Talk:Shen Yun

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.--Asdfg12345 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. --Asdfg12345 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. --Asdfg12345 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? --antilived^{T | C | G} 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. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 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.

• Professor John Tyson, New Enlgand Conservatory of Music, on Shen Yun.
• Harvard University's Director of Dance Elizabeth Bergmann interviewed.
• Comments on Shen Yun by Broadway dancer and Harvard Ballet Instructor Cathrine Ulissey.
• Comments on Shen Yun by Canadian composer Rick Wilkins.
• Audience Review Video. Shen Yun Performing Arts. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

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: [1]? 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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! --antilived^{T | C | G} 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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). --antilived^{T | C | G} 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 --antilived^{T | C | G} 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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... --antilived^{T | C | G} 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). --antilived^{T | C | G} 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).

Bergmann transcript

They're completely together, everything is together, they're really really well rehearsed. I was surprised because it was from New York they're in New York and most of the people are from here not from China. I didn't realise that. So where do you rehearse, to have such a big space to rehearse in(?) I like the men, particularly the drummers have very very size (?) it's very beautiful. The costumes are beautiful. I [something] in the dance and I think "Hmm I like those colours together" and uh it's very beautiful.

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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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.

Robert Stromberg, Production Designer for Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, Emmy and Academy Award winner

"The show was absolutely beautiful. It was so inspiring, I think I may have found some new ideas for the next Avatar. It was tremendous to see the wide-ranging different types of performance art come together as one. It was very beautiful to see it, it became this one big poetic event. And the color, the lights and the movement. The performers were fantastic. I thought it was wonderful.” “Especially, I loved the dances where they synchronized the sounds as well with the costumes and what they’re wearing, the women with the silver and the men with the chopsticks. I think that would make a great dance in a film someday. You know that type of thing. The environments, the background, the use of color, the use of color and costume together, those types of things were very unique and inspirational.” “It was an interesting use of, an interactive element, which I think as it develops it could become a new art form in itself. A live performance mixed with digital projection and maybe 3D eventually, who knows. Using those two techniques together it would be almost like going to the theater and a movie at the same time.” “The interesting thing for me that I take home is the, it’s a little bit like taking the old and the new and putting them together. It’s interesting to see the culture advancing and using some of the media in a new way. So I’m excited to see, years from now, how that cross-blending will come, and I’m looking forward to seeing that next year.” - http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_arts/2010-07-16/834149927050.html

Bergmann, Director of Harvard University's Dance Program, a graduate of Juilliard, author, choreographer.

"They’re completely together. Everything is together. They’re very very well rehearsed. I was surprised, because it was from New York. And most of the people are from here, not from China – I didn’t realize that. So where do you have such a huge space to rehearse in?" “Especially, I loved the dances where they synchronized the sounds as well with the costumes and what they’re wearing, the women with the silver and the men with the chopsticks. I think that would make a great dance in a film someday. You know that type of thing. The environments, the background, the use of color, the use of color and costume together, those types of things were very unique and inspirational.” "I liked the men. Particularly the drummers, they’re very very cise. They’re beautiful. The costumes are beautiful. I’m making a new dance and I’m thinking hmmm those colors look good together and it’s very beautiful." - http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_arts/2010-07-16/834149927050.html

Richard Conemma, Theatre Critic

"I probably have reviewed over 3 to 4 thousand shows since 1942. A lot of reviewers use stars, you know, 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 4 stars, 5 stars... I will give this production 5 stars. That's the top," "The dancers were absolutely fantastic ... I found out that there was not only dancing in this but heart. You could feel that coming even from where I was sitting ... Just a beautiful production. I found that those backdrop scenes and the way it was projected and the way it comes out is absolutely fantastic." "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.". "There's movement between everything, even the narrators coming up, giving you a little insight and they move right into a dance... perfect!" http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/172/6935.html

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. [2]) 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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 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)

Expanded article

I removed some duplicate content from the introduction, expanded the content section, and added a section on performers as well as some newer reviews from 2011. I think this brings the article more in line with the content offered on other performing arts companies. TrailerTrack (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not look closely at all the changes, but will just note that I added a disclaimer about Epoch Times, which is affiliated with the Falun Gong, like Shen Yun. Epoch Times can be used as a source, but we need to disclose its affiliations. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That took quite a bit of work but it looks a lot better now. Is it just me or does the reception section look unbalanced? The criticisms are coming from big shots like NYT, the Guardian and the Telegraph while all the praises seem to be lifted straight out of a press release and are from local, small newspapers? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why NTDTV is still in the 'reception' section. There is some attempt to maintain 'balance' in the 'reception' section as though the show has received equal amount of positive feedback and criticism, when this actually gives undue weight to the 'praise'. NTDTV, a Falun Gong mouthpiece, essentially amounts to a WP:SPS in this case. It's like sourcing "praise" of the Communist Party of China to People's Daily. Colipon+(Talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like all the additions I made were deleted, and the repetitive paragraph with negative reviews was added back into the introduction. I’ll try to explain myself better here.

