information about Shenyun should be fine. I will try to work more on making pages for the individuals, and maybe that help. I was working on one already.

Also, to the editor above who said that my "edits disproportionately relate to Falun Gong," please don't make such strange accusations and try to paint me as being on the other side of some war that you've imagined is taking place here. I've tried to contribute to this article by adding relevant information about the dance company, that's all. TrailerTrack (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • In addition to each article being on a notable subject, there is general consensus that information therein also be relevant and notable. A complete list of performers is neither necessary nor desirable. Such lists clutter up the article because readers are at best indifferent to most of them, and that's what the difference between an encyclopaedic entry and an indiscriminate collection or a directory entry. Also having said that, some editors have even added Coryphées, Corps de ballet and trainees names to some of the list, which I believe most people would say is 'overboard' – these are certainly very transient, sourced to self-published sources, thus the maintenance of same more than outweighs the benefit of their inclusion. Specifically on the Shen Yun list, these names are not artists of the same standing as principals, soloists of the Bolshoi Ballet or Australian Ballet Company, so it's unfair to make that comparison. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. OhConfucius, you're arguing that Shen Yun artists are "not of the same standing" as dancers in ballet companies. Several of the artists in Shen Yun were, in fact, principal dancers with other companies (including ballet companies) previously. Several of its musicians were principal musicians in other orchestras, and many of its dancers, soloists and orchestra members have won international awards in their fields.

A few months ago I wrote a version of the page that included brief biographies about some of the more notable performers. This was removed, so then I looked at what other dance companies do, and followed that format of having just a list. I also started creating separate pages about some of the performers, several of them being very notable in their fields.

The credentials and awards of Shen Yun performers is relevant information for a page about this company. It is strange, if not ignorant and prejudicial, to claim that these people don't deserve to be treated the same as artists in other companies. It's a double standard that seems to be driven by your personal opinions about Shen Yun, rather than on Wikipedia policy. TrailerTrack (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

New York Observer article

Having just re-read the NYO article, it's pretty clear to me that the writer is not an arts critic at all, but a society columnist. That angle is so obvious, and it also seems to me that she knows little or nothing about performing arts except for the people-watching aspect. To such writers, who was there is several orders of magnitude more important than the performance itself. These writers believe how "good" a performance it was can surely be judged by the quality of the people the event attracted. By the same rigours that have been applied in the past to recognising comments only according to the commentator's expertise, this "review" surely fails, and ought not to be treated as a serious artistic comment. But somehow, I suspect its removal as will be heavily resisted by certain quarters. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you raise a fair point on one hand. The New York Observer is a lifestyle magazine, and the writer covers topics like that include arts & entertainment, real estate, and the New York social scene. As such, I don't think it would be terribly appropriate to use the writer as an authoritative source on the specifics of the artistry. Fortunately, that's not how the piece is being used. The reporter attended the performance and a reception after the 2011 show, and reported on the general reception that it garnered. In particular, she noted the views and opinions of people in artistic circles (broadly defined, but some are rather big names). Homunculus (duihua) 11:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Update: I trimmed the NY Observer so that it only refers to general reactions (and not the overall "triumph" of the performances), and added a new review from this year in its place. Homunculus (duihua) 13:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop this?

OhConfucius, you're making a series of edits to the page that do not appear to be neutral, representative, or helpful. I understand that you like to make major changes to pages in a flurry of edits without discussion, but I would advise that you slow down and explain yourself first, particularly in an article so historically prone to problems. Homunculus (duihua) 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You didn't state in what wey do think my edits are unhelpful. Your accusations appear to be becoming bad faith. Of course the edits themselves are not "neutral", because the article itself isn't exactly a paragon of neutrality. I believe it's at least desirable to 1/integrate some quotes from the unfavourable reviews, 2/ having a more coherent presentation of the subject rather than have the article hanging like alternate paragraphs being written by Falun Gong practitioners and critics respectively, and the merged of the advertising section tends to create a more holistic article, 3/have a lead that reflects the content. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to elaborate:

  1. The lede section had been previously agreed upon through an exhaustive process of consensus-building. The artistry of the performance is generally praised, even in articles that are otherwise critical. At one point the lede simply said that the artisty was praised, but involved editors ultimately decided to add a qualifier (I think it was Colipon, actually). Everyone was happy enough. Your edits have removed any mention of positive reviews, and declared that reactions to the depictions of Falun Gong are universally negative (this is not the case). Another editor has noted that, in their research, a substantial majority of articles on Shen Yun are positive, as are a substantial majority of audience reviews. That seems plausible based on what I've observed as well.
  2. Content is different from advertising. You made them the same section. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how that makes the article more "holistic".
  3. You removed a substantial amount of well sourced content describing features of Shen Yun performances. You also repeatedly deleted the list of performers, despite that similar content is on comparable pages about dance companies. Why strip out non-controversial information that would be of relevance to readers?
  4. You added exclusively negative reviews of the show. This is the kind of behavior that has led to endless conflict on the page. Each side can and has presented the reviews that most closely align with their opinions and sought to highlight them. The article already had several examples of unfavorable reviews, along with favorable ones.

