Talk:Shen Yun/Archive 1

Balance
For a more balanced presentation we could draw from the source below as well - instead from a single critical article as being currently done in the article.

Look at http://www.divineperformingarts.org/reviews/the-media

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cantabo07 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was well balanced before your changes. there was one paragraph of praise and one paragraph of criticism. Do you call this unbalanced? Cantabo07 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV etc.
Having a section called "criticism" demands having a section called "praise," in the interest of NPOV, which states that the relevant points of view be given air. It would be simpler to just have "Reception" and in there include all kinds of reception, rather than compartmentalising them. To give a clear example, what if we did not have a criticism section but just had "Praise"? Would that be neutral? So I think it's pretty clear. I'll restore it to how it was until we discuss.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think the proportion of praise/criticism at the moment is out of kilter; the ratio is clearly off centre. I suggest paring it right back to a short statement of each. Actually, I'm going to be bold and just do that.--Asdfg12345 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I realise I broke the tags,sorry, I just dont'w ant to deal with this now. I have to start doing other stuff. I'll fix it later. I am sorry. --Asdfg12345 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bracketing response as "praise"/"criticism", in itself, would be POV. Just present what notable sources have said .. and the proportion of praise/criticism should reflect the proportion of the same in mainstream media - we can't make it 50-50 if there is far more praise in mainstream media than criticism. Making it so, again, would just be trying to make things conform to personal POVs. .. If we've got 70 articles, in mainstream media, praising the show for one criticizing it.. we can't just go ahead and make the ratio of praise:crticism in the article 1:1 .. could we? Would doing so be doing justice to the mainstream view on the topic? Wouldn't it be a biased presentation likely to mislead the reader? Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I absolutley agree with you and I must disagree with Dili rajeev. I lined out the criticism because in dili rajeev's edition there is much of praise and very little of criticism, but that's not enough. rajeev, in your edition the criticism is a bit hidden. And I believe it is possible to make the praise and criticism ratio in center. I found the ratio was quite in center, before dilip rajeev flooded the article with praise and the discussion site with praising articles taken from the shen yun web site. asdfg, you should take a look at the latest version of the article before rajeev changed it. there was each one paragraph about praise and criticism. Rajeev, it is quite obviously that you are a big fan of shen yun, nevertheless, you should try to be objective. And of course every organisation and company will list a collection of praise and credentials on his website. So if the website of shen yun is your only source of information, then this is not objective nor scientifically. I believe there are as much people who liked the show as those people who don't like the show. the article in his current version doesn't represent this at all, and isn't objective at all. The article can and must be well-balanced, because this is an encyclopedia and not a private website nor a blog.

Asdfg12345, please take a look at the version before dili rajeev changed it. I think we should undo dili rajeev changes, or make the article more balanced. The current version and state of the article is unacceptable and must not stay in this condition. Cantabo07 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way: Is it really necessary that 75 % of the articles handles with reception??? There are many things which could be written about the show and less about reception. Guys I give you 5 days to revise the article or to make a suggestion, or the article will be rewritten.Cantabo07 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that reception should not be a great deal of the article; it is a set of notes about what people think．Is that the most important thing for an encyclopedia to focus on? There should be more on the substance of the show, what they perform, the background of the dancers, why they are famous, the growth, and those kind of 'meaty' details that tell us more what Shen Yun Performing Arts is, rather than merely what people think of it. For the reception section, I think the criticism should be in there, as well as the praise. Whether they should be in equal proportion, I'm not sure. Probably the important thing is to keep it brief, some journalists complained about it, some audience goers loved it to bits. It's enough for these two sides to be represented without going overboard. A sentence or two explaining that the Shen Yun website has a large page of gushing praise from media may be appropriate to add to the article, rather than extracting a series of quotes from there; there is no need for zealotry about any of this. Let's just document things in a straightforward way. We are collating information about the subject, nothing more.--Asdfg12345 07:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find Peter Chastain comment very useful, because it is proposing a structure for the article, and I think we can elaborate and work on that, so I moved it bellow to section . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello guys I'm back from hiatus. Yea the reason why I didn't include praise is because eventually you guys would find this article and add all the parts that are missing (only took 6 days), but now the situation is reversed! Now it's all praise and no criticism. I hold reservations from quotes in the official praise page because I was unable to trace the source of the quote back to the author for some (only tried 2, was busy), and so if we are going to include it can we please source it from the actual source, not Epoch Times or any FLG canvas sites or the Shen Yun official website. That way we can also avoid misquotes (v. Engadget endorsing Monster cables) and make it verifiable. --antilivedT 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The criticism is also there. See the reference for the Guardian and Telegraph articles. Would you like to provide some statistics saying what is the proportion between the negative and the positive review's? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is how do you quantify the importance of reviews so that we only have the most important, most influential ones? Why should the reader care about what some ex-ballerina or some actress say? Should we include Tom Cruise's opinion on Cirque du Soleil? We NEED to remove every reference that goes back to the reception page instead of the actual review, to stop something like this from happening (heck I've already found one, the Washington Post relayed the official description, they did not say it). I can track down the Chicago Tribune article after some searches (and have updated the ref accordingly) but others, like the MSNBC ref, the Performance Arts Insider, Canberra Times, Ottawa Sun references (I gave up after that), there are simply no trace of the original publication. WP:V says:
 * Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.
 * the receptions on the official websites are clearly promotional in nature and rely heavily on personal opinions of the reviewers; Thus they are unsuitable for citing claims about how the reviewers made the claims, when the original claims can not be easily found (no date of publication, no author, no title, etc.). (If anyone know if past articles are in some database do tell me, I might have access to it).
 * I have also added a notice on Shen Yun's FLG connection since they seem to be quite proud of it on the Edinburgh chapter's website.--antilivedT 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewritting of the article
I decided that the article has to be rewritten on the basics of the lastest version before dilip rajeev's destructive changes. One paragraph about criticism and one about praise, that's balanced, isn't it? Now the article have to be expanded with interessting and important informations like Peter Chastain wishes. The reception doesn't have to be expanded. Cantabo07 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Friend,.. Personal attacks, baseless characterization of well sourced material contributed by another editor as "destructive" to achieve your ends, etc. won't get you far on wikipedia. If you see specific issues you are more than welcome to point them out - and that would be a much more constructive approach than blanking an article out on the basis of a blunt, baseless personal attack.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly I do not think a collection of FLG-websites is considered well-sourced, but hey who am I to say so. (aside: don't you think it's a ironic (to say the least) that you complain about balance on top and yet all your changes are far from balanced?) And no, calling your edit destructive is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be calling you destructive. (and ironically, again, false accusation of personal attack is in itself a personal attack) --antilivedT 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Antilived, thank you so much for bringing light into ingorance. Its seems that some people even don't know what a personal attack or well-sourced mean.
 * dilip rajeev, think about that what Antilived told you. I found something in your comment. You think I won't get far in wikipedia? Are you sure that you got far in wikipedia?Cantabo07 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of info is not a choice
The material under the reception section is extremely important. Till more academic sources become available, the best information we can have come from the perspective of critics qualified enough to pass a judgement on the issue. How is it that perception of critics and the mainstream arts community of a performing arts show could be not relevant?

Just to make my point, that much information on the show is conveyed by comments from critics, clear:

The Washington Post says the stories are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," and weaves "traditional martial arts with music and dance."[7] The Chicago Tribune says the show is: “Indisputably a spectacle.. a nimble mastery of traditional talent."... “A dazzling array of costumes, and a crack orchestra that seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation… Bright background scenes underscored the idealized tone with rainbows arching above flowered meadows and sun rays kissing snowy mountain ranges.”[8].

The above para alone can tell the reader that the stories played are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," that the orchestra "seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation." The Globe and Mail review ads further info allowing the the reader to know that the "music is a fusion, layering a Western orchestra with traditional Chinese instruments." There are comments from qualified critics on themes of the plays, that it is a presentation of "quintessential Chinese culture", on backdrops, on the costumes etc. All these are relevant information - discussion of central aspects of the show. The section also carries information on the fact that certain shows have touched upon human rights issues, how the Chinese government has attempted unsuccessfully to interfere etc. Blanking out all this is not a choice - perhaps we could find a way to better structure it and present this under more encyclopaedic subtopics - or we may have to hold further structuring of the article off for a while - that is, till more academic material becomes available.