• I deleted that paragraph from the intro because 1) it’s too long for the introduction, 2) it’s already repeated almost verbatim later in the article, and 3) It featured exclusively negative reviews, which doesn’t seem balanced or representative. I think a single sentence summarizing the nature of the reception in a balanced and neutral way is enough for the introduction.

• The page didn’t have much information on the performance itself or the performers. It was mostly about the critical reaction and the difficulties caused by the Chinese government. I sought to improve this by adding more information on the content and also giving a list of performers. Looking at some comparable pages like American Ballet Theatre, Ballet San Jose, San Francisco Ballet, and New York City Ballet, it seems that they just list the performers without any biographical information, so that’s what I’ll do as well in my next edit. Along the same lines, I planned to develop the section on content a little more so that it’s more organized and detailed (without being too long), and also add a short section on the history and former names.

• I see what you mean about only having smaller publications giving positive reviews. It took some time, but found a lot more reviews, many of which are more recent than what was on the page previously, and some of which came from big papers. I can edit the article to incorporate more of these and bring more balance to that section, as well as incorporating some more specific reviews about different aspects of the show.

It’s difficult to accurately summarize what the reception is like for dance companies, both because it’s so subjective, and because we don’t have an empirical way to measure what the average response is. This may be why most pages about arts companies (including the ballet companies listed above) don’t have a ‘reception’ section at all. Neither does Cirque du Soleil or other similar companies.

Based on my research, it seems that the majority of reviews for Shen Yun are quite positive. Just as an example, ticketmaster user ratings give it four starts out of five, with nearly 80% of viewers saying they would recommend it to a friend. An article that just came out said that the most recent five shows at the Lincoln Theatre (probably the most prestigious venue in the United States) were sold out a week in advance, and there were three curtain calls. The situation was apparently similar in LA and Toronto. Another article from New York last year said that the show had received overall very positive reviews. If this group has three companies that tour top-tier venues in hundreds of cities, and sells out shows along the way, the average audience reception is probably very positive, otherwise they wouldn’t be sustainable. Based on that, I think it’s undue weight if the negative reviews are given so much space (I noticed also that all the negative reviews were quoted directed, while very few of the positive ones were). Regarding NTDTV, I’m not really familiar with it, but I’ll take your word—they do seem to be a sponsor of the show, at least.

• I found another reference about Jiang Feng. Before I didn’t know why this was there, or what the relationship was to Shen Yun, but a release from Amnesty International made the connection more explicit.
• The page had a statement from the Chinese embassy, which seems like a primary source to me. I found an article that reported on the Chinese embassy position, so I’ll use that instead.
• I found an article that reported on the Chinese embassy position, so I’ll use that instead. TrailerTrack (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that. To me one of the most notable aspect of Shen Yun is that it's run by FLG without explicitly advertising the fact, and we should state that early on. It's not "generally positive" if significant entities gave it bad reviews, it'd be "mixed". As for the performers - a crucial difference is that in your examples many have their own pages (meeting their own WP:N) and ballerinas are expected to develop personally, while performers such as these are not. You don't see "Shen Yun, starring Angelina Wong!" because nobody knows nor cares who that is. I'm still for removal as it adds nothing of value for your average reader and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Instead, tell us what do they actually do? Synopsis of the shows? Themes? Motifs? Stylistic comparisons? I've expressed this before but most of the "reviews" seem to be made up of "oooh pretty colours", "projected backdrop? cool!", "look at how the dancers move (dat ass)!" etc. with no real content on, well, the content. I could dress up in blinding colours and dance like a fool but that doesn't make me a good theatrical piece.

And yes, I agree other troupes often don't have a reception section at all - after all troupes are presumed to be good. The reception section is a remnant from edit wars above. It focused on the FLG-relation-without-admitting aspect and wasn't even called "Reception" IIRC, it's only been changed to appease some FLG puppets to be more "balanced". I'm all for getting rid of half of it and renaming it as "FLG conection" or something like that but that'll only drag me into another shitstorm.

As for the new sources that you've found - the SF Chronical is actually an interview with the choreographer, not an actual review piece per se, most of the content is taken straight out of the choreographer's mouth; "Philadelphia City paper" - really? I wouldn't trust a single word coming from my local paper; The Chicago Tribune one has a strange fixation on the women (guess what he was looking at the whole time :p) and the websites, well if they don't have a Wikipedia article (I'm looking at you Opera Online, ExploreDance and DC Theatre Scene) I don't think they'd be suitable - I could start a website today called "Theatre Online" and write about things that I have no idea about but that doesn't make me a critic.

