Talk:Shen Yun

Shen Yun Creations

Shen Yun Performing Arts has made a new streaming platform on the Internet. What does anyone here think? --Apisite (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth including in the article. It's relevant to Shen Yun's growth and overall online presence. Thoughts? Historic13 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Epoch Times far-right

I noticed in the introduction The Epoch Times is simply noted as a "newspaper". Elsewhere on Wikipedia it is correctly noted as a "far-right newspaper". Perhaps we should add that here, what do you think? Lucydesu (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction: it is noted as a "media outlet". Consequently I suggest we change it to "far right media outlet" Lucydesu (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Political dance article in The Washington Post February 2023

PhD student Emily Needham at the University of Virginia wrote a piece about Shen Yun which was published by The Washington Post on February 1, 2023. The piece describes Shen Yun as "a deeply political project, sponsored by American Falun Dafa Associations. These associations subscribe to the Falun Gong religious movement and financially support the far-right media outlet the Epoch Times." Needham goes on to say that dance performance has often been politically motivated, giving various examples from the 1950s in the U.S.

This source was misrepresented by Nivent2007 who wrote "Although there are ties between the Falun Gong religious movement and the Epoch Times, a spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association of D.C. said that American Falun Dafa Associations do not financially support the right-wing media outlet." In this way, Nivent2007 is delivering the opposite message, that Epoch Times is not supported by Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the latest edit because it included too many WP:BOLD changes at once. Some of the changes could be justified individually if they summarize independent WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." Llll5032 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You used an earlier version of the WaPo article. The Washington Post updated the article on Feb. 17, 2023. The current version of the article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2023/02/01/dance-cultural-diplomacy-shen-yun/) adds a clarification on the top of the article, which reads :"A previous version of this article said that American Falun Dafa Associations financially support the Epoch Times. Although there are ties between the Falun Gong religious movement and the Epoch Times, a spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association of D.C. said that American Falun Dafa Associations do not financially support the right-wing media outlet."

The part you quoted was also updated to the current version: "Shen Yun is a deeply political project, sponsored by American Falun Dafa Associations. These associations subscribe to the Falun Gong religious movement. Some adherents of this movement are affiliated with the Epoch Times, a right-wing media outlet."

The article goes on to compare Shen Yun, though privately funded, to many cultural diplomacy arts programs carried out by the U.S. State Department during the Cold War. Nivent2007 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the update is considered more reliable, quoting a spokesperson rather than having Emily Needham saying "I was wrong and the Epoch Times is NOT supported by Falun Dafa." No proof was supplied by the spokesperson, who simply denied the money flow. Needham's original investigation is the reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WaPo is a reliable source because of its reliable editorial review process. If the Editorial Board decides to change Needham's words, for example, from far-right to right-wing Epoch Times and from "financially support" to "affiliated", then it means that the WaPo's Editorial Board considers the updated version to be more reliable. Nivent2007 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The newspaper folded under external pressure from Falun Gong. That's not the signature of "more reliable". Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If an updated WaPo article is different from an old one, it is normal to use the updated version. And the clarification @Nivent2007: added is directly from the WaPo Editorial Board, so I think it's reliable and OK to be added here. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Except that the editorial board quoted a spokesperson rather than making a simple correction. They did not say that the original text was wrong; they said that the spokesperson disagreed. If WaPo had corrected the text in their own voice then their editorial expertise would be on display. Instead, they framed the response as coming from Falun Dafa. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But WaPo did remove "American Falun Dafa Associations financially support the Epoch Times" from the article, indicating they don't have evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to make the change. Nivent2007 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Although the clarification note is in an essay about Shen Yun, the note refers to American Falun Dafa Associations, not to Shen Yun specifically. Perhaps another source that describes Shen Yun more clearly could be cited. Llll5032 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I restored the stable text from Los Angeles Magazine temporarily (per WP:PRESERVE), but added a tag of "better source needed" because Nivent2007 noted that the article appears to have been retracted by the magazine (page 10, https://issuu.com/lamcs/docs/lam_0920). Llll5032 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Retracted LA Mag article

@Llll5032: Thank you adding the "better source noted" tag. But I think that content is more in line with WP:DON'T PRESERVE: LA Mag retracted it because of a defamation lawsuit, and, as I said here, its featured image was defamatory in nature because Shen Yun performances are not pro-Trump at all and was also praised by Democratic legislators and celebrities like Carolyn Maloney [1] and Donna Karen [2]. So I think the excessive quote from the retracted LA Mag article should be removed. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the long quotation from LA Mag will need to be removed because of the retraction, unless secondary RS discuss the quoted matter from the LA Mag article in context. Llll5032 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Li Hongzhi. Please keep discussion centralized. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead mention of homosexuality

Hi @Ohnoitsjamie:, sorry for my incomprehensive edit summary that might've led to some misunderstandings. I'll explain my edit here.