Further, wikipedia articles are not about praise vs criticsm but about conveying information from quality sources. I wonder where you get this "just add equal portions of praise and criticism, mix em up well, blank the rest out - and you get a 'balanced', complete encyclopaedia article" concept from! Readers go through an encyclopaedia for info - not to see one para of criticism and one para praise - and, to structure an article thus would be puerile to the extreme. If we go by that logic, we ought to balance out all articles by that criteria .. Articles on Dalai Lama, Beethoven, Mahatma Gandhi, Al Qaeda - all ought to have 1 part praise and 1 part criticism! And that, obviously, is not what encyclopaedia articles are about.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dilip rejeev, you are right. We should treat all articles on wikipedia as you treated this article and this discussion site. (look at the history of this discussion site!) We should flood all articles inclusive their discussion-sites with "hundreds" of recepts. Come on dude, nobody will improve any article by doing this. By the way: Recepts have to play a minor role in every article.


 * You can improve this article only by adding information about the show itself, about the artists, the dances, instruments, songs, characeters, etc. I look forward to the end of this discussion and to work on this article objectivly, neutral, scientifically and informative.Cantabo07 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is just an electronic version of the JUNK MAILING they do. They even rigged in a link to this page in the FLG template. This is not an article, it is advertising, by known JUNK MAILERS. 71.202.216.210 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite this article
Since this article is about a stage show, then it should follow the guidelines. Write about the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Currently the entire article consists of skewered reception on the show sourced straight from Shen Yun and Epoch Times, making as if the show is universally praised while th reviews critical of the performance got sandwiched in between. Condense all the praise, maybe link to the official site's praise section and quote only the most notable reviews.--PCPP (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add: the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Good suggestions BTW. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Shen Yun is the performance troope behind the various shows (too bad the shows don't have a catchy, unique name, and in general they seem quite schizophrenic in naming their shows...), not the shows themselves. --antilivedT 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PCPP, thank you for the rational engagement. The article should look like all other articles about large stage-shows: more information, less opinion. Maybe I'll have time to do a lot of the reading and writing on that in two months, if it's not done before then.--Asdfg12345 06:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Source
I'm interested why this source is not considered "reliable". Why was the entire section blanked? Colipon+(T) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of information
I would like to raise serious concerns about the blanking of information on this article. I will restore the page to an earlier revision by Cantabo and then we can discuss appropriate changes from there. It is absolutely unacceptable that users continue to just remove content without seeking consensus and justifying it with completely dubious reasoning. Colipon+(T) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

2/3 of the article is directly sourced from the show's own website. To me much of this is just advertising. I have decided to leave it in for now. Colipon+ (Talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission statements
I usually have a problem with including organisations' mission statements within articles, and this one is no exception. Mission statements are inward- and outward-looking statements of an organisation's declared goals, and the vast majority I've seen are woolly or like a battle cry, like 'simply the best' sort of euphoria. I believe that most, therefore, have no place within this encyclopaedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the convention? We're not here to do publicity for any organisation, but I wonder how in many cases the organisation's self-understanding would otherwise be communicated? I do assume you believe how an organisation understands itself is important for readers...--Asdfg12345 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, may be possible to paraphrase the statement to remove any battle crying or euphoric elements, instead stating it in our classic deadpan. That might also be an acceptable solution.--Asdfg12345 18:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sample articles on performing arts
Hello, please list here some sample Wikipedia articles on performing arts. I intend these to have here temporarily for content structure reference. If you feel you have better, more relevant samples, please add them here in this section. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Musical theatre
 * Cirque du Soleil

Content removal

 * I have read all the reviews posted in the 'praise' section, except the Tulsa, which was dead. It seems pretty obvious that they all have one thing in common - a commercial motive to promote the show. The paragraph at the bottom is a dead giveaway: where, when, how much the tickets cost. Only on reading between the lines is one given a hint of what to expect. "Although at first glance the spectacular might look like more of a grand cavalcade of Chinese cultural scenes than a vehicle for a political agenda, some of the show's vignettes have depicted stories that reference hot buttons such as Falun Gong or repression in Tibet." If it were a show without any politics, I don't there any reason why the Falun Gong connection should be mentioned at all. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Regarding the articles "where, when, how much the tickets cost." => I see that you trimmed the reception section and removed those sources (and I see that in your edit basically you recognize that not all sources, mention ticket price). I would not necessarily agree that when a cite mentions ticket price it is automatically bought off, but for the sake of consensus I will consider your suggestion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "If it were a show without any politics", actually there are human rights issues presented, and the relationship between Falun Gong and Chinese government is tense, yet, I see that the section dedicated in presenting that relation was selectively merged into the reception section: --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to say that the 'content' section is, or has been written, in a promotional or otherwise unencyclopaedic manner that I have put an advert banner at the top. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The content was written because it was suggested by Peter see bellow, I looked to some of the links presented in Musical theatre and I saw that content is presented, also now I see that Antilived is also asking for it "when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page.". Yet I see that much of that content section was deleted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And also it quotes FAR too much from the official website - if the reader wants to read it they can go to the official website itself. See the Cirque du Soleil page (instead of the general Music theatre page) and you wouldn't find exhaustive details about all the personnels and every little detail, when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page. --antilivedT 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is exclusively quoted from the official website? The Mission is refed twice in the text, but never stand alone, so we can even remove that, but I don't see why and the official site is mentioned on the external link section. and there are plenty third party quotes, so the ratio is at most 10% which I would not say that is far too much. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is a work in progress, I will look to more sources and enrich it, regarding "the actual content" there was a draft but now I see that while I slept it was that is removed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a mistake, I was meant to say "it quotes far too much". In your draft half the content were copied verbatim from other sources; copyright notwithstanding, it is simply not how an encyclopedia should be written. --antilivedT 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the uncritical reviews I mentioned above: I found this review, which suggests the glowing praise heaped on the show printed in the SF Chronicle may have been parroted, in whole or in part, straight from Falun Gong PR representative. I put that into the article just to illustrate a point - I don't actually think writing about it in this fashion, including the original glowing "reviews" is terribly fair, and should probably all be removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That definitely does not belong in "critical reception" - it may as well be an ad for it! --antilivedT 10:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Content
I would like to see something about the history of the show, how it began, how it got to where it is today, the people who direct and perform in it, etc. Does the show concentrate on particular aspects of Chinese performing arts or particular parts of China, or does it try to give us a little bit of everything? The Shen Yun promotional videos on YouTube show footage of the destruction of art during the Cultural Revolution, so I also wonder whether and how they have been affected by political events within and outside of China. Peter Chastain (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just BS propaganda. The Cultural Revolution ended 30 years ago, and the current Chinese government rehabilitated traditional Chinese cultures, so FLG is beating a dead horse.--PCPP (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a quite unnecessary remark and uncivil --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it uncivil? Wikipedia is not censored (and even bullshit isn't that much of a swear word nowadays). --antilivedT 04:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cultural Revolution was an act of philistinism which did a lot of damage, some of it irreversible. However, it's the troupe's own publicity which is making these claims about how the performance are ancient Chinese art forms without any substantiation from experts. All we have is a bunch of copywriters for their press office (all non-experts) writing pseudo-reviews full of praise and claims to their cultural roots. I wouldn't have called it BS propaganda myself, I think Spam was an apt description. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We were discussing text and sources which were placed in the aticle. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving ahead: seeking consensus
1. The show content should be presented so it makes sense to list the idea of Traditional Dance, the songs, dances, backdrop, maybe even the costumes, as presented by third party sources and as notability requires.

2. The show has a human rights message in it which is to the disliking of the PRC, so there should be a "Relation ship with the Chinese government" section.

3. Since the reception is mixed, there should be a "Reception" section, which then would list all relevant feedbacks, both positive and negative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Cirque du Soleil for example of similar articles and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not set out to REPLACE the official website (where those stuff belong), it's to augment it. If the reader wants to know them, they can read it from the official site.
 * We don't need a giant heading for 2 lines of text, unless you have more content to add (SECTION)
 * Uh... it already is? It's called "Critical reception"? (and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics) --antilivedT 04:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it is such a good idea. Having such a section invites accumulation of all reviews and assorted trash which third parties have written, and would risk being used as a battleground for who can garner the most quotes 'for' or 'against', depending on which 'side' you are on. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the name "Critical reception" ameliorate that issue since critical reception implies the need for critics, which provides a criteria for inclusion (only mention responses from established critics/reviewers, not the ones that merely advertise the show). --antilivedT 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Antilived, I don't have any assumption of bad faith. Reception is for both positive and negative reception. Please see WP:POVFORK and [forgot the essay]. I don't see the problem, really. If we have "critical reception" does that mean we should have "positive reception"? That wouldn't quite make sense. If you don't like the initial paragraph, maybe you could write one, or supplement it. I thought it was useful because it is just quick and orients the reader to the main thrust of the criticism. If we start of with just a referenced statement, then the next paragraph is just more direct statements about sources, this may create a stilted sort of feeling for readers. This is just my thoughts. I don't feel that what I wrote was controversial at all. It just seemed to sum up briefly what was already on the page. If you can do it even briefer, that's better, of course. Looking forward to your thoughts on the issue.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still tend to think we're talking about a wedding when the word 'reception' is used. Otherwise, I'm not that bothered by it - the expression 'a mixed reception' is used often enough to make it acceptable, I guess. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Asdfg, please read what I wrote like 2 paragraphs above what you wrote, namely the part "and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics" (see for example Fight Club (film)). This is especially important in here because it establishes a criteria, that it must be an opinion piece written by an established critic, so that we can wade through all the junk advertising "reviews". Also, your lead doesn't help much at all - it's a very bad idea referring to the official website for critical reception (conflict of interest and what not) and it's mostly weasel words (replacing "some say" by "the official website says some say" doesn't help much). Since there is a heading already do we really need an introduction to it? --antilivedT 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this quote from WP:POVFORK: "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)." Do we have a situation here where the word "criticism" must be used? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Priorities