I respect that different editors have different editing styles. Your style, I have observed, sometimes involved going to controversial pages and making dozens, if not hundreds, of edits that have the net effect of altering the neutrality and balance of an article. You tend to do this without consulting other editors or attempting to establish consensus. On a page where multiple editors are engaged in discussions about the page, I think this approach is somewhat disrespectful of the time and effort of others. I really don't want to see this dispute escalate, and I hope you share that feeling.Homunculus (duihua) 02:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, I go to a lot of pages, controversial or otherwise, and perform cleanups. As I already mentioned, I may occasionally perform same in one large edit, but my general preference is to make a larger number of correspondingly small edits, more transparently, as a mark of respect of other editors. This is a case in point. I first came here to remove a laundry list, and am met with violent objection even though the information, of 75 or so non-notable names, is at best trivial and sourced only to primary or self-published sources. As to the reviews, given that this article's history, I think it's reasonable to assume that all the favourable reviews are reported (note that I did look into the article history for others, but most of the ones removed tend to have been unfavourable ones); I just introduced a few that Shrigley brought up here on the talk page. Even without the last two, it's hard to argue that the artistic reception is anything but "mixed", and thus the term "largely favourable" is thus misleading. As to the reviews on the political message front, I fail to see any review that actively endorsed the FLG proselytising; the most bland comment (other than not mentioning it), seemed to be "not exactly what it seems". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You know what I find repeatedly in editing Falun Gong articles (in the past as well as today), is the habit of declaring this article "controversial", and therefore off-limits to WP:BOLD editing. Edits even mildly unfavourable, unless demonstrably to address a factual and incontrovertible problem, get reverted in a flash. The discussion that ensues is most frequently lawyering to justify the cherry-picking of sources; it also often gets metaphysical.

This article is a case in point. I first came here to remove a laundry list, and am met with violent objection even though the information, of 75 or so non-notable names, is at best trivial and sourced only to primary or self-published sources. It was summarily reverted, but gave my justification and the list was still reinstated with an argument like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although I had already argued that the comparisons were invalid. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look through older talk page discussions more carefully. I don't know why it's necessary to go over this again and again. It has previously been noted that most reviews of the show do mention Falun Gong. Of these, a portion offer praise, most are neutral, and a portion are critical. If you really can't find them I'll present examples, but I'm frankly tired of this. There are indeed favorable reviews that were deliberately left out of the article, because the reception section should be kept a reasonable size.Homunculus (duihua) 03:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have. Perhaps you will have noticed that I participated in quite a few of those discussion. Many of the "reviews" were not that at all, but were write-ups in local papers to inform and promote the show, and we ought to be careful when such commercial considerations are involved. However, as a solution to our "problem", and in noting that you previously expressed the desire to forego the summary, would it not be a better idea to perhaps cut out the subjectivity, and merely point out that the shows have both been received positively and negatively, with reasons, suitably cited of course, and leave it at that? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you dislike the tension on these pages as much as I, and I assume we can (hopefully all?) agree to try to cool it down. I think I acted in a bit of a perfunctory manner at times here, and for the I apologize. Again, I respect the work you do to clean up pages, and you're entitled to be bold. However, I think that it's generally advisable on these pages to follow the policy on talking and editing, which recommends exercising caution with major changes and attempting to discuss and explain first. This page was stable for months, and it seemed that there was a reasonable consensus that was reached. The calm was broken a couple days ago, and we've all now spent many hours trying to discuss again. So much of this seems very unnecessary, and ultimately serves to drive away would-be contributors who are disillusioned by the rhetoric and aggression of some editors.

To your proposal on how to solve the problem, would you care to give an example of what that might look like? As to the list of performers, you have a response in the section above. I think we have a couple options on how to present this: 1) Include the list of performers as is done in similar articles (and as was done before), and work to create pages for some of those individuals; or 2) Include a shorter section / list of performers who have some claim to notability (not necessary of the threshold that they would have their own article, but maybe that they have been noted in RS), and briefly describe their credentials, relevant awards, etc. This approach would not amount to an expansive list, and has some criteria for notability. What do you think? Homunculus (duihua) 04:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I accept that not all notable artists have articles, and think Bolshoi Ballet and Hamburg Ballet articles have an appropriate level of detail. In my view, the trainees, Corps de ballet, and Coryphées should never be listed by name. Soloists, on the other hand, might, if they are very senior; Principals probably ought to be included. Even if soloists are not listed because there are too many or are non-notable, there's no stopping notable ones being listed in the article body or in another section of 'notable dancers'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I take this to mean that you would prefer a list format rather than short biographical descriptions of notable performers. You've specified your criteria for the inclusion of dancers on that list, which is that principals should be included, possibly soloists, but not trainees of corps de ballet. That's fair enough to me (though I wonder how your suggestion would be received on other pages that include comprehensive lists). Shen Yun comprises three separate companies, each with 10 - 12 principal dancers. Shen Yun's website only lists principal dancers,[5] and that list is that TrailerTrack used to write this section of the page. So, the section you deleted already satisfied the criteria you set forth for dancers.
In addition to dancers, Shen Yun also includes three orchestras, a number of virtuoso musicians and singers, as well as choreographers and composers. When I look at articles on orchestras, well developed articles tend to list musical directors as well as principle players. The New York Philharmonic includes a list of 17 principal players. Shen Yun has three orchestras, and its website lists 7-9 of the principal players for each one. Applying the same criteria that we did for dancers, it would seem appropriate to list the principal players on the page (looking at their bios, some might also merit their own articles). The website also lists ten soloists—mostly singers—who are not divided by company, and seven choreographers and composers. On comparable articles that are mature and well developed, these names would also be included. Homunculus (duihua) 11:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth, my point of view is that the Shen Yun page be treated as any other page about a performing arts troupe. The idea that because many of the individuals that belong to the company have a certain spiritual belief this disqualifies Shen Yun from being a genuine performing arts company is laughable. Given that we are not going down that path, what is the solution vis-a-vis inclusion of performers? Is there any objection to Homunculus's suggestion? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, I think we're on the way. When presented with options on how to include this information, OhConfucius set out a criteria and format agreeable to him. My interpretation is that this conforms to what was previously on the page. It is also agreeable to me. If there are concrete, policy-based objections, we may want to open an RfC. Hopefully we won't need to resort to that. Homunculus (duihua) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Since no one seems to object to adding the performers back in, I'm going to go ahead and put the list back. Having a list does really seem to be the right approach. I'll make more effort to build out pages for more of the performers. TrailerTrack (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Say what? I feel that my views may either have been misrepresented, or the definition of what I find "acceptable" has been intentionally or unintentionally "misinterpreted". The laundry list is back again in essentially unchanged form. The performers notability is yet to be demonstrated, and the number of orchestras is utterly irrelevant. In the case of orchestras, only the musical director, conductor and the perhaps the soloist(s) or first violinist may merit listing. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misinterpreted. You said that you think only principal dancers are notable. The list includes only principal dancers. I extrapolated the same principle to orchestra members, again comparing to well developed pages on orchestras, to conclude that principal players are also notable. The notability of the performers derives from the fact that this is a page about the performing arts group. Another editor has also volunteered to continue building separate pages for these people, thereby demonstrating a higher degree of notability. What, exactly, is your objection? Do you feel that a policy is being violated? If so, please identify which policy. You previously suggested it's WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but that doesn't seem to apply (and if it did, why you haven't taken this fight up on the pages of other orchestras and ballet companies that contain even more exhaustive lists?). You may not care who the performers are, or what instruments they play. I think it's quite safe to assume that you have not, and do not intend to, ever watch Shen Yun. I would ask you to consider that your views are unrepresentative, however, and that to most people who read an article about a performing arts group, the composition of its artists is relevant and notable. Homunculus (duihua) 13:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