And finally, popularity != good. The common cold is quite popular but it's by no means good. It's not a numbers game either, if it was FLG would be akin to the second coming of Jesus thanks to its mass propaganda machines from its so called media outlets. With enough money venues can be booked, and audience responses... well that just depends on where you look doesn't it. It's probably part of the propaganda war between FLG and CCP but thankfully we cannot rely on annoymous, random user reviews like that and have to use reviews from established critics in major publications. With both propaganda machines going at full blast it is very difficult to uncover the truth. The political messages in the shows is a fact, that the FLG connection isn't advertised is a fact, and some reviewers feel disappointed about that fact have expressed their dissapointment. As I've said earlier, the point of that section was to expose that hidden connection, until FLG puppets went along and "balanced" everything. No matter how good the show is it doesn't mask out the fact that it's a show with a hidden agenda. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun is not an artistic performance. It is a propaganda organ of Falun Gong. I think the "Falun Gong Connection" section is actually a pretty good idea - it is what it is. I also agree with user Antilived about a section for 'praise': look at the New York City Ballet. Something that gets much better reviews than Shen Yun, but there isn't a section on 'praise'. It's just so disingenuous. Colipon+(Talk) 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think ideally, we should have a "Falun Gong connection" section, and then incorporate the 'Chinese government response' section into that as a sub-heading. Otherwise the reader has absolutely no context - especially if they have no knowledge of the ongoing propaganda war between the two. Colipon+(Talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not turn this into an anti-FLG political battleground. There is no need for combative or vulgar remarks. Antilived removed a series of references and presented reasoning for changes that does not appear to be consistent with our content policies. I've reverted to the previous version and hope the discussion can proceed civilly. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling something for what it is is not making a battleground out of anything. None of us used "vulgar language" or appeared 'combative'. We were addressing issues.

I just don't understand why Falun Gong organizations constantly try to hide their affiliation with Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(For User:TheSoundAndTheFury) How so? Everything that I've removed are from very questionable sources that'd fail WP:RS, especially on opinion pieces such as this. And outright revert war is anything but civil. --antilived^{T | C | G} 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on that point, I just wanted to say. Shen Yun is a Falun Gong-run organization. It advocates Falun Gong causes, its members are Falun Gong practitioners, and it is mostly funded by Falun Gong. But it tries to mislead people into thinking that it has nothing to do with Falun Gong (prior to going to the show). All of these are facts. There is no need to beat around the bush. Colipon+(Talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just removed references to opera online and explore dance; neither seemed like very well established organizations. DC Theatre Scene appears to be a much more professional reviewer of performing arts, however, so I retained it. Now to address the other issues here. The article lede explicitly and prominently states that Shen Yun is connected to Falun Gong. The section on content also notes that some performances depict Falun Gong. I see no reason for this information to be relegated into a separate section dedicated to exploring this connection. Nor do I share the view that the Chinese government's actions would belong in such a section (I do think that the material on their diplomatic activities could be condensed, however).

As to the notion that this is a hidden connection that must be "exposed" by Wikipedia editors, that does not seem to be the case. The Shen Yun website includes several references to Falun Gong, and notes that its performances include these depictions.[3]. The performances seem to be universally hosted by local Falun Gong Associations—something they state prominently[4][5][6]. We can—and do—note that some newspapers criticized the show years ago for not stating this with sufficient gusto, but that's certainly not the most notable thing about the group. This is a page about a performing arts group, and as such, it should take its cues from well formed articles on similar topics. I don't know what to make of Antilived's suggestion that Shen Yun's performers aren't comparable to ballet dancers (some are ballet dancers[7]...).

To the editor who introduced these changes, you deserve kudos for the hard work, for finding more sources, and expanding on the relevant content. Be mindful to use only very high quality sources (I realize some of the problematic references were legacies, but all the same).Homunculus (duihua) 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my argument against listing the performers still stands - if you google Seongho Cha it's nothing but Shen Yun's official sites or personal social networking accounts. There are virtually no third party sources on these people, and there are often very little independent personal development to justify listing. As of right now listing their names is meaningless to your average reader - if we were to include information on performers why not just add a link to the relevant section on the official site? Less clutter for the page and far more useful to your average reader. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Homunculus, thanks, I should have caught those. Looking through the talk page history, it looks like many of the things Trailertrack did were suggested multiple times before, but never implemented. This is a positive step, and there are other areas where the page could be improved further. For example, I there's a legitimate discussion to be had about how to best handle the reception section in a way that is in keeping with NPOV and UNDUE. But before that happens, the level of discourse really should improve. It's hard to have a serious discussion about improving a page about a performing arts company when some editors insist that it's not a performing arts company. Gratuitous profanity, sexual innuendo, deletions of legitimate sources, polarizing political rhetoric and bad faith accusations against past editors do not create a climate where calm, good faith discussions can be easily had. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "Gratuitous profanity, sexual innuendo, deletions of legitimate sources, polarizing political rhetoric and bad faith accusations against past editors." I am just curious, where are you getting this? Who used 'gratuitous profanity', or 'sexual innuendo'? Which deletions of legitimate sources were not justified with corresponding policies? Where is the 'polarizing political rhetoric'? Who accused anyone of bad faith? Colipon+(Talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think by "gratuitous profanity" and "innuendo" s/he meant my "shitstorm" and "dat ass". For that I say WP:CENSOR, and that sorry I do not live in your puritan world. It's interesting how me and User:TrailerTrack were having a perfectly civil, reasoned discussion and progressive article development then suddenly User:TheSoundAndTheFury comes in and flip the shit out, accuses me of hyperbolic crimes and rever all my changes, including ones that aren't controversial (yes I did make an effort to split my edits into bite-sized chunks). It's also interesting how my edits were removing "a series of references and presented reasoning for changes that does not appear to be consistent with our content policies" yet User:Homunculus basically did the same thing and s/he is perfectly happy with that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Then let's just discuss content from now on. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's very gentlemanly of you to accuse me of heinous crimes then change the topic when proven wrong. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this all a bit overwhelming. I saw this show recently, found it interesting, and just wanted to help develop the article with some relevant information to make it more complete. The first time I did this, Antilived deleted it all. When I tried again with more research and explanation, he again deleted much of it, and proposed deleting the rest. I recognize that my edits are not perfect, and I am happy to try to work with anyone who can offer constructive feedback. Antilived, I tried to treat you with respect, but I would hardly say that you were civil in return. As a woman (and especially a woman with a background in the arts), I found the "dat a$$" statement and the suggestion of sexual impropriety on the part of the Chicago Tribune reporter to be completely uncalled for and offensive. Calling other editors "puppets" also strikes me as being inappropriate, and your general comments and edits about the show are not suggestive of someone who has even seen it (for example, there was no Chinese opera involved, at least not when I saw it).