Currently, most criticisms against Shen Yun are centered around its lyrics that view atheism and evolution negatively, as mentioned in the body section. The two cited sources in the lead that purportedly substantiate Shen Yun's negative views on homosexuality, in fact, do not. The NBC article does not mention this at all; the New Yorker article by Jia Tolentino interprets this based solely on a brief scene of two men holding hands. But in Chinese culture (and many other Non-Western cultures), it's very common for people of the same sex to hold hands (see here for Chinese).

In addition to that, many Western LGBTQ+ rights advocates like Donna Karan and Carolyn Maloney expressed praise for Shen Yun [3] [4] and did not interpret its shows as Jia Tolentino did. This means that we should not elevate one person's negative interpretation to the lead section that contradicts the positive ones of others that are equally notable. Hope this makes sense. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly changed the description to specify that the RS were describing Falun Gong. Llll5032 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The source paints Shen Yun with the brush of homophobia: "Aside from the organ harvesting, the homophobia, the anti-evolution ballad, and the Karl Marx apparition, the thing I found most odd about my Shen Yun experience in Houston was the hosts’ explanation of Chinese classical dance." I don't see why we are trying to dial this back. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Meng tries to argue that a completely different source shows that Chinese people hold hands without reference to homosexuality. Meng's source does not talk about Shen Yun or Falun Gong. The New Yorker author Jia Tolentino points to a scene in which the audience is led to think negative thoughts about "corrupt youth" who are shown to be corrupt because they are wearing black, looking at their cell phones, and two of the men are holding hands. Tolentino's published assessment trumps Meng's personal assessment. Tolentino concludes that homophobia is purposely woven into the Shen Yun performance. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think what the China Daily article referenced by Thomas Meng says is that Chinese men (or women) holding hands is common and not necessarily an indication of a gay relationship. If no other critics found any homophobia elements in Shen Yun, I wonder if this author's opinion, possibly a misinterpretation given the Chinese culture context, warrants a place in the lede?

Furthermore, the Reception section encompasses both positive and negative reviews, which I believe necessitates a balanced approach in the introduction. Therefore, it would be appropriate to include references to both the controversies and the positive reviews.

However, delving into intricate details of the controversies in the introduction, especially when there are also positive reviews, would undermine the desired balance and consistency regarding the varying degrees of support for different perspectives that exist today (Wikipedia:VOICE: Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views).

As a proposed revision for the last paragraph of the lead, I suggest the following:

"The company's numerous tours have garnered favorable reviews. Nevertheless, Shen Yun's performances have not been immune to controversy, as they have faced criticism from various media outlets and members of civil society for their perceived promotion of sectarian doctrines. Additionally, due to the company's affiliation with Falun Gong practitioners, whom the Chinese government persecutes in their country of origin, Chinese diplomats have exerted pressure on theater entrepreneurs and political representatives of other nations to cancel Shen Yun's activities." The group is promoted by The Epoch Times. In 2019, an NBC News assessment concluded that The Epoch Times and Shen Yun "make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong".

This revised paragraph acknowledges the positive reception of Shen Yun's performances while also acknowledging the controversies and the external pressures faced by the company, resulting in (on my view) a more balanced and nuanced representation. Nivent2007 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion promotes a false balance between Shen Yun seen as an artistic endeavor and Shen Yun seen as a blunt tool to promote Falun Gong. The performance series does not start out neutral; it was born with negative characteristics because of its direct connections to Falun Gong, and its obvious political cant. All the positive descriptions about Shen Yun must be framed in relation to the blatant propaganda aspect. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the current version presents a false balance that frames Shen Yun in a negative light. Those who view Shen Yun as "propaganda" are featured in the lead, but people more prominant who gave Shen Yun positive reviews, such as Kelly Rutherford and Candace Bushnell , Donna Karan, and Carolyn Maloney.

References

, are not even mentioned.Thomas Meng (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Maloney's congressional statement will never serve as a reliable source here. That kind of thing is purchased in trade for votes. Donna Karan hosting Shen Yun at Lincoln Center shows the New York fashion world getting together for their own reasons, with dancing and Chinese political propaganda as the less important backdrop. Those are puff pieces rather than critical reviews from musicians or choreographers or political scientists. They don't have enough weight to bring the topic into a positive light. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

We are having a related discussion when I found this. With respect, I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is clear guidance on WP:RS which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter.

"that kind of thing is purchased in trade for votes."

"shows the New York fashion world getting together for their own reasons, with dancing and Chinese political propaganda as the less important backdrop."

You are almost trying to write your own opinion piece on this matter. Your bald assertion that the congressman made the statement in exchange for votes is wildly speculative and burdens on being defamatory. Frankly, these kind of comments don't belong here on Wikipedia, which is a place for civil, rule-based discussion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)