An addendum: I see that you did consult another editor on the question more broadly (to your credit), and received confirmation on the notability of principals and corps de ballet.[6] Homunculus (duihua) 17:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tour information

I don't intend to put anything together on this immediately, but wanted to propose that the page include information of Shen Yun's tours. The company is in a bit of a class of its own as far as categorization. It is in some respects like to a ballet company, yet whereas many ballet companies are relatively stationary, Shen Yun does not have a "home theater," and tours internationally. It is somewhat less akin to a broadway production like the The Lion King (musical); while they share in that they put on some national and international productions, Shen Yun's performances change every year. In terms of behavior, Shen Yun might bear a closer resemblance to Cirque du Soleil, which produces a variety of different productions that travel internationally (the difference being that Shen Yun doesn't name its new productions; it's just 'Shen Yun 2012,' or whatever). I think this page should include a section that describes its international tours, though I'm not sure what kind of format this should be in. The page for the Lion King, for instance, includes a section written in standard (if somewhat disjointed) prose that describes its international productions. The pages for Cirque du Soleil productions, by contrast, often list tour locations and dates in a specified way (see Alegría (Cirque du Soleil), Dralion, and Ovo (Cirque du Soleil).) I don't think it's viable to go back in time to compile complete tour information like this for Shen Yun, but it may be possible to list tour locations and dates for the current year. Any suggestions on presentation?

There's another issue I noted in looking at these pages (ballet, broadway shows, cirque, etc.), which is that they place little to no emphasis on reviews and reception. In some instances, they note awards and nominations, but I don't see sections elaborating on critical reception. I would be interested to ask editors on those pages if there is a particular reason for this. In the case of broadway shows or cirque performances, I imagine it may be because it would be rather difficult to decide which reviews to include (and, perhaps, how to determine which reviews are most representative of overall reception). This is the problem that has plagued this page from its inception. As to ballet companies, I imagine they don't include reception sections because receptions would normally apply to specific productions, not to the companies themselves. The same issue arises here: we have reviews from several different Shen Yun productions being treated as reviews of the company overall.

I'm not really sure what I'm suggesting, and I want to assure everyone that I'm not proposing a unilateral effort to gut the reception section. But this is a legitimate issue to consider, and I think we would be wise to consult other pages, and possibly editors of those pages, to determine something about the overall structure.Homunculus (duihua) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion: on the creation of a section with tour information, if written in prose form, might it be advisable to fold in the "chinese government response" there, as that section deals primarily with the impact of the Chinese government on the tour itself? Homunculus (duihua) 04:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions

I'm reviewing this series of edits[7], and while some of these changes seem to have improved the prose and organization, I don't understand the rationale behind others. A couple questions:

  • Here editor makes the description of performances less precise, and it's unclear why this is desirable (but yes, I'm sure "singing" was what was intended, not "signers.")
    • As mentioned in the edit summary, the text goes into greater detail as to the performances. This line, as an introduction, is pretty adequate, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This edit removed a description of the songs as operatic. The source used described tenor, and other sources (ie. the 2010 NYTimes article) could be used as references that these are operatic in style.
    • Again, as stated in the edit summary, there is no such use in the source. "Tenor" is often used to describe vocal range, and doesn't necessary mean or imply "operatic". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here the editor removed a reference to an official biography of Guan Guimin and replaced it with a citation needed tag. Is there a reason why a professional biography should be inadequate, or removed entirely? When I make pages on, for example, China scholars, I always use their biographies as published on university or think tank websites. This seems to be the same principle, no?
    • We are supposed to rely on independent third party sources, and the source lacks independence from the subject. Whilst it may be acceptable to cite a university's website for the credentials of one of its academics, or a government website for its politicians, or statutory disclosures and audited accounts (10-K) for listed companies, Shen Yun isn't such a public body. For someone supposedly so notable, there ought to be other sources of biographical information, and as such use of a Shen Yun biography should be avoided. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • [8] This edit, under the pretense of discarding "fluff," removes a description of a component of this dance style—one that has been reported in several of the reliable sources (eg. the Chronicle) as important to Shen Yun.
    • I utterly object to the characterisation of "pretense of removing fluff". I can find no other way of describing it. If "and the inner emotions conveyed through the movements" isn't phraseology fit for advertorials, I really don't know what is. If you insist that it remain, as you seem to imply, it should be in a more circumspect manner, such as "the troupe believes..." --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, any thoughts on the thread I started above about the presentation of tour information? Homunculus (duihua) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