 * 1, #2 make a lot of sense to me. There's no problem with the term 'critical reception', but here the reviews are bizarrely skewed to the negative, despite the fact that critical response has been overwhelmingly positive (when one looks across many reviews). This needs work, as the current page creates the perception that the show has ulterior motives, which does not seem to be the typical critic response, and certainly not, looking at thousands of examples of audience feedback, the audience response. I agree that the section shouldn't become a 'battleground' area -- but if there is use of strong wording against the show (these certainly is some) it needs to be balanced by strong wording for (of which there is really a lot more among established critics and the like, and again, overwhelmingly so among the audience) to maintain NPOV. Agreed that these need to be chosen well, so I've started with comments from Richard Connema, who's credentials are beyond any reproach (a well known and respected theatre critic with almost 4000 reviews under his belt).

Priorities should then be, in my view: 1. Adding much more detail explaining what the show is, details of its uniqueness, ranging from traditional dance, song, depictions of Chinese mythology (in their traditional versions), how the show reflects traditional chinese artforms, the mixed Chinese/western instrument orchestra, etc. 2. Deciding how to deal with the critical reception page (Let's have some suggestions) 3. Adding a "Relationship with Chinese Communist Party / Chinese government" section for all related content. If we are going to include that, it needs to be framed in a way that preserves NPOV; at the moment, it is not.

Liketheory (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problems citing Connema saying the show was fabulous, but the source, in this particular case is not acceptable as being a clear conflict of interest. The Epoch Times is a known Falun Gong news outlet should not be cited as a reference in this instance. FG is highly sensitive to criticism, and ET will never publish any words critical of the show in its own journal. Further, being the influential theatre critic as Connema is, presumably he would have written a review for the show in Talking Broadway, or another journal, which we could cite. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
Quoting WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could apply this over at the main article. There is still some NPOV work to be done in the lede there. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this edit hard to understand as neutral. It deletes a positive phrase for the show, adds a negative one, then changes "reception" to "critical reception," ignoring the quote HappyInGeneral provided from a policy page saying that sections devoted to praise and criticism should be called "reception." Just to be clear, I agree that the notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead. But does that mean removing any positive representation, and keeping only a negative representation? I really question that that was the spirit in which that policy was meant. In other news, what's wrong with the lead in the main article? Maybe discuss it there. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, in any other article, I would have deleted outright anything about what any organisation claims for itself, any statement from mission statement and stuff destined for corporate brochures. I made an exception in this case because there really was little redeeming about the troupe I could use. My edit was basically a rewind to my previous version. It seems to only you and Happy have any issue about use of the term 'Critical reception'. You will notice from this that it was there from when you last visited. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, primary sources can talk about themselves... this is in the rules. Of course the troupe can have its own word in here. Cmon. That's even in the rules. I'm saying the section should be called "reception" and include positive and critical reception.. I thought this is also in the policy. Our wires may be getting crossed or tangled :(  --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The word critical does not necessarily mean negative, as you are using the word. It also has an earlier (and linguists say) more correct usage, meaning anything involving skillful judgment, as in a critical analysis.76.14.42.191 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That rational is not in line with wp:Criticism, quote: "Criticism: criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving ahead for 2010
Hi, I've been submerged in work for the last few months, so just returned to this page. I added a current description of the show from a recent review, and moved some content around so it makes more sense. I'd like to dedicate some more time to this page now, having seen the show recently in Washington, DC. While there are certainly varied perceptions of what message the show is presenting to its audience, I think that the core content i.e. dance, song, orchestra etc. is not sufficiently developed here... you get the sense right from the first paragraphs, that the 'political' issues are central the show, which is certainly debatable, and discussed in the available literature.

Here's what I'm thinking. Separate out the reception surrounding the dance, song, orchestra i.e. technical / visual reception of the show from the message-oriented reception. I think perhaps this way we can come closer to achieving NPOV, i.e. not have the reception to the former be subsumed by the reception of the latter. These are some initial thoughts. --Liketheory (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. One thing that strikes me as odd is the way Falun Gong is described as a "new religious movement" in the lead; this isn't quite accurate. That's one of the variety of classifications given to Falun Gong, but is by no means the dominant one. Having it here like this is somewhat misleading. One of the most common descriptions given to Falun Gong by academics is "spiritual practice." I don't think that is particularly controversial, and would suggest it say that here.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I made a few changes to the lead, mostly in the form of clarifying the relationship with Falun Gong (as apparent from any of the troupe's promotional literature), and making the lead more neutral by presenting both the praise and complaints against the company in general terms. Apart from that there were only a few mechanical fixes and the odd "allegedly." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Epoch Times
I added the words "Falun Gong-affiliated" before "The Epoch Times" and Homunculus removed them with the explanation "The significance here is who gave the praise, not where that praise appeared. The Falungongness of The Epoch Times should be obvious upon clicking--here it is irrelevant".

