Talk:Shen Yun

Balance

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way: Is it really necessary that 75 % of the articles handles with reception??? There are many things which could be written about the show and less about reception. Guys I give you 5 days to revise the article or to make a suggestion, or the article will be rewritten.Cantabo07 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Hello guys I'm back from hiatus. Yea the reason why I didn't include praise is because eventually you guys would find this article and add all the parts that are missing (only took 6 days), but now the situation is reversed! Now it's all praise and no criticism. I hold reservations from quotes in the official praise page because I was unable to trace the source of the quote back to the author for some (only tried 2, was busy), and so if we are going to include it can we please source it from the actual source, not Epoch Times or any FLG canvas sites or the Shen Yun official website. That way we can also avoid misquotes (v. Engadget endorsing Monster cables) and make it verifiable. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is also there. See the reference for the Guardian and Telegraph articles. Would you like to provide some statistics saying what is the proportion between the negative and the positive review's? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is how do you quantify the importance of reviews so that we only have the most important, most influential ones? Why should the reader care about what some ex-ballerina or some actress say? Should we include Tom Cruise's opinion on Cirque du Soleil? We NEED to remove every reference that goes back to the reception page instead of the actual review, to stop something like this from happening (heck I've already found one, the Washington Post relayed the official description, they did not say it). I can track down the Chicago Tribune article after some searches (and have updated the ref accordingly) but others, like the MSNBC ref, the Performance Arts Insider, Canberra Times, Ottawa Sun references (I gave up after that), there are simply no trace of the original publication. WP:V##Questionable sources says:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

the receptions on the official websites are clearly promotional in nature and rely heavily on personal opinions of the reviewers; Thus they are unsuitable for citing claims about how the reviewers made the claims, when the original claims can not be easily found (no date of publication, no author, no title, etc.). (If anyone know if past articles are in some database do tell me, I might have access to it).

I have also added a notice on Shen Yun's FLG connection since they seem to be quite proud of it on the Edinburgh chapter's website.--antilived^{T | C | G} 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewritting of the article

I decided that the article has to be rewritten on the basics of the lastest version before dilip rajeev's destructive changes. One paragraph about criticism and one about praise, that's balanced, isn't it? Now the article have to be expanded with interessting and important informations like Peter Chastain wishes. The reception doesn't have to be expanded. Cantabo07 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Friend,.. Personal attacks, baseless characterization of well sourced material contributed by another editor as "destructive" to achieve your ends, etc. won't get you far on wikipedia. If you see specific issues you are more than welcome to point them out - and that would be a much more constructive approach than blanking an article out on the basis of a blunt, baseless personal attack.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Antilived, thank you so much for bringing light into ingorance. Its seems that some people even don't know what a personal attack or well-sourced mean.

dilip rajeev, think about that what Antilived told you. I found something in your comment. You think I won't get far in wikipedia? Are you sure that you got far in wikipedia?Cantabo07 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of info is not a choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite this article

Since this article is about a stage show, then it should follow the guidelines. Write about the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Currently the entire article consists of skewered reception on the show sourced straight from Shen Yun and Epoch Times, making as if the show is universally praised while th reviews critical of the performance got sandwiched in between. Condense all the praise, maybe link to the official site's praise section and quote only the most notable reviews.--PCPP (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add: the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Good suggestions BTW. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Shen Yun is the performance troope behind the various shows (too bad the shows don't have a catchy, unique name, and in general they seem quite schizophrenic in naming their shows...), not the shows themselves. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Source

I'm interested why this source [1] is not considered "reliable". Why was the entire section blanked? Colipon+(T) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of information

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

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

Mission statements

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

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

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

Sample articles on performing arts

Hello, please list here some sample Wikipedia articles on performing arts. I intend these to have here temporarily for content structure reference. If you feel you have better, more relevant samples, please add them here in this section. Thank You!