Regarding the list of performers, in my first round of edits I included biographical information about performers, because I thought that would add value, but you deleted it. The second time, I looked more at other dance companies and copied what they do. A lot of companies have this list, and most performers don't have their own pages (like Ballet San Jose and San Francisco Ballet). It's no different. This isn't clutter. It's the kind of information that should be on a page about a performing arts group. If your concern is about the fact that the performers don't have their own pages, I can try to create them, but it will take some time.TrailerTrack (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what? "Deleted it all"? My first round of edits removed the excessively detailed performer listing and citations to small, questionable newspaper sources in accordance to WP:RS, since we cannot possibly list every tiny city newspaper's opinion on it. All your other changes, like the entire contents section, were untouched. The second round of edits were echoed by User:Homunculus, whose edit you and User:TheSoundAndTheFury appear to be content with, is actually very similar to mine. And also, removing != deleting, all your edits are still in the histories and can be reintroduced in a jiffy (the magic of MediaWiki!). As for "dat ass"... Really? Well I'm sorry but that's the price of free speech, that you will get offended sometimes. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". And even if I were a cussing vulgar brute, so what? That doesn't make my argument any less valid, otherwise it'd fall under the ad hominem fallacy. And yes, "puppet" is the right word. User:Dilip rajeev from above has been through due processes on Wikipedia and was topic banned on anything FLG related due to his constant bias and edit warring. If you scroll up a bit you can read on discussion on some very familiar things (like why we shouldn't have celebrity endorsement as reception or why Epoch Times and NTDTV isn't appropriate).

And yes I have not watched any of the shows. But do I need to in order to maintain this article? No. I'm not coloured by my reception of the show, I have nothing more than a passing interest on the show (which I think would echo most readers of this article), I don't know nor care who the performers were, but I have participated in the development of this article for quite a long time (heck I created this mess!). I do not know what the show's content is, which is why I repeatedly emphasised on specific additions to content (synopsis, theme, etc.) so that someone like me who hasn't seen the show can at least know what it's about, instead of some faff about "traditional Chinese culture". And though I disagree with your inclusion of performers I have left it in place after you added a condensed version, and took it to the talk page for a discussion. If that's not WP:CIVIL, well I don't know what to say. If anything I should be complaining about User:TheSoundAndTheFury's kneejerk reaction to my edits and reverted all of it, including non-controversial copyediting edits. Also, before you create individual pages for the performers, make sure they meet WP:N and try find some third party, non-Shen Yun, non-FLG sources (and outside involvement, winning awards from NTDTV - well that doesn't say much does it). --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Content discussion as of 1/26

Sorry for the boring sub-title and for the NY-specific timezone (you fellows in Asia may be on 1/27 by now). Here is why I reverted each edit:

1. [8] This is a lead, a general sentence; that source does not say what that sentence claimed.
2. [9] No explanation for removing useful, basic & sourced information about the show.
3. [10] Wasn't this discussed?
4. [11] The statement from the commissioner was retracted, was it not? That makes these sentences needless.

Two more things. Was everything from 220.245.207.26 was taken from facts.org.cn? And secondly, the timing of the appearance of this individual and the purport of his or her edits seems.... unusual. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What the hell stop deleting my stuff just because I use an IP address

We were in an edit conflict on the page, but you got to it first. Regarding #1, I had put in the observer as a source to replace the examiner (which you had earlier, and rightfully, removed). The observer article said that the show had received "highly favorable reviews" during its run in New York, which could be used as one example to support a general statement on the nature of reviews. The use of the inline citation throws it off, I agree. We're certainly not going to say that the NY Observer said the show received highly favorable reviews, while the Telegraph said it was propaganda. Lede is for more general assessments, not for singling out one or two newspapers. As for the ethics commission, that's what I was going to remove. It's just not notable; anyone who has worked in government (in the West, at least) should know that ethics commissions have general rules about accepting free gifts. This is nothing novel. And now that you mention it, I can't find the original notice on the commissioner's website. It seems she replaced it with a more general advisory that makes no mention of Shen Yun.[12] Homunculus (duihua) 18:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's the thing - one newspaper is hardly a "general statement on the nature of reviews". Truth to be told we can't make any sort of judgement like that, that'd be the job of things like Rotten Tomatoes who aggregate professional reviews to produce a rating. Sadly, I'm not aware of similar things for performances and without strong sources that well we cannot make general sweeping statements. Instead, why don't we just leave it off? As you've said it yourself most other companies don't include reception at all, why should this, especially in the lead?