I'll take a look through again when I have more time. On these points, and your responses:
  • We have different opinions, I suppose. It's to be expected that the lede would contain a concise summary, which is elaborated upon later in the article. I don't see why the version with more specificity is in any way problematic; it's still only one sentence.
  • I'll add refs here later. There are dozens which describe the operatic (Bel Canto?) style of the songs
  • Think tanks and many universities are not public bodies either. Is there a policy that addresses this kind of situation more directly? In any event, there are a couple other sources we might use, though I'm not sure what's best. Amazon and iTunes are primary, but possibly acceptable as supporting refs[9][10]. Here's the Liberty Times, which notes that he was a 'national first class' artist in China[11]. I can probably find more in databases (and in Chinese).
  • The subject matter is inherently "fluffy," but it is supposed to be a major component of the dance style. Today or tomorrow I can try to write this in a way that's a bit more substantial. It may be valuable to have a short paragraph elaborating on the dance philosophy. Homunculus (duihua) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've restored some of the characterizations that were deleted, and added some references. In the section describing the dance content, I also wrote up a paragraph about what Shen Yun describes as the components of the dance style.Homunculus (duihua) 18:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits of 15 June 2012

I made six discreet edits to this article today, and they were removed wholescale with this one edit. The edits were transparent, reasonable, and edit summaries were not misleading. I find it disturbing to note that I'm accused of original research – I wonder if it's a reference to the insertion of the archive link, or the permanent links from the Epoch Times and NTDTV websites, or the terms "weird" and "propaganda as entertainment"? I'd like to point out that just because material is sourced and relevant does not mean it belongs. I've made clear I found a problem with one of the sources. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we must have been involved in an edit conflict. Are you familiar with the WP:BRD cycle? My understanding is that, if you are bold, and are then reverted with reasonable cause, the onus is on you to initiate a discussion before simply reverting back. Am I mistaken in my interpretation of that guideline?

These were your edits:

  • [12][13] — Original research? I'm interested in learning the rationale. Once I understand what you're trying to accomplish by pointing this out, maybe I could recommend better or more appropriate ways to present this information.
  • [14] — Removing sourced and relevant content from lede. Edit summary says it's "meaningless." How is it meaningless? To whom?
  • [15] — Adds exclusively negative reviews into lede, out of proportion with the opinions expressed by reliable sources. As has been said and demonstrated numerous times before: some reviewers don't like the Falun Gong content, some are neutral, some like it. To highlight only the negative reviews is not compliant with WP:NPOV. A person holding the opposite views from your could just as easily go to the lede and selectively quote reviewers saying that the performance soul-stirring and delightful. We're not going to do that.
  • [16] — deletes a review from an arts critic at a major newspaper by calling it "an obvious advertorial write-up to publicise and sell tickets for the show". Basically calling into the question the editorial independence and integrity of the newspaper without evidence. Not appropriate.
  • [17] — moves mission statement out of lede. I don't know why how this is supposed to be beneficial.

None of these changes seems constructive to me. Homunculus (duihua) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I think it would be beneficial if you did more to explain your thoughts on how your edits are improvements to the page. What Homunculus says about BRD is right - you could offer an olive branch by first explaining what your thinking is about how your proposed changes are improvements. I hope you don't mind if I suggest that you undo your edit while it's being discussed. Otherwise, I await your response to Homunculus's queries. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    1. I'm not synthesising anything, nor am I trying to develop any new ideas with unsourced information. The banners are fact, and the links are reliable enough for the purposes of establishing its promotional strategies, and the links prove it. Why do you object to the inclusion?
    2. If you quote me, I thank you for being more precise. I said "remove meaningless name-dropping from lead". Information like this is 'meaningless' because it is a list of commercial venues, that happily take money for whatever use the hirers desire. So long as money gets paid, the owners don't really care all that much what goes on (within limits, of course); it's not their responsibility to ensure that any seats get sold, and they don't care. What the paragraph seems to do is to drop these names, in the hopes that some of the prestige associated with these venues rubs off onto the troupe – that's what makes it promotional.
    3. Problem is that the serious reviews from credible reviewers are almost universally negative about the propagandistic elements of the performance; there are plenty of glowing reviews on the Shen Yun website, but none are independent.
    4. As for the "review from an arts critic at a major newspaper", I would hesitate to call it any sort of meaningful critical (in the larger sense of the word) review. It was written with the sole objective of publicising the performance, and even has theatre details, times and ticket prices. Anyway, I've raised the issue at NPOVN.
    5. Mission statements are by definition promotional. They are externally-facing pronouncements that declare what you want to do, but not necessarily what you manage to achieve, so have no place in an encyclopaedia. I have removed quite a few of them in the past in other articles, and I have never had any complaints before. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • PS, I don't go for such niceties as "olive branches", especially now. I would respectfully decline as my reverting myself would make it appear that I actually approve of them being there, which I don't. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm sure it would still be considered "a revert", don't you? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the first point, I'm not objecting per se, I just don't understand. For example, it is a fact that there are Shen Yun ads on buses in my city. I could probably find a link to some primary source to prove it. Should I do that? Probably not. It's just kind of weird. It would be better to state that the Epoch Times and NTDTV are sponsors of the show, and provide evidence of that. I don't actually know if that's true; it's just an example, but it makes more sense that just indiscriminately pointing out to readers the places where Shen Yun advertising banners appear.
  • Your edits to the lede had the effect of stripping out important, neutral, and reliably sourced information. Information on the international tour and venues is factual, unembelished, and reliably sourced.
  • Regarding the mission statement, my understanding is that lengthy mission statements, or those that are devoid of real substance, are of little value. However, there are a number of secondary sources that have noted and elaborated upon Shen Yun's mission as being a source of notability. I can add it back in with secondary, rather than primary sources.
  • For the nth time, it is not true that "credible reviewers" are almost universally negative. Read the Globe and Mail, the Chicago Tribune, the Pioneer Press, the Huffington Post, New York Observer, etc. They are not negative. It is not helpful to selectively quote only the worst reviews in the lede, as though it were representative. It is especially unhelpful to remove neutral information from the lede, and then add highly negative information. Do you think this is consistent with NPOV policies?
  • Regarding your deletion of the Pioneer Press: it is standard practice for theater reviews to include information on venues, show times, ticket prices, etc. The inclusion of this information is not evidence that a review is an "advertorial". This is a review published by a respectable newspaper, and written by one of the paper's regular arts critics. Homunculus (duihua) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • By all means write about the trolleybus adverts. Even better if you have a photo to put in. ;-) The Globe & Mail write-up is probably good enough as a source to say it's production by NTDTV, which could be mentioned. But sponsorship??
    • I have no objections to mentions of the countries where they have played, but I don't see how I'm stripping out "important, neutral" information. I already told you why name-dropping isn't acceptable.
    • Almost all mission statements and corporate mottos and slogans, however long, lack substance. They are an element of corporate strategy to give clarity of leadership, and to motivate. They are management tools that have become marketing tools too. If you think you can find secondary sources making references to same, we could consider them. Anyhoo, I didn't delete it. I only moved it down the page.
    • I think that my edit was not inaccurate. I cannot see how any of the pieces you point out support the assertion – in the lead, no less – that "inclusion of political and religious content ... has drawn mixed reactions from critics." None of the pieces you referred to make any critical commentary on the politics of the message; whilst some couch the political content in factual terms, some don't even mention it at all. If some of them support/endorse the political content, we could perhaps justify using the term 'mixed reviews' – meaning good and bad, but there's nothing "mixed" about them based on available reviews at present. I would note en passant that the Globe and SF Chronicle pieces are write-ups – and suffer from the same issues as the Pioneer piece. If you object to the use of selective quotes from two true 'reviews', you could consider once again removing summary statements, like you did here.
    • People generally ignore advertiorials. I know I do, but these may be in a less 'offensive' category. Without meaning to patronise, write-ups usually appear in 'city' or 'lifestyle' sections, and their purpose is to tease the reader to looking in to what performances might be on offer in the city at a given time. They need to give sufficient information as to accessibility. Many of these use copy from the organising outfit, or rely on celeb interviews with one or more of the stars; the writer doesn't always see the performance beforehand – and that's what distinguishes a 'write-up' from a 'review'. There are the inevitable commercial considerations that make such pieces unsatisfactory as 'critical reviews'. That probably explains why there is little mention of the political message. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The Pioneer Press article was a theater review. The reviewer obviously had seen the show, and was reviewing it. It was not a promotional piece or advertorial. It was published in the entertainment section of the paper's website (and presumably in print). The reviewer is a regular arts critics for the paper. Advertorials are advertisements, and are labelled as such. Calling an editorial review an "advertorial" is tantamount to impugning the editorial integrity of the newspaper and/or the reviewer. The Globe and Mail piece was not a "write-up" either. It was a theater review. It seems like the only criteria you are using to differentiate "reviews" from "write ups" is whether the content conforms to your personal opinions. Negative reviews are "true reviews." Positive ones are "write-ups." No.Homunculus (duihua) 16:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You know, I wouldn't be quite so offended if you had told me that you felt I had been patronising. Your rhetoric obviously indicates the impasse is beyond cure--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