• Musical theatre
• Cirque du Soleil

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

• I have read all the reviews posted in the 'praise' section, except the Tulsa, which was dead. It seems pretty obvious that they all have one thing in common - a commercial motive to promote the show. The paragraph at the bottom is a dead giveaway: where, when, how much the tickets cost. Only on reading between the lines is one given a hint of what to expect. "Although at first glance the spectacular might look like more of a grand cavalcade of Chinese cultural scenes than a vehicle for a political agenda, some of the show's vignettes have depicted stories that reference hot buttons such as Falun Gong or repression in Tibet." If it were a show without any politics, I don't there any reason why the Falun Gong connection should be mentioned at all. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input. Regarding the articles "where, when, how much the tickets cost." => I see that you trimmed the reception section and removed those sources (and I see that in your edit basically you recognize that not all sources, mention ticket price). I would not necessarily agree that when a cite mentions ticket price it is automatically bought off, but for the sake of consensus I will consider your suggestion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding "If it were a show without any politics", actually there are human rights issues presented, and the relationship between Falun Gong and Chinese government is tense, yet, I see that the section dedicated in presenting that relation was selectively merged into the reception section: [2] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would have to say that the 'content' section is, or has been written, in a promotional or otherwise unencyclopaedic manner that I have put an {{advert}} banner at the top. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The content was written because it was suggested by Peter see bellow, I looked to some of the links presented in Musical theatre and I saw that content is presented, also now I see that Antilived is also asking for it "when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page.". Yet I see that much of that content section was deleted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• And also it quotes FAR too much from the official website - if the reader wants to read it they can go to the official website itself. See the Cirque du Soleil page (instead of the general Music theatre page) and you wouldn't find exhaustive details about all the personnels and every little detail, when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• What is exclusively quoted from the official website? The Mission is refed twice in the text, but never stand alone, so we can even remove that, but I don't see why and the official site is mentioned on the external link section. and there are plenty third party quotes, so the ratio is at most 10% which I would not say that is far too much. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• The page is a work in progress, I will look to more sources and enrich it, regarding "the actual content" there was a draft but now I see that while I slept it was that is removed. [3] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made a mistake, I was meant to say "it quotes far too much". In your draft half the content were copied verbatim from other sources; copyright notwithstanding, it is simply not how an encyclopedia should be written. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

That definitely does not belong in "critical reception" - it may as well be an ad for it! --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Content

I would like to see something about the history of the show, how it began, how it got to where it is today, the people who direct and perform in it, etc. Does the show concentrate on particular aspects of Chinese performing arts or particular parts of China, or does it try to give us a little bit of everything? The Shen Yun promotional videos on YouTube show footage of the destruction of art during the Cultural Revolution, so I also wonder whether and how they have been affected by political events within and outside of China. Peter Chastain (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just BS propaganda. The Cultural Revolution ended 30 years ago, and the current Chinese government rehabilitated traditional Chinese cultures, so FLG is beating a dead horse.--PCPP (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite unnecessary remark and uncivil --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it uncivil? Wikipedia is not censored (and even bullshit isn't that much of a swear word nowadays). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cultural Revolution was an act of philistinism which did a lot of damage, some of it irreversible. However, it's the troupe's own publicity which is making these claims about how the performance are ancient Chinese art forms without any substantiation from experts. All we have is a bunch of copywriters for their press office (all non-experts) writing pseudo-reviews full of praise and claims to their cultural roots. I wouldn't have called it BS propaganda myself, I think Spam was an apt description. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Moving ahead: seeking consensus