Sidenote: are we gonna go through this for every edit a random IP does? --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun getting good reviews and Shen Yun being propaganda aren't necessarily in opposition. The Observer story - which I agree, does not have the authority to speak for other reviews - itself noted its horror about a scene where a teacher is beaten to death by hammer-and-sickle-clad police for writing a proverb. What's tendentious aren't the IP's edits; it's the insistence that Shen Yun is just a performing arts company like any other, and that sources' reactions to its controversial content, advertising, and affiliations should be suppressed. Shen Yun is performance art in the sense that revolutionary opera is a performing art. Only in a technical sense. Keeping with the Wikipedia norm that lead paragraphs should mention notable criticism or controversies, I suggest that not only the Telegraph review or the equivalent be reinserted, but also that the charges of deceptive advertising are also documented in the lead. Shrigley (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't answer all these points, as most are unrelated to content. Quickly, though:

• I adjusted the lede sentence to be more general, so that it does not require a supporting reference. As stated before, the lede is not the place to single out reviews from one or two sources.
• Regarding the suggestion that all mention of reception be dropped from the lede, given that the reception section is currently quite sizable (this may change in the future), it probably merits some mention there.
• As to the continued insistence that this is not a performing arts company, well...this is not a forum, nor a political battlefield.
• I have considered adding something to the effect of "...with some critics suggesting the show did not advertise the connection to Falun Gong explicitly enough," to the lede, but I am hesitant. Criticism should be handled in a balanced manner, and I fear that this may be undue weight. If we add that, moreover, we would also be compelled to note the other major 'controversy', which is the fact that Chinese embassies are exercising commercial and diplomatic leverage to try to shut down this show's productions around the world. I'm just not sure all this is necessary in the lede for an article of this size. I'll think about it further. Homunculus (duihua) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about "Shen Yun has received positive reviews for its performances, though criticism were drawn over its hidden affiliation with Falun Gong and the inclusion of religious contents in the shows. Due to its affiliation it has also allegedly faced interference from the Chinese government on its performances."?

It's not up to us to decide whether the reviews as a whole are "generaly positive" but it is a fact that it has received some positive reviews, so why don't we say that? The criticism is for hidden connection and inclusion of religious content in a show that's otherwise advertised as secular, so we should say exactly that. And yeah, including the interference is a good idea, that's another big controversy, although I've worded it as "alleged" due to all the sources being Epoch Times, and all the US State Dept. links are dead (it'd be good if you could fix those). It's a simple 2 line paragraph, and it's shorter than the list of "leading theatres" (which in my opinion is useless since with enough money you can rent all of them). Also, the existing lead and the article in general has trouble deciding whether it's Shen Yun (show) or Shen Yun (performing arts). The reviews were for its shows yet the current lead reads like the troupe is receiving the review, which is not the case. Of course, the fact that the shows don't have proper names doesn't exactly help with the situation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• It has been both praised and criticized for its FLG-related spiritual content; "critics" doesn't just mean people who criticize, but people who review the show. Didn't someone provide a link to the Shen Yun website which stated a Falun Gong affiliation? I just searched it then and found 7,510 instances. In what sense could it possibly said to be "hidden"? I'm not sure how significant the CCP mention is in the lede, I'd lean toward excluding it from the lede to keep the focus on the performance and the dance company. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Some more thoughts, because I thought I should explain myself better. Both statements written by antilived in that lede sentence about reception were true, technically speaking. That is, Shen Yun has received positive reviews for the artistry, and it has been criticized for its FG-related content. But to state it this way may be slightly misleading, in that it may be interpreted to mean that all reviews praise the artistry, and all reviews criticize the FG content. This is not the case. Most reviews seem to praise the artistry, but some (ie. Toronto Star) did not. And while some reviews criticized the FG representations (ie. Telegraph), many of them did not. They almost all mention the FG relationship, but not in a critical way (ie. Globe and Mail, NY Observer, SF Chronicle). Some reviews, moreover, seemed to praise that aspect of the show specifically. So, for the purpose of clarity and accuracy, I thought it best to say that the spiritual / political content has earned mixed reviews, while qualifying the praise so it doesn't sound as absolute. I think the "geo" in "geo-political" is meant as a reference to Chinese politics. I wouldn't cry if that were removed. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I disagree. The reason for Shen Yun's existence is propaganda. Much like Chinese New Year's shows run by Chinese embassies abroad are propaganda. Kim Kwok at the XVIIth EACS Conference compared Shen Yun's propaganda tactics to that of the Communist Party, and scholars like Heather Kavan concur. Kim:

    Both Shen Yun and pro-PRC concerts employ similar publicity strategies. First of all, both sides endeavour to glorify their programmes through self-controlled and manipulated media. The pro-PRC concerts are supported by media channels such as CCTV and Phoenix TV in China as well as in the Chinese diaspora whereas Shen Yun uses certain related channels such as Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty TV. In their respective media channels, only overwhelmingly positive comments of their programmes are being presented. Secondly, both draw support from prominent public figures such as the Austrian politicians to enhance their popularity. Greeting words from the Mayor of Vienna and some Parliament members are very often printed in the concert programmes. Thirdly, both sides target at the mainstream audience as well as the overseas Chinese communities, aiming obviously to build up supporting networks as extensive as possible. Finally, they both select high-profile performance venues.

    Shen Yun ... highlights the plight of Falun Gong followers. In the show there are some dramatic scenes of struggle with the brutal Communist police officers, in which victims are finally illuminated and rescued by the spiritual guidance of Falun Dafa. This is remarkably reminiscent of those plots and scenes of the communist red classics which employ a common story line like this: The poor people are oppressed by their class enemies. They try to resist and are eventually liberated by the Chinese Communist Party. Shen Yun has a strikingly similar line of narration: The poor people are oppressed by the Chinese Communist regime. They try to resist and are rescued by the Falun Dafa spiritually at the end.

    Again, I go by my earlier suggestion that a spade should be called a spade - while I would not advocate citing the paper by Kim Kwok - there are more than enough reliable sources (Guardian, New York Times, the Telegraph) that highlight Shen Yun's misleading advertising and political content. These sources describe Shen Yun for what it is, it is not a review of Shen Yun. Therefore it does not belong in the same category as other reviews - to make it seem like there are 'balanced' positive and negative aspects of the show. Colipon+(Talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The article already highlights the Falun Gong / political content in a neutral manner, just as do most articles on the show (Globe and Mail, SF Chronicle, NY Observer, NYTimes from 2010, Richard Connema, and so forth). It also notes the criticism from NYTimes et al that the show did not explicitly advertise its Falun Gong ties (a feature that must have changed significantly in the last four years. If ever this connection was 'hidden,' it is certainly not anymore). We really don't need to argue this further.

Regarding the Kim Kwok article, I think you're missing the point. The paper was not written to highlight similarities between the CCP and FG performing arts groups, but rather to present the contestation over the symbols and the discourse of Chinese nationalism and legitimacy. There are similarities in tactics, but in substance, they are diametrically opposed. That is, while the CCP performances seek to glorify the Communist takeover and advancements in China today, Shen Yun glorifies the "old cultural China," and seeks a revival of virtues of "piety, respect and loyalty...and the religious traditions such as Confucian, Buddhist, and Tao." CCP performing arts groups depict stories of the Chinese civil war, while Shen Yun depicts stories from Chinese classics. I'm sure that Falun Gong members would probably argue that their intentions in doing this are earnest expressions of their cultural pride and spiritual faith, and are not at all political. From an objective standpoint, however, there is some political purpose in presenting this kind of counter-hegemonic narrative about Chinese civilization and culture; that is, Falun Gong seems to be trying to argue that its version of Chinese culture is more authentic and therefore legitimate than the Communist Party's. But this is a much more nuanced issue than whether or not Shen Yun's raison d'être is propaganda. Moreover, speculation on this kind of purpose is probably a far too cerebral to introduce to an article on the arts group. I imagine it would be the only page for a dance company with a section on academic discourses. Anyways, all a moot point unless and until Kim Kwok publishes something formally. Homunculus (duihua) 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:TheSoundAndTheFury: Can you please stop your kneejerk reverts to everything (and I do mean everything, controversial or not) I've done? The current statement does exactly you've stated the problem is: it implies that most, if not all, in an absolute sense, reviews praises for its artistry. That's what "generally" means. My version, without the "generally", does NOT imply "all reviews praise/criticise", but instead "at least one review praise/crticise". If you think otherwise... well you might need to brush up on your English comprehension. Who has actually praised them for including FLG religous content? Who has actually praised them for including political messages in a show that's advertised as a purely cultural showcase?

Oh now User:Homunculus did you conveniently forget about the persecution scenes or the spinning of the great falun scene? If Shen Yun is trying to push FLG's version of Chinese culture to people isn't that the very definition of wikt:propaganda? All of your arguments can be similarly used from the other side - the revolution operas "are earnest expressions of their cultural pride and spiritual faith"! It's a group founded by FLG, and has been caught pushing FLG material in shows that's advertised as "Chinese culture". No matter how you put it, FLG persecution and spinning the great falun is not Chinese culture, it's propaganda. All of these are simple facts, not abstract "cerebral" notions. All of this greatly impeach on the neutrality and impartiality of the group, and just like revolutionary opera it should be prominently stated.