POV Template

There are several sources cited that indicate the propagandist nature of these performances and organization. However, the article fails to have a sufficient section dedicated to this information. Edits are often changed to eliminate criticisms or 'negative' aspects of the performances/organization. The article is biased towards organization's information and desired portrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2A80:535:3121:6B89:75F3:6EF2 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the anonymous user 2601:A:2A80:535:3121:6B89:75F3:6EF2 puts the same POV mark onto the Karl Marx page, which is even more 'propagandist' and has no criticism section, he should remain quiet. DavidNavara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The sniping is hardly called for. That said, the article does already seem to represent the various viewpoints out there on this dance group. So I'm not clear on what is lacking specifically. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception Section

I made some edits to the reception section, which I assumed was the section that brought about the neutrality thingy at top of the article. But my edits were reverted right away. To me, this whole section is unnecessary. You don't see anything like this on other performance companies like American Ballet Theatre, Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, or National Symphony Orchestra. This shouldn't be a forum for airing praise or criticism. Some of the content in there seems like it may have some relevance, but any points that it makes are fairly well represented elsewhere on the page. If this is the section that has neutrality problems and this a section that is out of place when compared to other articles on performance companies, then why is there? Also, reviews would be about the show itself, which changes every year. So a review from five years ago was discussing a totally different show. Not only that, the reviews are about one performance of one show. So they really seem misplaced in an article about the company. For something like a broadway show or the Radio City Christmas Spectacular, I could maybe undertand it. But if you look at The Lion King (musical), you only see awards listed, not reviews. And there isn't anything like that Radio City Christmas Spectacular. Awards make sense, reviews that describe the content of the show (not critiquing it, but describing it) seem relevant, but just putting in a section on he said, she said is weird.

The neutrality issue is in the inclusion of criticisms if you ask me. But to be fair, the positives should also go. I assume this section took shape precisely because people were like "if you have praise, you have to have criticism," which doesn't totally hold water as an argument. It's kind of like how in a biography article you wouldn't include statements from people that didn't like someone just to balance out the fact that you have quotes from his friends. Anyway, content should be on the page if it is illuminating, not muddying. Does the reader understand more about the company after reading this? Is it appropriate? What are other arts companies doing? Those are the questions we should ask.