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

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

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

1. See Cirque du Soleil for example of similar articles and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not set out to REPLACE the official website (where those stuff belong), it's to augment it. If the reader wants to know them, they can read it from the official site.
2. We don't need a giant heading for 2 lines of text, unless you have more content to add (Wikipedia:SECTION#Section size guidelines)
3. Uh... it already is? It's called "Critical reception"? (and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics) --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't think it is such a good idea. Having such a section invites accumulation of all reviews and assorted trash which third parties have written, and would risk being used as a battleground for who can garner the most quotes 'for' or 'against', depending on which 'side' you are on. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the name "Critical reception" ameliorate that issue since critical reception implies the need for critics, which provides a criteria for inclusion (only mention responses from established critics/reviewers, not the ones that merely advertise the show). --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Antilived, I don't have any assumption of bad faith. Reception is for both positive and negative reception. Please see WP:POVFORK and [forgot the essay]. I don't see the problem, really. If we have "critical reception" does that mean we should have "positive reception"? That wouldn't quite make sense. If you don't like the initial paragraph, maybe you could write one, or supplement it. I thought it was useful because it is just quick and orients the reader to the main thrust of the criticism. If we start of with just a referenced statement, then the next paragraph is just more direct statements about sources, this may create a stilted sort of feeling for readers. This is just my thoughts. I don't feel that what I wrote was controversial at all. It just seemed to sum up briefly what was already on the page. If you can do it even briefer, that's better, of course. Looking forward to your thoughts on the issue.--Asdfg12345 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Asdfg, please read what I wrote like 2 paragraphs above what you wrote, namely the part "and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics" (see for example Fight Club (film)#Critical reception). This is especially important in here because it establishes a criteria, that it must be an opinion piece written by an established critic, so that we can wade through all the junk advertising "reviews". Also, your lead doesn't help much at all - it's a very bad idea referring to the official website for critical reception (conflict of interest and what not) and it's mostly weasel words (replacing "some say" by "the official website says some say" doesn't help much). Since there is a heading already do we really need an introduction to it? --antilived^{T | C | G} 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this quote from WP:POVFORK: "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)." Do we have a situation here where the word "criticism" must be used? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Priorities

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

I find this edit hard to understand as neutral. It deletes a positive phrase for the show, adds a negative one, then changes "reception" to "critical reception," ignoring the quote HappyInGeneral provided from a policy page saying that sections devoted to praise and criticism should be called "reception." Just to be clear, I agree that the notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead. But does that mean removing any positive representation, and keeping only a negative representation? I really question that that was the spirit in which that policy was meant. In other news, what's wrong with the lead in the main article? Maybe discuss it there. --Asdfg12345 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ordinarily, in any other article, I would have deleted outright anything about what any organisation claims for itself, any statement from mission statement and stuff destined for corporate brochures. I made an exception in this case because there really was little redeeming about the troupe I could use. My edit was basically a rewind to my previous version. It seems to only you and Happy have any issue about use of the term 'Critical reception'. You will notice from this that it was there from when you last visited. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, primary sources can talk about themselves... this is in the rules. Of course the troupe can have its own word in here. Cmon. That's even in the rules. I'm saying the section should be called "reception" and include positive and critical reception.. I thought this is also in the policy. Our wires may be getting crossed or tangled :( --Asdfg12345 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The word critical does not necessarily mean negative, as you are using the word. It also has an earlier (and linguists say) more correct usage, meaning anything involving skillful judgment, as in a critical analysis.76.14.42.191 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That rational is not in line with wp:Criticism, quote: "Criticism: criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving ahead for 2010

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

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

Sounds reasonable. One thing that strikes me as odd is the way Falun Gong is described as a "new religious movement" in the lead; this isn't quite accurate. That's one of the variety of classifications given to Falun Gong, but is by no means the dominant one. Having it here like this is somewhat misleading. One of the most common descriptions given to Falun Gong by academics is "spiritual practice." I don't think that is particularly controversial, and would suggest it say that here.--Asdfg12345 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Epoch Times

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

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

tbh it's quite irrelevant to Shen Yun itself what The Epoch Times says about it. You would need to establish how that is relevant to this, particularly in the lead. Furthermore, the point of that sentence is to say that so-and-so well-known person finds the show excellent, while so-and-so other person/publication finds it bad. the other details are quite beside the point. The Epoch Times is a sponsor of Shen Yun, so of course they provide regular coverage. If you have some source pointing out how the Times' coverage of the show is relevant, then maybe it could go in the body of the article. Until then I agree with Homunculus that it's rather irrelevant; the point is that Richard Connema said it. Adding a bunch of other details to make an unrelated point just buries that, detracting from the article. 2 cents.--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: [4]? 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. [5]) 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.[6]. The performances seem to be universally hosted by local Falun Gong Associations—something they state prominently[7][8][9]. 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[10]...).

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. [11] This is a lead, a general sentence; that source does not say what that sentence claimed.
2. [12] No explanation for removing useful, basic & sourced information about the show.
3. [13] Wasn't this discussed?
4. [14] 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.[15] 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)