In the Israeli edition of The Epoch Times praise to Shen Yun appears every week. Sometimes it's by people from the audience, sometimes by professional critics. The fact that it appears every week in the same newspaper does make the "where" part important. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * tbh it's quite irrelevant to Shen Yun itself what The Epoch Times says about it. You would need to establish how that is relevant to this, particularly in the lead. Furthermore, the point of that sentence is to say that so-and-so well-known person finds the show excellent, while so-and-so other person/publication finds it bad. the other details are quite beside the point. The Epoch Times is a sponsor of Shen Yun, so of course they provide regular coverage. If you have some source pointing out how the Times' coverage of the show is relevant, then maybe it could go in the body of the article. Until then I agree with Homunculus that it's rather irrelevant; the point is that Richard Connema said it. Adding a bunch of other details to make an unrelated point just buries that, detracting from the article. 2 cents.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehh, if Epoch Times is the sponsor of Shen Yun, a review that appears there may be biased. And what do you know, a positive review of Shen Yun appears in ET every week. Even if it's written by a professional critic, it still has a very significant element of advertisement in it. It must be at least mentioned.
 * It's like those "studies" of Windows vs. Linux, where Windows comes up as cheaper and more secure and all too often are found to have been funded by Microsoft. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the word 'sponsor' is being used in an odd way here. Usually that's a commercial relationship, but here they are both Falungong outfits and that's why one of them promotes the other. In any case, I believe the notes from the theatre critic are in the form of quotes, not a specially written article. I can see how it is of some interest, in terms of analysing Falungong's PR strategies, to note that this journal regularly carries positive reviews for this show, but for the purpose of this article, it is quite irrelevant. So I am again removing this surplus information; if readers want to know the affiliations of The Epoch Times, they can click through. Homunculus (duihua) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not surplus, but edit warring is not my style.
 * Readers can click through, but what about the readers that don't know that they should click through to get this relevant information? And it is relevant: That's the only paper that praises Shen Yun, and it is affiliated with it. It's a brother praising a sister. It's not praise, it's an odd form of advertising and the article mentions it it as if it wasn't.
 * Are there papers that praise Shen Yun which are not affiliated with it? That would be much more relevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with Homunculus' assessment of the relationship between Shen Yun and The Epoch Times, I agree with him on the point that the information about where Connema's comment appeared is irrelevant (for this article). Also, there is some real undue weight going on with the criticisms. Someone should fix that: summarise them, and include the retort from an audience member to the Buffalo News' piece. That's my recommendation. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where anybody's comment about anything appeared is completely relevant, but i'm too busy writing my M.A. papers to argue about that now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see your point to an extent. But in the lead? Overkill. And the stuff at the end is just over the top right now. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another point to be made though: Connema has his own column. Without the Epoch Times part most people (I included) would assume he did a review in his column and then fail miserably to find that particular column (it doesn't help that Epoch Times and all the FLG spammers spelt his name wrong too). His comments were from a NTDTV interview after a show, and I think it's important to distinguish this difference. As for Asdfg's "and include the retort from an audience member to the Buffalo News' piece", who cares about RS and N when they're on your side! Do you want my retort to your retort since you're just adding random comments anyway? --antilivedT 01:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I combined some of the criticisms, because they made the same points. The Buffalo notice was too long, so I reduced it and added the response. I think the section there is more balanced now. That Connema made his remarks to a Falun Gong TV station is now noted at the end. Homunculus (duihua) 01:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is now on my watchlist, too. I had looked at PCPP's edits out of curiosity, and couldn't help but click through here. It appears to be a concerted pattern. I've very little interest in this topic, to be honest, but I can't countenance the two edits I saw. The page had been stable for several months until then. I did not find the material 'advertising'; and the letter was published, I don't see the issue. — Zujine |talk 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about you stop engaging in Wikihounding? I certainly do not go around reverting every and each one of your edits, how about you do the same? How does statements like "colorful costumes, dancing, and thrilling operatic singing" and "live orchestra of Chinese and Western instruments adds a nostalgic counter-melody", lifted straight from review websites, add anything to the articles? Furthermore, how does a letters to the editor statement fit WP:RS?-PCPP (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to harass you, but I find your editing on Falungong related subjects troubling. That's my independent opinion I have reached, based on looking through the details of your editing that others have compiled. This assessment is shared by a number of people on the RfC that I saw; so I am not the one with the problem. Obviously, like the Falungong editors, that's not something you have any interest in changing. Let me address your factual points: 1) I agree that the adjectives like "thrilling" can be cut in such cases, but we should not forgo a description of the content of the performance altogether simply because it somehow makes it seem entertaining and appealing. You deleted much more than adjectives, and I believe all adjectivals were within quotations. I suggest making reasonable and moderate changes rather than slashing. 2) The letter was written to the publication by a dance instructor, an expert in the profession. From RS: "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." I do not think the opinion expressed by that individual is out of place. — Zujine |talk 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your reversion now... I am editing in "bad faith"? Well, that's all there is to it, then, isn't it. See you later. The page is off my watchlist. As a parting comment I would encourage anyone else to undo your edit, pending your response to my arguments above and what resolution is reached there. I am just glad you have chosen Falungong to target, rather than Tibet.— Zujine |talk 01:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that you resumed editing the article. I agree with your first point, I've cut down and removed several sentences lifted from other articles per WP:ADVERT. As for your second point, I do not think that the letter meets WP:RS, as there is no verification of the person's expertise, and seems to be added per WP:POINT to dismiss the paper's criticism. We don't add response letters to Roger Ebert's reviews of particular films, as reliable sources either.--PCPP (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we should present the different perspectives. I can take your point about the advertising like commentary; to be honest, I had not looked at it carefully. However, you also took that opportunity to delete things like "According to the company, traditional Chinese culture is a major source of inspiration.", which is clearly not advertising copy. I have restored the quote at the bottom because we have no reason to doubt the credentials of the individual cited--simply look her up and you'll find out. It's not dismissing anything, it's just adding a relevant perspective. Thank you. — Zujine |talk 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Zujine's actions in this case. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Zujine, If you think the editor is being disruptive, there is a case underway against the user, you could  document edits that come across as of-concern there, perhaps under a sub-page.

You mention above that you are glad articles on Tibetan human rights dont suffer the same level of disruption - if you let relevant content erode out under sneaky edits from any article.. such edits are bound find its way into others as well. Btw, you could take a broader look at the topic, if you'd like.. there are very many expert sources, the article is missing on:. You've got the Avatar production designer,  Oscar winning artists,  a Noble Laureate, etc. Several expert views from the media circles as well. The tab on right here carries a lot of reviews from expert sources.

PCPP, would you mind explaining what about the "colorful costumes, dancing, and thrilling operatic singing" or "live orchestra of Chinese and Western instruments adds a nostalgic counter-melody", is "advertisement"? Is that not a third party sources' description? These seem to be plain adjectives compared to what many other third-party sources use to describe the show. It could be cut-down on the adjectives, but what you did was essentially was blank it out falsely calling it an advertisement.

Its difficult for me to assume it was just another mistake on your part, particularly since you have, without rationale, blanked  other content out as well from the article, and given your history of blanking out material from all pages related to Chinese human rights. Here, the above user points out your blanking of  "According to the company, traditional Chinese culture is a major source of inspiration," for instance.

Asking you for a clear reply because I notice this pattern of blanking from you on any article even remotely related to China's human rights issues. I find it difficult to understand why someone would keep doing that - for me, covering up for such human rights violators as in the communist regime amounts to covering up for cold blooded murderers. Just a personal perspective and perhaps worth thinking on. From another perspective, one more immediately relevant here, isn't continual blanking of sourced, relevant material under misleading edit summaries counter productive to building a good article? Is that not being disruptive? Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, there was a recent article on NY Times and a report on CNN as well, on this topic. A few interesting reviews from experts are in this video "What Audiences are saying". I'd like to hear from other editors on using material from audience-interview videos on the Shen Yun website. Dilip rajeev (talk)

You're right, but I haven't the energy and I don't care enough about the topic. Sorry. I will be happy to recount my experiences and observations should disciplinary proceedings be initiated against PCPP (and I don't think that would be out of place, given his recent reversion and failure to engage). — Zujine |talk 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Zujine, since I share the same concerns as you I will further expand on the issue - but elsewhere - I've been pointed out by an admin that the edit of an article may not be the most apt venue for the discussion.

Its important that things are kept focused and streamlined.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added reviews from the arts community in the reception section.

The refs are as below. Not sure how to cite from a video and the reference is showing up as broken. If one of you with more experience along the lines could help fix the refs, it would be great.



My changes are limited to adding the material mentioned above. Quite relevant, they are, I think - in the Reception section,.

''I'll attempt to fix the sources later today, meanwhile if one of you could help out, it would be great. ''

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Refs have been fixed. Had used the video citation tag the wrong way, actually. The change I made is addition of the content below to the Reception section:

The show has garnered praise from prominent figures in the arts community. Audience response videos telecast by the NTDTV include statements from Professor John Tyson of New Enlgand Conservatory of Music who states the show's "production values are the highest." Harvard University's Director of Dance Ms. Elizabeth Bergmann describes the dancing as "very, very beautiful." Broadway dancer and Harvard Ballet Instructor Cathrine Ulissey says the show is " visually very, very rich. It is very colorful. The integration of projection and new media- it’s finely woven."

Emmy and Academy Award winner, and production designer for Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, Robert Stromberg, described the show as “absolutely beautiful,” and opined that it was “tremendous to see the wide range of different types of performance art come together as ...one big poetic event." Others who have praised the show include Canadian composer Rick Wilkins ;  Jo Hassen, Director of Royal Caroline School, Belgium; and Qinglang Zhang, Former Dean of College of Fine and Applied Arts, Taiwan.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dilip, you are a pro-FLG editor, I believe. Therefore I intend to look at your changes later; don't have time now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Using Youtube videos coming directly NTDTV, I believe, is a violation of WP:SPS --PCPP (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the NTDTV videos per WP:ADVERT. These are not even proper reviews, but post-show interviews given to official corrispondents of NTDTV used for advertising. --PCPP (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean this edit: ? That is likely to be controversial. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say Dean of College of Fine and Applied Arts, Taiwan; Canadian composer Rick Wilkins; Robert Stromberg; Harvard University's Director of Dance Ms. Elizabeth Bergmann; etc. did not say what they did? Or that those post-show reviews from experts are but advertising for Shen Yun? If you want to qualify its a post-show interview do that. But kindly don't engage in this blanket blanking. A post-show interview by NTDTV is what it is - not advertisement. An expert's post show remark is what it is - not advertisement.

I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether the content, the reviews from top-experts, belongs to the receptions section or not. Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The format in which the words of the "experts" gave input was distorted by NTDTV into very short cut clips in rapid succession that effectively function as advertisements. Plus, shoving a camera in front of the peoples' faces immediately after the show will get a response much less professional and contemplative than in proper written reviews. These are not performance reviews as we usually think of them.


 * The other issue is that the paragraphs upon paragraphs of glowing language sourced all to NTDTV/SYPA/their YouTube pages distorts any sense of proportion of positive to negative reviews, as those outlets have an interest in reporting only the positive. Restricting the use of reviews to those in third party sources not only gives us sufficient material to work with, but also allows us to correctly survey the balance of opinion. Quigley (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quigley - its a post show review and it comes from an expert who has just completely seen the show. Its fresh in his memory and he is in a good position to pass a review, I believe. Which wikipedia policy are you stating when you say these reviews are to be avoided?

They are third-party reviews. Who reviewed the show such is a sufficiently third party source. Further we can qualify it by saying: "In post show interviews by NTDTV..."