Finally, I propose the following modification: "Shen Yun has received positive reviews for its performances, though criticism were drawn over its inclusion of Falun Gong contents in the shows. Due to its affiliation it has also allegedly faced interference from the Chinese government on its performances." The problem isn't really with the "hidden affiliation" but more with "having FLG material in a secular show", and the modification rightly reflects that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

After some research, it seems that the first barrage of criticism of Shen Yun came directly from British newspapers The Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, and The London Evening Standard (a compilation here, which also notes the show's positive reviews). That such criticisms came from sources that had no affiliation whatsoever with the Chinese Communist Party or any of Falun Gong's traditional 'enemies' made the creators of the show very uneasy. After these 'mainstream' newspapers spoke out publicly against Shen Yun, the official website, as well as the Epoch Times, went into high gear to offer lengthy 'rebuttals' and testimonials of the show's greatness (Official response here). While I do not doubt that some independent reviewers have given the show's artistic content high ratings, much of the 'praise' for the show comes from or is re-routed through Falun Gong media such as the Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty television (See here and here). Even if the artistic reviews of the show were entirely positive, they would not negate in any way the evident political baggage that the show carries and tries to hide to people who are unfamiliar with the situation. In other words, most mainstream reviews of the show don't only talk about Shen Yun's political content, they focus on it. See for example, this review from The Tampa Bay Times, or here at the Register Guard. The article must make clear the political nature of the show, and currently the article's sections and introduction clearly does not lend this any sort of due weight, attempting to marginalize this fact on the sidelines and shower the show with 'praise'. This is severely detrimental to WP:NPOV. If editors here still cannot see this, then it really just amounts to a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Colipon+(Talk) 19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, I think you would be wise to honor your voluntary topic ban, as you don't seem to have the ability to evaluate this from a neutral point of view. As stated before, the lede already explicitly and prominently states that Shen Yun is affiliated with Falun Gong, and also alludes to the spiritual / political content of its shows. The lede also describes other basic information about the company, such as its headquarters, history, and international tours. Receptions are not supposed to comprise a major part of articles on artistic works (apparently), but the lede also describes the reception in a neutral manner. Now, from the articles I have read on this, it is my understanding that in a performance with about 20 vignettes, between 2 and 6 depict Falun Gong directly or indirectly. Based on this, that aspect of the performance seems to be fairly well represented in the discussion on the show's content. As to reviews, most touch on the Falun Gong connection, though they do this to different extents. The Globe and Mail devotes a fair bit of space to doing this, as does the Huffington Post[13]. Neither do so in a critical manner—believe it or not, most people are not offended by Falun Gong's efforts to call attention to their plight in China. By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, or theatre critics like Richard Connema[14] devote relatively little space to the subject, and focus mostly on the performance as a whole, its history, and philosophy. Some reviewers, like fellow from DC theatre magazine, thought that the religious content was the best part of the performance. I think the variety of reviews are reflected in a fairly balanced manner in the reception section, along with the negative reviews that you are highlighted. None of the reviews on the page come from the Epoch Times or NTDTV. Not a one.

Again, this is not a forum. We're not here to speculate on the motivations and inner feelings of the Falun Gong, or make assessments on the merits and purpose of the narratives they tell through this performance. The page describes in a clear, neutral manner that the company is related to Falun Gong, and that some of its performances depict Falun Gong beliefs and/or persecution. I am going to have to stop responding to discussion that are unrelated to content.

Antilived, thank you for trying to make a concrete proposal on the lede. I think the general direction of your suggestion is fine, though I would suggest we could elaborate just a little for specificity and clarity. For instance, "Shen Yun has garnered positive reviews for the artistry of it performances. However, the inclusion of political and religious content—such as acts which depict the suppression of Falun Gong in China—have drawn mixed reactions from critics. Due to its affiliation to Falun Gong, the performances have also allegedly faced interference from the Chinese government." Would you find that agreeable? As to the differentiation between the company and show names, let's treat Shen Yun as the company name. If we need to describe performances in a particular year, we can say Shen Yun 2012, or whatever. Homunculus (duihua) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother responding to the personal attacks. The suggestion by Homunlucus is fine, perhaps adding 'some' to 'positive reviews for the artistry', since there were clearly negative reviews as well. Perhaps add something in there that the criticism is mostly about how the show does not explicitly advertise itself as a Falun Gong show - which is a consistent theme amongst articles on Guardian, Telegraph, and Toronto Star. Colipon+(Talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Guardian, Telegraph, or the Toronto Star commented on the way the show was advertised. The New York Times alone did, four years ago, and the company has (evidently) modified their approach since then. We have gone over this.Homunculus (duihua) 22:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal from Homunculus for the intro seems good to me. I'm going to fix the dead links in the interference section, and I'm creating a new section on this talk page about the performers, a number of which should probably have their own articles. TrailerTrack (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize. My previous comment about the Guardian, Toronto Star etc. was incorrect. Colipon+(Talk) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now inserted the proposal by Homunlucus above to the lede. I only raised one objection - that instead of 'positive' reviews, we change it to 'some positive' reviews. But in reviewing everything I am fine with "generally positive reviews" as well. Colipon+(Talk) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the information about the ethics commission controversy. It doesn't appear to be as routine as Homunculus says: the ethics commissioner said that the "Falun Dafa Association of Canada" (specific group named) "is seeking support for its cause, [so] these free tickets could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Members in the exercise of a duty or function of their office". A spokesperson for that group said that they were being "singled out", and Falun Gong's lawyer-advocate David Matas seems to disagree with "what anyone who has worked in government (in the West, at least) should know", saying "No reasonable person could possibly think that a Member of Parliament would be influenced in performing a function or duty of his office by a free ticket to the Shen Yun performance". Matas also said that if members of parliament don't see Shen Yun perform, then they are helping the Chinese Communist Party. Since getting legislators and other members of government to see its shows is such a big part of Falun Gong/Shen Yun's goals, and also a big reason why the Chinese government objects to the shows, the story is notable and should be included in the article. Shrigley (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley, Matas did not say that, and it's not our place to speculate on the "goals" of Falun Gong/Shen Yun, or on the reasons why the Chinese government opposes the shows. Moreover, you seem to have missed the point that the ethics commissioner's notice was taken down. Evidently, their office found the objections by Matas to be reasonable. They replaced it with a general notice on accepting gifts and event invitations, which makes no mention of Shen Yun. This is not notable. Homunculus (duihua) 23:57, 15 February 2012 (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[15], 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."[16] I'm sure Shen Yun would dispute the characterization of their art as political or antigovernment.[17]. 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."[18]
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.