Anyways, I almost never get into stuff like this, but I just saw the show in San Francisco, and when I saw the note at the top of the page I thought I'd help out. Apparently edits aren't welcome here even though there was a note asking for them at the top of the page. I mean c'mon, make up your mind. So anyway, I'll just make this suggestion about removing the reception section and go on with my life. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.226.134 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the points above make a little sense to me. However, there is one major difference between this group and the others you mentioned, and that is that this group has, in numerous reliable sources, been indicated to be very directly and immediately linked to what has been called, among other things, a political advocacy group, specifically, Falun Gong. Becaise that difference does exist, it makes sense that the content of the article should also be adjusted to reflect that informtion. If any of the groups you mentioned above were according to independent reliable sources significantly supported by, perhaps, the state of Israel, of the NAACP, or some sort of homosexual rights group, or a political party, or any other group which would have a clear broader agenda, my guess is that those articles would more closely resemble this one. Because this group does have that clear link, however, it does somewhat devalue the positive criticim it receives from Falun Gong supporters or through other Falun Gong-related media, which clearly are not completely neutral regarding a group with the same affiliations they have. While it might not be a really bad idea to start an RfC and ask for input from Theatre-related discussion groups, based on the coverage this group has received in the media, it seems to me anyway that WP:WEIGHT, which does seem to have to be applied differently in this case than in those of groups without similar clear associations, is, more or less, being applied in a basically acceptable way in this article. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
@(talk) Shen Yun works as an open company. Let's have a look to this, they are hiring musicians on professional skills basis and with no regards of personals beliefs. To me, the Receiption section is only gathering different critics, which sounds more like a news paper's investigation to weight the pros and the cons. If we want a neutral section on people personal feelings about this show, then it's quite like making advertisement, even if we try to balance it this or that way. I think it doesn't match with Wikipedia's project, thereby, I propose to erase this section. Davives (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The OP is comparing apples to oranges. Shen Yun is different than the performances listed above because Shen Yun is allegedly associated with a political advocacy organization. (See Shen Yun: Politics behind the performance) A better comparison is to compare Shen Yun to Hamilton (musical), a politically oriented musical that does have a critical response section. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reception

This article needs a reception section to describe the positive and controversial things being said about this performance. Here are a few articles.

Waters.Justin (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite an interesting assortment to make a reception section with. But judging from the page's recent history, it's going to be an uphill battle against Shen Yu Performing Arts watchdogs to keep this sort of section in it. --Elnon (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


More reliable sources that review the performance and its association with the Falun Gong movement.

Waters.Justin (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

Does it strike anybody else as bizarre that the "reviews" section merely says that various people and publications have written reviews of Shen Yun performances, but doesn't even give any summary of what the reviews said? 69.73.57.117 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

This article probably even needs a Controversy section. A friend went to one of Shen Yun's show in Canada and showed me the program book. Apparently a song was sung in Chinese which included lyrics lambasting Atheists and calling it a "darkness" in society. The Falun Gong opposes the Chinese Communist Party, sure, but should not spread hatred in public performances! 99.248.0.198 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you expect from those evil cultists? All they know is hatred. At the same time they portray themselves as poor victims who need pity. They mask their true intentions with cultural events to misguide foreigners and overseas Chinese. Since Wikipedia and other mainstream platforms are infiltrated by Falun Gong, there is no chance major criticism will be allowed on articles connected to any branches of their political organization. --188.99.188.82 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Added inclusion of remarkably bigoted material, with citation. The topic would benefit from expansion.Mavigogun (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations should be made to reliable sources (not theater program books).... whether or not the material is remarkably bigoted (we try to edit with a neutral point of view here). Happy monsoon day 21:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In what way is the published program book from the performance not a reliable source? It is the primary documentation of the performance, listing performer, composer, lyrics. What, exactly, are you claiming is inadequate?Mavigogun (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Photographs

Some pictures mentioning 'Shen Yun' are available in Wikimedia Commons. Are they from Shen Yun Performing Arts?

Anna An-yun 563-298 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC).

They do look like Shen Yun. Files categorized on Commons. Commons cat template added to article. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

These photos are not in the style of Shen Yun (lots of red, elderly performer) and one source (http://archive.kitsapsun.com/northwest-navy-life/asian-pacific-islander-heritage-celebrated-at-nse-ep-492306096-356085471.html) describes the group as being based in Seattle, whereas Shen Yun Performing Arts is based in NY. It's possible the dancers in these pictures are with a different group using the same name. -- anonymous, April 29 2019

Requested move 19 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 07:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Shen Yun Performing Arts → Shen Yun – It is the common name. 67.149.246.163 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

discuss

hello, @Tsumikiria:. I think it's should be edited precisely according to content form prominent sources, and no original research.