It is relevant and notable enough to merit inclusion, is it not? - considering from whom the remarks come. And how would you "correctly survey the balance of opinion" when you pretend such reviews do not exist? I just added a cross-section of such reviews. Not para after para of them.

I plan to restore the content unless a concrete policy is pointed out. You can call a review from Harvard Dept Head. We should include it, while stating in which source it appeared.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is this policy called use common sense. They are not reviews in the traditional sense, as Quigley has pointed out. Reviews require a lot of thinking and analysis after viewing the content; They are carefully written pieces that often goes into considerable depths, not shoving camera into people who have just watched the show. Also, none of the people who have said these comments are reviewers. Even the one person that IS a reviewer, Richard Connema, never actually did a review in his own column (at least, the last time I checked). Now since he apparently loved it so much why did he not write a full review in his column? Words said after the show are often congratulatory and carry much less weight than a proper review. That, coupled with the fact that most of the people aren't even reviewers, make it pretty much irrelevant.
 * Another problem with these NTDTV comment is that it is cherry-picked. There may be lots of dissatisfaction among the audience but we'll never know since they will never see the light of day. That is why WP:SPS exists, that is why using the "praises" from the official website is inappropriate to use, and that is why this is also inappropriate, as they all only paint one side of the picture. Independent third party sources only please. --antilivedT 11:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a post-show review, the words of a top expert in the field, who has just fully seen the show, and we are qualifying it as a post-show interview. Aren't we calling to question, based on personal notions, the ability of these experts in the field to judge art if we say "reviews require a lot of thinking and analysis after viewing the content." And there are so many experts consistently saying the same thing.

There are full interviews of many experts spanning several minutes on the NTDTV website. The Robert Stromberg interview on the NTDTV channel I pointed out spans several minutes. These are not cut and spliced interviews as you claim.

Picked, or not picked, as long as these notable experts have reviewed the show such - it is that they have reviewed the show such. And it is not something we could turn a blind eye to based on what you call "common sense." Robert Stromberg is not Shen Yun, Harvard Univ Dance Department Head is not Shen Yun, the Oscar winning actress is not Shen Yun, the Broadway dancer and Harvard instructor is not Shen Yun. Their words are not self-praise by Shen Yun or anything. Their post-show review was published by a particular news agency. Its their words - not NTDTV's words.

We quote but what is relevant and absolutely clear. We quote making the source and the time of the interview clear. We source the same to longer interviews. But there is no ignoring such material - and no common sense allowing for that - its valuable material and academically very very relevant here.

When such an expert is saying "The absolute best show I've ever seen. 10/10." or top Broadway critic says "I've never seen anything that can compare," on video, and right after seeing the show - how could someone say "its just that he loses his good judgement when its right after a show" and that "reviews are good only after long contemplation." Those are but our personal views. When it comes to statements like this what standing does arguments like they are "cherry picked" have? Also, the Stromberg interview spans nearly 10 mins, for instance. We could source all these to long, full interviews. A statement like "the best show I've ever seen" by an expert, at that level, the very top in the arts community, so called "cherry-picked" or not, is absolutely relevant and no matter what our views are on his ability to judge well. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

NTDTV is an international, multi-language channel popular among Chinese communities outside of mainland. They are notable, in that sense. Here their coverage does merit attention.

If you take the The Epoch Times, their coverage was referred to by the Washington Times, recently. There is no pretending these are not mainstream news agencies. These interviews can be sourced to the Epoch Times as well, I think. A lot of interesting material. If Washington Times refers to them in covering news, they are absolutely notable, and reliable. In this instance, even more so.

Further, that is but where the words of an expert appeared. Its an independent review - carried as such by notable, reliable media and that fact ( reliability and notability ) remains whatever their affiliation. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough with the exaggerations. None of these people are experts, none of these people are "top Broadway critics" (Richard Connema doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article). Should we include what the Yale head of Dance or whatever say too? What about other institutions? What about random composer with a stub of an article? Should we include the opinion of every dance director, every academic staff in the field, every single composer, singer, songwriter, band? Where is the cut off point? Reviewers exist for a reason, because no one in the sane mind would care what Snoop Dogg thinks of the latest opera.
 * Also, you said it yourself: "Their post-show review was published by a particular news agency." I am glad that you agree NTDTV, one of FLG's media outlets, publishes these "reviews". Now may I direct your attention to WP:SPS. That is all.
 * As for the cherry-picking: How do you know if they didn't film the Dean of Theatre or Dance or what not from some other prestigious institution and gave scathing comments and then decided not to show them? I could film a thousand people buying lottery tickets every day and discard the 99% of the footage where they didn't win anything and only show the 1% that did win. So in my final film everyone that buy lottery tickets are winners! Is that the truth? That is why ALL cherry picked sources are bad, and they do not paint the complete picture.
 * And your criteria of notability and reliability is referral in mainstream news source? Well I'm sure glad that Craccum is a reliable source since it was mentioned by scoop.co.nz! --antilivedT 07:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you attempt to expand on your ideas/thoughts a bit - am sure we could measure things against wikipedia policy, find a resolution. Personally, I would not compare the Dean of an Art School, Dean of an arts Department in Harvard, or an Academy winning Production Designer for a movie like Avatar with, "snoop dog."


 * What constitutes the academic community - is it not these institutions of learning? What are reviews in the arts community - they are not things that appear in peer-reviewed journals are they?


 * If there are too many of these good reviews, we can look into them and present a cross section of reviews - the most notable among them - simple as that. Anyway, whatever you mention above, we can discuss, measure against a careful study of the relevant Wikipedia policies and come to clear conclusions on.


 * If you present your concerns above, as bulleted points, we could clearly analyze each point, measure them against relevant wikipedia policies, and come to a conclusion.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But this isn't part of the academia! It's a commercial musical show, not something out of a college course. Take a look at List of the longest-running Broadway shows. Out of the top 10 only 1 article has a receptions section. They only list awards (eg. Tony Awards) and the information on the show itself. The one that does have a reception section, Oh! Calcutta!, has a review by a well known critic published in his own column. It analyses the play, goes into significant depth on the strengths and weaknesses of the play, explains how it might appeal to different people, how it compares to others etc. (free account to view). That is what you call a review, by a critic, worthy of inclusion. That is why shoving cameras into people who have just viewed the show are not reviews.
 * So to summarise, the NTDTV footage are cherry-picked (not WP:NPOV), self-published (WP:SPS), and above all, irrelevant. --antilivedT 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do such a broad set of reviews exist for the above shows as does for Shen Yun - that is one question. Even the fact that such a large number of positive reviews from experts exists endows the reviews with a WP:N status, in context of this topic. Robert Stromberg, others, all go into significant depth about the Show - speaking for several minutes. The article has a reception section and we have reviews by journalists, etc., even have a letter by an ordinary viewer to a newspaper mentioned.  Why would all these statements by these experts alone need to be completely excluded, then?


 * If we are presenting reception, and we indeed have decided to now, as is apparent from the current article structure - these reviews are the most notable sources for "reception" we have. If you say no primary source ( of course ) and no third party source as well describing the content of the show, that would mean keeping out everything but a few non-expert journalists and letters from their readers.


 * Further, this topic is quite different from, and has broader scope than, an article on a broadway show.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot comprehend your first paragraph. And by your last sentence if you meant "that would mean keeping out everything but a few expert journalists", then it is exactly the point. Only professional journalist reviewers please. And you say this is different from Broadway shows; well currently this article does a poor job on both Shen Yun the company, and Shen Yun the show. "Chinese dance"? "Projected background"? Cool, but what are the acts about? Chinese history? Which part? The mythological Pangu? Tales of Dayu? Three Kingdoms? Or the recent FLG persecution? I have not watched any of their shows and I do not plan to watch any of them either, so I can't expand on that. But the official website is also being very vague on the actual content (perhaps they've got something to hide), and no one seems to know what the shows are actually about. This, in my opinion, is a far greater (but also less controversial) problem than this receptions debate. --antilivedT 11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not help but laugh.. "no one seems to know the content of the show"... well take a look yourself, when you can open your mind up enough. There are many videos on youtube as well. How will you know if you keep your eyes closed and say "I don't want to see either." Almost the entire parliament in some countries have watched the show. The CNN had a report on the content, and NY Times also touches upon the content in their coverage.  Deeply traditional, is what I would say. I did not know the depth of Chinese culture before that ( while I thought I did). In fact, I have had a chance only to watch a DVD.. but even just watching the DVD became an inspiration to further explore the tradition.  Sparked understandings of traditional Chinese thought which helped a lot my work on a seres of books on traditional Chinese script.