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

Gish Jen Article

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

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

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

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

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

There are many reviews of the show. If we had some Falun Gong SPAs here I am sure they would trundle out dozens of reviews lauding how wonderful the show is, and insisting that this is what the show is about. The fact is that there are different views on the show. Trying to thrust forward one interpretation of the performance and claim that that is The Truth of it, the one dominant perspective that should frame the article, would not be appropriate or in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No-one is trying to thrust one worldview over another here. I had suggested division into two sections, each exploring a topical area. I don't see why that would not be agreeable. Colipon+(Talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:TrailerTrack, whose edits disproportionately relate to Falun Gong, has done exactly what you said and argued that Shen Yun gets mostly positive reviews. Colipon and others have uncritically accepted the idea that the show was uniformly praised for its artistry and panned for its politics, which is not true, because the technical aspects of Shen Yun were criticized also. I came across such negative assessments in my research, but refrained from adding them because then it might look to neutral observers that I was doing Homunculus accused me of; "elevating negative reviews".

Some examples: Buffalo News (2010): "Imagine what it might be like to watch a synchronized swimming team perform in front of a gigantic Windows 95 screen-saver... The costume-heavy spectacle is more of a fashion show than a serious exhibition of the intricacies of Chinese dance"[19] London Evening Standard (2008): "[The show] is dated and sentimental, with comically bad compères, laughably awful film projections and dance routines that would make panto producers blush.... so-so series of dance routines, singers with voices like bags of gravel"[20] Toronto Star (2008): "Art it wasn't. The choreography was consistently banal, with the performers arranged in rows doing identical gestures. The dancers were under-rehearsed and unremarkable."[21] A meta-review from the Winnipeg Free Press (2010): "Arts critics have varied in their opinions of Shen Yun productions, with some finding them dazzling and visually stunning, and others calling them cheesy and amateurish."[22]

I'll leave these here as a starting point for anyone who thinks they can neutrally integrate critics' clearly divergent opinions on the artistic merits of Shen Yun. There is also the issue of many reviewers stating that the politics overshadowed the dance, so the question of Shen Yun's artistic legitimacy (e.g., can it be compared to the American Ballet Theatre) is another question some section must address. Ultimately, however, keeping critical information out of this article in the name of DUE or NPOV is not sustainable. Also, any discussion of the positive reviews should note, as reliable sources do, at least that Shen Yun solicits positive reviews from unqualified politicians, and that The Epoch Times contains most of the positive reviews, in addition to promoting the show. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I had taken issue in the past about "the show has generally received praise for its artistry" but I didn't get too worked up over it. But now that Shrigley brings evidence to the table, including a 'meta-analysis', it would seem disingenuous to leave that phrase in the article. Colipon+(Talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Performers (again)

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

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

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

This is ridiculous. Unlike those groups, Shen Yun is not a bona fide arts troupe. As many RS's has outlined, its mission is to advance the political agenda and world view of Falun Gong, whether it admits it or not. It should be treated by what RS have reported on it, and no RS has reported extensively about the entourage of performers outlining their names etc.Colipon+(Talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, that section is currently uncited. As far as I can tell its only root is Shen Yun's own website, and as such amounts to WP:SPS. Colipon+(Talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles do something is not a valid counterpoint to the policy-based rationale that was advanced against the list, namely WP:NOT#DIRECTORY supplemented by WP:LAUNDRY. Also, the comparison to professional, apolitical dance companies is very contentious, considering that numerous reliable sources have likened this to pure propaganda. I am not arguing to treat the subject as that, since I know alternate views exist (although mostly sourced to The Epoch Times), but we handle articles on a case-by-case basis. Since the clear rationale for removing the list has not been rebutted, I have again removed it. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Can we stop this?

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