WP:No original research：
【Using sources】"Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. "
【Synthesis of published material】："Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. "
for example,
  1. User worte "The 2018 performance includes lyrics disparaging atheism and belief in evolution as "sins", and is a common complaint of attendees of the performance. "----Is it a "common complaint"? Did the two sources say this content? and the report did not say "sin, atheism and belief in evolution". The edit is misleading and ORIGINAL RESEARCH .
  2. this source[18](Walter Whittemore wrote on The Ledger). First, It's just a vert short opinion article by a non-expert, and what he mentioned was about the faith but not to the content. Second,If his opinion is about the faith, It's not a review to program. and also not a expert in this faith area. Not a reliable source.
  3. After the two above, the User worte in the page that "As of December 2018, the critized content was still present in the show."-----But this Misleads readers, and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. There is no mentioning of aliens in the show, nor is homosexuals. No sources said that in the program content.
  4. For example, If you see a show performed by actress/dancers with Catholic faith, the review should be about her performance or her faith? Indeed, the Users further created self-opinions away from the sources, it's Original Research. and I think if we edit about faith. especially a faith persecuted by Communist Party Totalitarian Regime , we should edit carefully.
  5. User wrote "Reviewers characterized these contents as an "anti-evolution", "religious sermon", and "cult propaganda"."-----
    1. But in the only one source[19], the writer did not say that,　he just quote a comment from YELP, it's not his viewpoint, it's not "reviewers".
    2. and the same source quote The Guardian to oppose the CCP's(Chinese Communist Party regime) label to Falun Gong,-----【The Guardian reports "there's no evidence of the kind of coercive control that the label suggests." Besides, it's not like the Chinese government has a stellar human rights record. According to Shen Yun's website, many of the dance company's members were persecuted and tortured for practicing Falun Gong in China....Thousands of practitioners were imprisoned or in some cases tortured.】
  6. User wrote "Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers. Kristin Tillotson from Star Tribune wrote that "Beneath all the colorful costume changes, pounding drumbeats and relentlessly repetitious acrobatic movements lies a political undercurrent that feels more like propaganda than straightforwardly presented cultural heritage."----But Kristin Tillotson did not say "Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers"
  7. User use this source"Li, Hongzhi (2018). 2019 Shen Yun, Houston 26, 2018-January 16, 2019. Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. p. 132."----What's it? Where's it? I can not find it out(a book? program book with 132 pages?),and I doubt if correctly used?Wetrace (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Not necessarily "sins", it might be quoted from a disseminated lyric sheet. The New Yorker article did wrote "'Atheism and evolution are deadly ideas. Modern trends destroy what makes us human,' he sang.", which still could be summarized as "disparagement of atheism and evolution" Chron article also displays Yelp reviews, including sermon against evolution [...] anti-evolution statements were made on screen, and a song that Darwin theory lead people to nowhere.
  2. The Ledger is a reliable source, use WP:RSN if you have complaints, and this article from it is a legitimate review. It was indeed about how the content of this show constitute Falun Gong propaganda. What we got was two hours of propaganda for a movement dating all the way back to 1991. The banner summarized it succinctly for those dulled by tedious musical compositions, cartoon-like computer graphics, trap doors or flashy colors: “Falun Dafa is Good.
  3. Jia Tolentino watched this show in December 2018, around Christmas. Her account verifies such content.
  4. What user are you referring to? No one said anything about the faith of its performers. Falun Gong is no more persecuted by the CPC than other religious groups, this is not a reason we give them some special treatment here.
  5. An RS quoting primary sources like tweets and yelp reviews is still RS. We just can't cite Twitter and Yelp directly.
  6. This defense for a new religious movement appears to be unrelated to the performance it created.
  7. Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers. This is summary of multiple sources.
  8. That appears to be an article, leaflet or lyric sheet published by Falun Gong itself. It may only be used to supply other secondary sources, but it may not be accessible. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
My comments to some of the questionable statements from user Tsumikiria:
  1. . User Tsumikiria said "No one said anything about the faith of its performers". But the Ledger lines quoted in the page did attack the faith saying "...claims the earth was inhabited by aliens, demonizes atheists and homosexuals, and condemns mixed marriages". In fact, these lines are not related to this page on one hand, as there is no such a content in the show. On the other hand, such attacks have long been debunked by scholars in this area. For example: In discussing the portrayal of Falun Gong as "anti-gay," Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.[20] Noah Porter noted in his book [21]:“After doing some more reading and thinking, I came to a few conclusions: I realized that Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others in a way that I would find objectionable. For example, they would not prevent a biology or astronomy professor from teaching evolution or a more mundane origin and composition for the moon, nor would they take any action against rock musicians.” As to the concern over Falun Gong’s teachings on distinct heavens for people of different races, this aspect of the practice’s cosmology is "in no way amounts to an endorsement of racial purity," and in fact many Falun Gong practitioners have interracial children.
  2. . User Tsumikiria said "Falun Gong is no more persecuted by the CPC than other religious groups, this is not a reason we give them some special treatment here." These words are not true. a. According to the Freedom House's statement [22], "The intractable nature of the CCP’s campaign against Falun Gong presents unique challenges for advocates, policymakers, and victims. Tools available when dealing with other large-scale human rights violations in China are not feasible. The openness and occasional compromise that Chinese officials display when dealing with workers’ rights, discrimination against Hepatitis B patients, or even the one-child policy, are non-existent when it comes to Falun Gong. But in their interactions with regimes such as the CCP’s, democratic governments must not let the authoritarians dictate the agenda. It is precisely because victims of the Falun Gong campaign have so few avenues of recourse within the system that international solidarity, exposure of abuses, and pressure on their behalf are even more vital. For these reason, since 1999, Freedom House has consistently tracked the campaign in its publications, called for the release of illegally detained practitioners, and participated in annual rallies calling for an end to abuses against them." b. Appealing to stop the hate attack against the Falun Gong faith is not calling for a special treatment. On the contrary, it is for stopping the existing special treatment, as the special attack against FG is visible here. It is not strange. Actually 50-cents of CCP defaming Falun Gong can be often seen on Internet.
  3. . User Tsumikiria said "Jia Tolentino watched this show in December 2018, around Christmas. Her account verifies such content." The source does not say there are contents about aliens and anti homosexual in the show. But your edits on the page misled readers to believe so. This is original research. What user Wetrace stated "There is no mentioning of aliens in the show, nor is homosexuals. No sources said that in the program content." is correct.
  4. . User Tsumikiria said: "That appears to be an article, leaflet or lyric sheet published by Falun Gong itself". The source "Li, Hongzhi (2018). 2019 Shen Yun, Houston 26, 2018-January 16, 2019. Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. p. 132." indicates this recent edits here is a CCP hit job, as there is no such a book by Mr. Li. In mainland China, owing to the Great Firewall, people have no freedom to visit Falun Gong website. Jiang Zemin's 610 made up fake Falun Gong books for cheating mainland Falun Gong practitioners. In overseas, fake FG books can be easily identified. There is no such a book on FG website. Marvin 2009 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You could as well cite anything to support your belief that Falun Gong is the most oppressed religious group in the world and the CPC is the pure twisted evil manifestation, but those are completely irrelevant on Wikipedia. So as your other original syntheses. Jia Tolentino's account verified that disparagement of atheism and evolution is present in the show when she watched it around Christmas 2018. The paragraph could easily be amended. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
  1. Do you edit in accordance with rules and the source, NPOV[23]?some content is not inside the source. And I mentioned that to you. but you revert it all.
  2. One think something(oatheism and evolution) not good for people, is maybe a "alarm" but not "disparagement ", so your edit is Original Research.
  3. You revert and reedit this paragragh"Shen Yun proselytizes the Falun Gong religion through classical Chinese, ethnic, folk, and story-based dances [3] ". WHILE this concotent is NOT INSIDE the SOURCE[24].It's obvious ORINGINAL RESEARCH
  4. WP:Neutral point of view：Avoid stating opinions as facts.Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.Prefer nonjudgmental language.Wetrace (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
about the short opinion on Ledgar.the man's short criticism to content is very short. But his description about religion, not connecting to, coming from the program. So, that part is NOT REVIEW for program, but a religious criticism　one-sided, and he is not a expert or somebody in religious area(not Reliable Source). (so edit it[25])Wetrace (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No. the review being relatively short in length is not a indicator to remove it at all. Whether the reviewer is a a professional or not is also irrelevant. It was published on an RS, and it was not only a review of the performance itself, but also a review of the company as a whole, which is the scope of this article. I also note you attempted to remove mentions that Shen Yun is founded by Falun Gong adherents in preference to the company's possibly self-preserving and promotional self-descriptions. POV editing is discouraged. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, (1)It's not review for the company program.(2) I do not try to REMOVE"founded by Falun Gong", it had been said in article and clear. And why you change the"FALUN DAFA" to"FALUN GONG"? I found that the association name is "FALUN DAFA".Wetrace (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. I absolutely honored the NPOV principles as I always will.
  2. If you think a WP:FRINGE movement promoting the fringe ideas that evolutionary sciences are "deadly" and "red spectre" are merely "alarming" people on what's dangerous, then you're in apparent agreement with those fringe ideas. Sadly, Wikipedia is not known for respecting either fringe ideas or editors holding those views.
  3. While I do not know who added the clause "Shen Yun proselytizes the Falun Gong religion", a simple Google search would conjure these reliable sources that uses the exact word "proselytize": [26]: Shen Yun is as much about propaganda, politics and proselytizing as it is about pretty costumes [27]: There was a sense of having been lured by the promise of lost traditional art, only to have the Falun Gong's proselytizing snuck in between the scenes. [28] a variety-song-and-dance show with some banter and humor, and a dose of Falun Gongproselytizing.. There is a strong support from sources and is definitely not original research.
  4. The Ledger article is definitely a review of the performance. You're being intentionally obtuse.
  5. You absolutely did remove "founded by Falun Gong" from the lead with this edit. Lead is a summary of of body text and must reflect what the body says, and sourcing isn't necessary for lead.
  6. Why are you even questioning whether should we use "Falun Dafa" or "Falun Gong"? RS treat these interchangeably and the latter is more known in the English speaking world. The use of "Falun Dafa" here is clearly promotional.
  7. "Reception" is the preferable heading over "Review" per WP:MOS and WP:RECEPTION.
  8. Lastly, what you are attempting to do is "disruptive cite tagging", a form a disruptive editing, which is absolutely unacceptable here. Crying "original research" while trying to discredit sourced material in this context is transparently POV advocacy. Please self-revert, and stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Dear @Tsumikiria: you have reverted my edits twice and then left me comments, like this one: "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Shen Yun. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia." Firstly I don't appreciate being bullied. Secondly I strongly disagree with what appears to be your very biased introduction to this show, biased as in using all sources with negative take on the show despite the fact that there's an abundance of rave reviews out there. So I strongly suggest you try to take a more neutral point on the subject. Berehinia (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor issue