 * I quite did not understand the ancient Chinese had such profundity in thought and traditions before - or for that matter, even that traditional Chinese music could be something richer than simple melodies on a pentatonic scale. Even ancient Indian languages or traditions can not compare. If you ask  about my perception of the content - that was my experience ( from seeing the DVD). Journey to the West, stories about the monk Ji Gong, traditional dances, tibetan dances.. its a survey through time and and the physical expanse of the "divine land" ( ancient term for china).
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Laugh all you want but that is about as vague, as pre-written as everything I've seen so far (pentatonic scale? Really? I don't suppose you find the key changes in say Hair fascinating too?). Look at Les Misérables or The Phantom of the Opera; look at their background, development, synopsis, look at how detailed (almost excessive) and specific they are. Currently this article make Shen Yun look like a bunch of disjointed Chinese dance and music based on ancient Chinese tales with no central theme, plot or motif. But alas we're digressing. If you don't have any objections can you please concede that the NTDTV videos should not be used in the receptions section. --antilivedT 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd understand what am talking about if you had taken time to look at the material. Essentially, your statements reflect but a high degree of hatred/anger at the show - there is no argument in it driven by the need to see a better article. The reviews coming from the sources I mention above, Harvard Dean of Dance, Robert Stromberg, etc. - the ones covered by NTDTV, are among the best sources available and certainly merit inclusion here.
 * First you compare all these reviews, with words of snoopdog. Then you say compare Washington Times to a blog. Apparently to "establish" that them quoting the Epoch Times does not mean anything.
 * Then you go on to attack saying - something like " official website is also being very vague on the actual content (perhaps they've got something to hide), and no one seems to know what the shows are actually about." People run a show and advertise it, because they are trying to hide its contents?
 * After that you move on to attack me when I shared my perception of its contents.
 * The review from the sources I mention above certain merit inclusion - because of the notability and expertise of those who gave those reviews. No amount of personal attack would change that.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you understand the point of having a discussion/debate as that is precisely how debates work: you attack your opponent's stand point on the issue and strengthen your own. How are any of those personal attacks? Now stop crying/insinuating that I attacked you personally (if anything you laughing at me would constitute as a personal attack). --antilivedT 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has to be based on third party sources and am looking into the news reviews mentioned on the Shen Yun page - trying if I can find the original sources on the news websites.   We could find a lot of insightful material there, I guess.  Meanwhile, I've been searching for the original interview videos:
 * Robert Stromberg: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_arts/2010-07-16/834149927050.html
 * Harvard Dance Program Director: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/172/6938.html
 * Rick Wilkins: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/172/6938.html [duplicate, same as above --antilivedT 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)]
 * Richard Connema: "I've never seen anything like that. I've seen enough Broadway shows that still cannot compare to what I saw tonight The best word to use was "mind blowing". And I watched around the audience and they all were so involved with everything going on."- http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/172/6935.html
 * I'll find the links to the rest I mentioned above. I think a cross section of these comments are very relevant, and notable.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bravo Dilip for ignoring everything I've said and simply repeat your initial premise and accuse others for being uncivil. But I do have to commend you for your perseverance; if that's the best you've got even after all the cherry picking then well, what can I say? If you lift those comments and apply them to any other show (with minor modifications) they would still apply (esp. the Harvard one), that is how generic they are. --antilivedT 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is often only a wafer-thin line between a news article/review and a write-up/advertorial. We, as editors, must also learn to case a critical eye over these, and to exercise due care when using same. Most professional reviewers and established/reputable journals certainly take care to draw that distinction. The fact that NTDTV, ET, and Shen Yun's links are ideological and not financial is not exemption. NTDTV and ET, as mouthpieces for the Falun Gong movement, clearly have an agenda, a conflict of interest. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, the Washington Times needs to be distinguished from the large newspapers of record, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Washington Times (and Dilip was quoting one of its blogs) is a hysterical anti-communist paper founded by a fellow new religious movement as "propaganda" for it, so its mention of ET doesn't count for much. Quigley (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Side side note: "Richard Connema, San Francisco critic for Talkin' Broadway"? But Broadway is in NYC, how does that work... --antilivedT 07:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I was thinking of the Washington Times as a prominent newspaper with a wide distribution - I'll look further into their standing. Regarding these quotes from experts it matters by whom it was said - and not just which source covered it. Who said it - and where the reviews themselves come from - is to be considered. As for if the Harvard review is generic or not - its not upto us to judge. We are not the experts here. Also there are reviews focusing on the specifics of the show (kindly do go through the other videos I pointed out). If you look at their statements, these experts tend to focus on aspects of the show specific to their area of expertise. Stromberg, or Rick Wilkins, or Connema, they are all reviewing from the perspective of their fields of expertise. And thats what endows their statements with the relevance they carry.

Further, whether a review is broad, narrow, contemplative or not, is not exactly up to us to judge.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Further, whether a review is broad, narrow, contemplative or not, is not exactly up to us to judge." Yes it is, it is exactly up to us to judge. We as Wikipedia editors are the ones to weed out rubbish reviews and only include relevant, well-written ones. Wikipedia is not a collection of sayings by halfway famous people. What good is "reviewing from the perspective of their fields of expertise"? That means they don't have the expertise to perform reviews from the perspective of theatre-goers! That defies the whole purpose of having reviews. No one cares about what so and so (musician) or so and so (designer) thinks about a theatre piece. You wouldn't care about these people if they gave scathing remarks and you would be first in line to shoot them down. In fact these "reviews" aren't even that glowing, they sound much more congratulatory ("beautiful costumes"? As opposed to what, ugly costumes?) than to guide potential viewers.
 * In short these "reviews" are nothing more than congratulatory remarks made by barely famous people after a show. These wouldn't be acceptable in any other performance related page, and this is no exception (that, and some other issues). --antilivedT 07:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These are experts in the field of arts. No review stops at just "beautiful costumes"! What you are ridiculing are these experts - not me. Did you take a look at them? There are so many, did you go through them? On what basis are you saying all are equally useless? My point is a Dean of Dance at Harvard knows what she is talking about when she is discussing dance. What is meant by the "reception" of a show? And reception from whom are we talking about? The audience. And when they are experts in the field - its precisely what we are interested in. How people have received it. How experts in the field perceive it. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what the Harvard Dean of Dance actually said? Here's a rough transcript (she was mumbling in some parts, I can't understand it).


 * That is not a review. If the most interesting thing she has to say is about the origin of the performance well what does that say about the show :P. That isn't even a very good congratulation, much less a glowing review like you made it out to be. Compare it to a real review, can you honestly say that they are in the same calibre? This is not in the field of arts, this is in the field of theatre. Those people may be experts in their fields, but they are by no means experts in the field of theatre. --antilivedT 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the box. Could help keep things organized a lot. I'll point out the transcripts here, from a few of the many notable figures. Such perception by the audience is what count towards the reception of the show - thats what we are looking for - how the arts community perceives and has received the contents of the show. That what the term reception means in the arts community. "Theatre" is not separate from art.

Here are the fuller transcripts. Thanks for taking the time out to transcribe - but I find its pre-transcribed on the NTDTV website.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright this is going nowhere. Answer me:


 * Do you agree that NTDTV publishes these footages, and that NTDTV is related to Shen Yun through FLG, and thus under WP:SPS that would count as self-published and therefore not suitable?
 * Do you agree that NTDTV may have cherry-picked the footages due to conflict of interest and as a result, not neutral?
 * Do you agree that these footages are very different to proper theatre reviews (eg. ) and therefore, not theatre reviews?
 * Do you agree that the expertise of these people are not in theatre?
 * If you answer yes to any of these questions it's enough to exclude it from the article. BTW: Connema has been in the article for a long time due to his theatre critic credentials. I have no idea why you're pulling him into this, unless of course you didn't know that he's already in the article. --antilivedT 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the biggest sack of propaganda that I've ever read in my entire life. It should be locked and rewritten. Shenyun (Falun Gong Dance troupe) article and pretty much 90% of the references are NTDTV (Falun Gong TV) and Epoch Times (Falun Gong Newspaper). Seriously chaps, it's stuff like this which is ruining wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.213.15 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Performers
In an effort to make the Shen Yun coverage more complete, I will try to build out some articles on their notable performers. I've started with Seongho Cha because he had a good amount of sources in English since his career was previously in American ballet companies. For others it seemed that many of their accomplishments were in China so there isn't much in English. I'll do what I can, but a Chinese speaker would fare much better. TrailerTrack (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete my stuff again? Everything I added was highly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.207.26 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Removed 2 Orchestra members (Kaspar Martig (trumpet) and Robby Moser (trumpet) because I don't see those names on the SY.org website. TrailerTrack (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Shrigley, I'm engaging in a partial revert of your edit. Here's why:
 * In the lede, you have introduced language whose tone and content is both somewhat inaccurate and fails NPOV. Namely, you have decided that Shen Yun is "antigovernment." Moreover, by changing "suppression of the group" to "violence against the group" you have lost the context. Falun Gong is not the target of indiscriminate violence; it is the target of a state-sponsored suppression.
 * For no discernible reason, you deleted some information concerning ethnic folk dances. In particular, the qualifier that the dances are adaptations, and the note which alludes to other dances which are not listed.
 * You appear to be attempting to elevate negative reviews of the show, adding new unfavorable reviews. This doesn't appear to me to be an effort to achieve balance. The page already clearly states that the performances include depictions of the suppression of Falun Gong, and does so in a neutral voice, without judgement as to whether this content is good or bad. There is simply no need to keep piling this on.  Moreover, it is telling that you are only adding negative reviews; there are numerous positive reviews, including some that praise the Falun Gong-related acts, which are not included in the article. Rightfully so; the page does not need to be an endless repository of quotations from reviewers.
 * You changed the section "Chinese government reaction" to "Accusations of government interference." Again, context is lost. It's important to stipulate that it's the Chinese government interfering.
 * You wrote in your edit summary that accusations of Chinese government interference only come from Falun Gong, and you therefore edited to read accordingly. That's not the case.  the U.S. State Department report says that these accusations come from "NGO reports, the Shen Yun Performing Arts Company, and several media outlets."  In other State Department reports, these assertions are stated as fact, and are not attributed to Falun Gong sources.
 * You inexplicably deleted mention that members of Romanian parliament protested efforts to cancel the performance. This is indeed supported by the source.
 * You deleted a paragraph about Albert Ho's reaction, calling it demagoguery. Albert Ho is a prominent Hong Kong politician who was cited in RS on this issue, and he represents a notable viewpoint on this event. Your personal views on his politics are irrelevant.
 * You wrote that "Falun Dafa Association of Calgary accused a provincial theater of being influenced by "communist saboteurs"". You misrepresented the source. I reviewed the article, and it did not source that quote to the Falun Dafa Association; those were the National Post reporter's own words. The Falun Dafa Association appeared only to state in general terms that the Chinese government is an opponent of Shen Yun, and attempts to pressure venues not to allow performances. It then said that they appreciated that the venue would not heed such pressure. That is not notable enough to warrant mention; no direct connection is actually being made to the Chinese government.

I kept a couple of your changes.Homunculus (duihua) 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not said that Shen Yun is "antigovernment"; merely that the Chinese government objects to Shen Yun because of its antigovernment message. We later quote an embassy official who says that show is "propaganda" whose objective was to "smear China’s image" and damage bilateral relationships. The previous text said that the SY is disliked because of its "association with Falun Gong"- but that doesn't give the full context, which is that the show contains pro-Falun Gong and anti-government messages, which the reviewers note. Again, this is not my original wording. Maybe I should have added a citation to the lede; I was following the wording of this source, which says "The shows themselves, with their hardly subtle antagonism to the current Chinese regime, have thus become a thorn in Beijing’s side."


 * The ethnic folk dances editing was mostly copyediting. "including Yi, Miao, and Mongolian, among others" is redundant. "including" implies that there are other ethnic groups just as "among others" does. "Seek to capture the spirit of various ethnicities" is unnecessary and a little patronizing, I thought; there are clearer ways to express that they are adaptations if they aren't authentic.


 * That I am "elevating negative reviews" is a serious misrepresentation of my intentions. The previous paragraph was full of weasel words, saying that Shen Yun did "not explicitly advertise" (implying that there was subtle advertising, when reviewers like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted no mention of Falun Gong in brochures, poster, and mission statement) "that some of its performances are inspired by Falun Gong philosophy" (where many reviews criticize an explicit pro-Falun Gong, anti-government message, rather than an "inspiration" by a "philosophy", whatever that means). I added some points from reviews which represent widely-shared sentiments in the negative reviews. Namely that the show not only attempts to document "persecution", but also that it proselytizes viewers to the practice, e.g. the "Falun Dafa is Good" sign. Also, there was no mention before of the unadvertised graphic violence in the show, although many critical reviews address this. As long as we have the substance of what needs to be covered (the presence of political, religious, and violent content), I do not mind if it comes in the form of quotes or paraphrasing.


 * "Chinese government reaction" is too strongly asserting that all instances of alleged interferences and cancellations are coming from the Chinese government. As with the Falun Dafa Association of Calgary incident, Falun Gong often insinuates that the Chinese government is the cause of its troubles, without providing evidence.


 * I didn't say that allegations of interference only came from Falun Gong sources, but that the U.S. State Department did not do original research, so it would be inappropriate to cite the U.S. State Department citing Falun Gong sources. Somebody found the original Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times) and appended them as additional references. I don't know of which NGOs the USSD speaks, and am uncomfortable citing these unknown sources. They could be the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong for all we know.


 * I didn't, and still don't, see the relevance of the Romanian parliamentarians' objections to the cancellation of Shen Yun. Shen Yun actively solicits the praise and support of Western politicians for Shen Yun and Falun Gong through its performances. Do we need to quote every politician, as the Epoch Times does, who makes fruitless statements of support?


 * If Albert Ho represents a "notable" viewpoint, then so do the reactions of say, Chinese government officials or others who praised the visa denials. The extensive one-sided quote does not comply with due weight, so I hope you won't mind if I add opposing viewpoints.


 * You reverted more than you explain here, for example my note through the USSD quoting Falun Gong sources that the Chinese government opposes Shen Yun performances in the context of opposing Falun Gong propaganda activities abroad.


 * Shrigley (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You did say, using Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedic voice, that the performances have been interfered with because it is "antigovernment." When you attempted to defend yourself, you explained that the Chinese government says that Shen Yun is anti-government. It should be immediately apparent why this fails WP:NPOV. Namely, this characterization is a subjective judgement, and it is not entirely accurate; it's not just the content depicting suppression that the Chinese government opposes; performances which depict Falun Gong beliefs would also be opposed. Some sources have said that the Chinese government opposes the show for other reasons entirely - namely, that the "Communist regime tries to erase the cultural history." I'm sure Shen Yun would dispute the characterization of their art as political or antigovernment..  Our role is to adhere to a policy of neutrality.
 * This is just a subjective question of preferred writing styles, and not a major issue.
 * "Did not explicitly advertise" is not a weasel word. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says there was no mention of Falun Gong in promotional materials, but as has already been hashed out in previous discussions, many other sources say that this was mentioned, but perhaps not prominently enough for the reviewer's taste. Moreover, Shen Yun's approach seems to have changed, as this connection is now made very explicit. The content of the show is already described on the page using neutral language. You can read previous discussion threads where editors sought to establish due weight, but I'll repeat some of what was said before: about 2 - 6 performance out of ~20 deal directly or indirectly with Falun Gong, based on descriptions in reviews. Most reviews of Shen Yun note this content with varying degrees of emphasis; many simply skirt over it. Moreover, reviewers have different reactions to this content.  What you are doing is to give undue emphasis to this particular aspect of the program, using the most critical language you can find, and presenting exclusively negative responses to it.  That's not compliant with policies on NPOV.
 * In all the sources presented, it is apparent that the source of interference is the Chinese government.
 * You don't know that the State Department didn't do original research, and you're not in a position to make that assertion. The State Department said it drew on multiple sources. Elsewhere, it didn't note its sources at all, which would imply that it was able to independently corroborate the facts.
 * The fact that you don't see the relevance does not mean there is none. This was noted in the State Department report.
 * The more appropriate counterpoint to Albert Ho is the Hong Kong immigration department, not the Chinese government.
 * The State Department does not say that "the Chinese government opposes Shen Yun performances in the context of opposing Falun Gong propaganda activities abroad." It says "Falun Gong-related groups reported several incidents of the government's interference with their activities abroad." You really need to be careful not to extrapolate from RS based on your own opinions about Falun Gong.Homunculus (duihua) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's "neutral encyclopedic voice" should not make wild speculation on what parties think ("The Chinese government doesn't like Shen Yun because it hates Chinese culture!"), but report when possible what they say about themselves. You seem to accept this principle for Falun Gong's teachings, and for Shen Yun's (what many reviewers think is a deceptive) mission statement, so I can't see why we can't quote the Chinese government on the show, since we spend so much space dedicated to its alleged efforts to blunt them.


 * If the content is substantially similar, then we can prefer the shorter form.


 * I looked at the previous discussion, but you went deep into the recesses of Shen Yun's website to find oblique references to Falun Gong. Falun Gong's posters, brochures, and mission statement in meatspace do not mention Falun Gong. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution review confirms this from 2010 (whereas many of the reviews we cite are from 2007 and 2008); I can also confirm this firsthand from this week.


 * I do not accept your contention that the focus on the Falun Gong connection is undue, especially since you seem to be bolstering a section that documents alleged interference from the Chinese government, and since you accept that the Chinese government objects to the Falun Gong-ness of the show. To quote you, we need "context" for this interference. This is not to mention the consistent theme across the negative reviews of deceptive advertising, heavily-laden propaganda, and scenes of shocking violence.


 * In order to address your concern that the presence of the advertising issue may weigh down the "reception" section with negative reviews, I have added a new section dedicated to the charge of deceptive advertising, which consistently appears across reviews that both praise and criticize the dancing and/or politics.


 * The State Department cited Falun Gong (and other unknown) sources; it is not responsible to omit that fact, since Falun Gong media outlets are known for their skim objectivity and reliance on hearsay.


 * I added a statement from the Hong Kong immigration department.


 * We already have, via the State Department, the knowledge that Falun Gong considers Shen Yun part of "its activities abroad", and other sources from the Chinese government stating why it opposes both Shen Yun and Falun Gong. There is no large logical leap to make, and I am sure one of the Falungong academics has said what I did in effect, but can hew more closely to the source's wording.


 * In the spirit of helping to develop other aspects of the page, I've also added a source which addresses Shen Yun's claim to represent traditional Chinese culture.


 * Shrigley (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be brief. Here are numbers in no particular order. I only scanned the discussion above. Can we use these numbers for disputes from now on? It is hard to follow, otherwise. I don't anticipate this being a long conversation, but just for good housekeeping. I'm making edits mainly on what I see can be improved about the content, not the argument above.
 * 1) Cool section. Lots of hard work by Shrigley. But three paragraphs? One paragraph makes more sense, per Due Weight. I've thus reduced it appropriately.
 * 2) This source http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/events/otago017296.html is not a reliable source. Who wrote it? Who gave the lecture? Is this peer reviewed? That blurb to the lecture is not a reliable source. Wait till whoever it was publishes something in a journal.
 * 3) Of course the US State Department should be cited, whether or not they cite FLG sources (I'm sure they do, but they also cite a lot of other sources.) In this logic we should only cite primary sources, because something is always citing something else until you go back to the end. I can't imagine that the intention of this would be to weaken the strength of these claims. In any case, I've restored the reference to State.
 * 4) I have deleted the description of Falun Gong in this section. Shrigley's "dissident sect that is banned in China" is a description likely to be disputed, because it may be perceived as biased. Let us simply not try to characterize Falun Gong briefly here.
 * 5) The Gish Jen reference in the third paragraph of this section seemed more a complaint about the content of the show, and the Otago source is not reliable. So my reduction relates mainly to turning the middle paragraph of Shrigley's voluminous three into a few sentences summing up the dispute with the show's advertising. I also deleted Gish Jen's other comment because it seemed superfluous. It would be possible to find any number of negative and positive remarks. The value of a remark that judges and evaluated those who have positively evaluated the show strikes me as a little too meta for our purposes. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is just a very classic case of WP:TAGTEAM. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always such a pleasure to hear your helpful views, Colipon. You're always so civil. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Maybe we can have one or two paragraphs for the advertising, considering the unusual way (in contrast to 'legitimate' dance companies) it is advertised, and the controversy surrounding it. However, the question of whether Shen Yun represents "traditional Chinese culture" or some fusion of Western and Chinese styles, and the recurring comparison to revolutionary operas, is appropriate to restore in some other section, such as "content". Likewise for the shocking scenes of violence and proselytization. We definitely don't need criticism ghettos.
 * 2) I already briefly explained the credentials of the author in the text you removed, but here: "Eric Hung is Associate Professor of Music History at Westminster Choir College of Rider University in Princeton, NJ. His research focuses on Asian American music, film music and experimental music.  Eric is Executive Director Designate and a member of Gamelan Dharma Swara, the Balinese music-and-dance ensemble based at the Indonesian Consulate in New York City.  He is also an active pianist and koto player.  Eric received an ARCT in piano performance from the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto, a BA in social studies and music from Wesleyan University, and a PhD in musicology from Stanford University.  He has also taught at Minnesota State University Moorhead and the University of Montana.  In Spring 2011, he was a Visiting Fellow at the University of Otago in New Zealand."
 * 3) The intent of attributing the claims to Falun Gong sources (as the U.S. State Department does; and they are more sympathetic to Falun Gong than supposedly neutral Wikipedia should be) is not to "weaken the claims", but to allow readers to fairly evaluate and compare divergent claims according to the credibility of their origins.
 * 4) Characterizations of Falun Gong as a "spiritual practice" or something similarly benign are not unproblematic, either. However, two things are important to mention. (1) Falun Gong's banned status in China, and antagonism towards the Chinese government. This does a great deal to explain Shen Yun's anti-Communist content. (2) Falun Gong's status as a quasireligious movement. This explains the "divine" theme, songs in Shen Yun which extol people to seek truth through Falun Gong, etc. It also helps explain why many Falun Gong members volunteer promote Shen Yun.
 * 5) As above, the Otago source is reliable, and as Colipon says below, the comparison between Shen Yun and revolutionary opera/Cultural Revolution dance troupes is not uncommon in negative reviews. This should not be surprising, as we know (and can even mention) that Falun Gong's media strategies (intolerance of criticism, blanket denials, exaggeration, deflection), have been compared by Falun Gong scholars to that of the classic Chinese Communist Party.
 * 6) Overall, although I have offered a compromise on the length of the 'Advertising' section to address your due concerns, I do think that if we cut the false advertising charges or criticism, we should likewise cut the rap sheet of Shen Yun show cancellations from alleged Chinese government pressure. The superfluous reactions of assorted parliamentarians, whose patronage Shen Yun actively seeks, has not been defended on any other grounds by Homunculus other than that it is sourced. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am loathe to get into this again. All of these issues have been discussed ad nauseum in the past. After the last series of exchange months ago, the page was much improved, and was then wonderfully stable.  It even garnered surprisingly good page ratings (something that I've found to be very rare on contentious topics). All was well.  Sigh....no more.
 * The continued assertion from some editors that Shen Yun is not a "legitimate" or "bona fide" arts company suggests that these editors are not adopting a neutral point of view. Hundreds of reliable sources have written articles and reviews on Shen Yun. I can't say I've read them all, but I've never seen any source question the group's legitimacy as a performing arts company. The only party that does that is the Chinese government, which has gone to considerable lengths to argue that Shen Yun is not a real performing arts group, but instead propaganda (some editors have said the exact thing here). The Chinese government, via their websites and missions, have also sought to magnify "controversies" around Shen Yun. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propagandizing or advocacy.
 * You're referring here to an abstract of a lecture given by Eric Hung. I'm not sure that lectures given by professors would satisfy WP:RS; certainly it is not a reliable source of great notability. Now, if this fellow published in a peer-reviewed journal, that would be another story. But we don't even have the content of the lecture; we have an abstract containing a single paragraph about the hybridization and non-static nature of Chinese heritage, and one sentence about how this hybridization in Shen Yun is reminiscent of Revolutionary Opera.  I found it strange that this was on the page (and given so much weight), and I wondered how you even found this.  Then I realized that a link to this abstract is promoted on a Chinese government anti-Falun Gong website facts.org.cn, which is also the source of the other non-notable "controversies" that have been added to this page over time. (Note that I'm not suggesting Eric Hung's findings are themselves problematic or propaganda; I imagine he might be frustrated to learn his research is being appropriated and misused to promote the anti-Shen Yun agenda of the Communist Party).
 * Falun Gong is variously described in academic literature as a religion, a form of qigong, a type of cultivation practice, and a spiritual discipline. What it's not—according to experts on religion and Chinese history—is a sect, which is the description you seem to advocate. Sect might be also be viewed by some people as pejorative. "Spiritual practice" is neutral and accurate enough.  As to its "banned status and antagonism toward the Chinese government," I've seen you write this elsewhere on Wikipedia.  I think you're confusing the causality.  The way you present it,  Falun Gong is antigovernment, and thus was banned. Pardon me for speculating on your motives, but you seem to want to shift the blame: that is, make it appear that Falun Gong is the aggressor, not the Chinese state.  But that's not the reality, and no serious scholar would ever claim that to be the case.
 * Back to the Eric Hung source, it's one sentence that says some aspect of Shen Yun is similar to Revolutionary Opera (apparently in terms of the hybridization). I think I've seen one other RS source make that comparison in passing. Colipon also once presented a source (which we can't use, per the author's instruction) that says Shen Yun's promotional methods and international tours are similar to Chinese government dance troupes, though the content of the shows is the antithesis of Communist performances.  I don't know how much weight we can give this at the current time.
 * I don't know what you're proposing. Are you suggesting we cut down on the section about Chinese government interference?  Homunculus (duihua) 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)