I know that this is minor in the whole scheme of things, but where we have the quote "born of [sic] the Red Spectre", why was [sic] deemed necessary? born of X is not ungrammatical or even unusual. Gacorley (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

HQ Address

Summary shows: Headquarters Deerpark, New York, U.S.

However, introduction shows:

Shen Yun operates out of a 427-acre compound located in Deer Park, New York

There are two towns called Deer Park in New York State, the difference being a space between Deer and Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.46 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sure, if you make meaningful use of internet with modern fast speed, you can see for yourself truth in the same time your two minute noodles finish boiling and make delicious meal for body, like delicious finding on internet nourishes heart and mind. This is 21st Century at your fingertip! Oalexander (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Lavenderlake

Shenyun supports FaLun Gong, a religion in China that writes their names on Chinese cash for over ten years for propaganda, destroying newly printed cash, which is against the law in China. Chinese residents have reported to have seen FaLun promotions spray painted in their apartment building hallways, destroying the graceful appearance of their homes.

Shenyun's Facebook page also seems to hide and delete comments frequently, leaving only the positive comments for public view.

FaLun Gong is a religion that promotes eternal life by burying oneself in flames. Yes, you've heard it right, burning oneself while destroying the peaceful communities in China by spray painting buildings and propagates through stamping on bills promotes themselves as a legitimate religion and organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavenderlake (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have specific reliable sources to recommend or more specific changes that should be made to the article? Please note that Wikipedia article talk pages are not forums for the discussion of the topic, only to discuss the article and sources (WP:NOTFORUM). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The story about burning oneself is made up by the Chinese Communist authority. If you watch the video tape about the "Self-Immolation" broadcasted by the Chinese media (CCTV), you can see there is a man having a Sprite plastic bottle. That man was burnt by fire (according to CCTV), but the plastic bottle was untouched. It doesn't make sense because plastic melts by fire. 老坛陈醋 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does Shen Yun get criticized?

Atheism is against Christianity, Judaism and other traditional beliefs. Shen Yun, similar to other traditions, is telling people about the traditional culture. People have followed the tradition for over 2000 years, and the nature seems fine and water is clean. I am not just talking about the atheism, but traditional values are important to us. Maybe there is still room left for improvement, but I don't think it is a good idea to criticize tradition. 老坛陈醋 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Should any of this deleted material be replaced?

Thematically, a performance is broadly cultural and spiritual, though some characterize a Shen Yun performance as specifically proselytizing the Falun Gong religion.[1][2] Doug Weller talk 09:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schabas, Martha (March 3, 2017). "Inside Shen Yun's delicate dance between politics and the stage". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
  2. ^ Spera, Keith (Feb 7, 2018). "Chinese classical dance show Shen Yun is also about politics, propaganda and proselytizing". The Advocate. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
I think it's worth considering whether a lot of sources are describing the Falun Gong extensions as propaganda outlets, as well, as they seem to be solely around to proselytize and spread political propaganda. I'll go ahead and draw a bunch of the sources I posted about on Falun Gong below for easy reference, as a lot of them mention both Shen Yun and The Epoch Times quite explicitly. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Shen_Yun/Archive_2"