Talk:Shen Yun

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)

Do WP:GREL sources corroborate its claims? Llll5032 (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The Sam Braslow piece is perfectly fine to use here. Braslow is a career journalist working for multiple publications. He is his own reliable source. Beyond that, his article about Shen Yun was cited by career journalist Chris Jennewein.[3] Jennewein summarizes and quotes the Braslow piece. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You could ask at RSN, but I will guess that editors there will agree with BSN, unless other RS said the retracting was wrong. Claims that clearly cite an unretracted RS are probably fine. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't follow this discussion when it was going on originally. I see that there is a whole paragraph dedicated to this topic in the article. If the publication retracted the report, it shouldn't be used. Full stop. LA Mag is a reliable source, and the retraction means that the reliable source no longer stands behind the article. The argument that Braslow is his own reliable source does not match wikipedia standards at all. It's surprising that this is even up for debate. A retraction means that the article is unreliable. —Zujine|talk 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. I also came across this article and thought it was inappropriate to use as a source.Blue nutcracker (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is surprised that another WP:SPA has come by and attempted this. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you stop attacking me and actually participate in the discussion? Most editors on this section agree that the long quote is inappropriate and so is the source. I don't see anything wrong with having removed the content. I am new and not very familiar with all of the wikipedia rules, but this seems obviously out of place for a page about some dance company.Blue nutcracker (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You know very well that this article isn't about "some dance company" but rather a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong. And considering your attempt at removing "Shen Yun's performances have been described as promoting sectarian doctrines and negative views of evolution and atheism"] (sourced to the New Yorker) and your first edit was on this very page a few days ago (diff), now would be a good time for you to internalize WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Compared to other dance company articles I have read, this one is obviously poorly written. I don't care about what content goes in this page as long as it doesn't read like a tabloid. Why don't you just focus on contributing to the discussion, instead of continuing with your personal attacks? Why do you think that this LA mag article is a reliable source? Blue nutcracker (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As a "new" editor "not very familiar with all of the wikipedia rules" (apart from WP:BLPREMOVE apparently in your 11th edit) who "just noticed this discussion" out of the 6.8 million articles, have you thought about maybe editing in other topic areas to gain experience? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing that since I joined. I've mainly contributed to ballet dancer biographies. Anyways, acccording to User:MrOllie a few paragraphs above, there is a centralized discussion about this quote and article in Talk:Li Hongzhi that also applies to this page. If you think the content should stay, why don't you and User: Bloodofox participate there and make your voices heard?.Blue nutcracker (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Those discussions are more than a year old, this has been a settled matter for a while. Their voices were heard and folks agreed. MrOllie (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about the section "Braslow piece in Los Angeles Magazine" on that page. Is that the one you're referring to? If so, it looks like the discussion is from 2023, but it isn't clear to me what was agreed on? It seems User:Thomas Meng, User:Llll5032, User:JackUpdike, and User: Nivent2007 agreed that the article shouldn't be used as a source, but User:Binksternet and User:MrOllie disagreed? Does that mean that the 4-2 split was consensus to not use it? Can you clarify? Blue nutcracker (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's never just counting heads to settle disputes. It's about who makes the most compelling argument with regard to policy or practice. Part of the problem with removing the LA Mag piece is that career journalist Chris Jennewein observed Braslow's position and wrote about it. Braslow's research and conclusion stands as its own valid source. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bink, the article you referenced supposedly by Chris Jennewein was only describing the defamation lawsuit against Braslow's piece, and it doesn't defend or add credibility to Braslow in anyway.

If Braslow's "conclusion stands as its own valid source", then it'd be a self-published source— also a poor source because it's been retracted by its once-publisher and contains glaring factual errors (e.g. it says that Epoch Times was founded by Li, but it's actually founded by John Tang [4]) Since the quote we're using from this source mostly disparages a living person, per WP:BLPREMOVE, we should Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced [and/or] relies on self-published sources. Thomas Meng (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Obviously John Tang served as the agent for Li, founding ET as the voice of Falun Gong. Nobody seriously doubts that. Regarding self-published material, a career journalist is considered an expert source, and quite usable. Your characterization is false, that Braslow "mostly disparages a living person". He makes highly critical observations about Falun Gong. Nothing he wrote is surprising or far-fetched. It was the result of careful research. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that no RS says Li founded ET or that John Tang served as an agent of Li—the latter is WP:OR.

Regardless of how we characterize Braslow's quote or his qualifications, per WP:RS/SPS, we should Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. So all content Braslow wrote about Li should be removed. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

ET is the voice of Li. The founding of it occurred under Li's direction.[5] Braslow is not wrong in spirit, despite Tang's name on the masthead. You're splitting hairs. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I’m starting this conversation due to Brusquedandelion’s recent reversion of three of my edits, stating WP:UNDUE and “excessive quotation.” I hope to discuss them here to obtain clarification and consensus.

First edit: I added a few short quotes from a 2016 Chicago Tribune article to the Reception section. This section currently has a number of quotes from news reports from different years, ranging from 2008-2015 to 2018-2023. The pieces I added were specific to the 2016 performance and shorter than several of the other quotes in the same section.

Second edit: I added an archive link (the original link is behind a paywall now) for the Charleston Gazette-Mail article in the same paragraph as well as additional information about audience reception as reported by the author.

Third edit: I added two quotes from two different sources: the same Chicago Tribune article and an article by The Spokesman-Review (a newspaper in WA). I added parts with more specific info about the show’s religious-political content. In the Billing and promotion section, there are currently a number of quotes generically stating that the show contains religious-political messages. These two sources provide info as to how much of this type of content is actually included in the show, providing relevant and necessary info to be compliant with WP:NPOV.

I thus do not believe there was any undue weight given to any of the sources, nor was any quote inappropriate for inclusion, as the quotes added were in line with the other quotes already in the article. Additionally, I was mindful of the quote length and had reduced their size while still conveying their complete meaning. I’m happy to hear what other fellow editors think, and hopefully we can reach consensus on what should be added back. 23impartial (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will revert Brusquedandelion’s recent reversion. 23impartial (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

SPS tag on recent edit

Hello, my recent edit included an citation for conservativehome.com, and Llll5032 added a self-published tag to it. Here's a link to the "about us" section of their website. https://conservativehome.com/who-we-are/ They have an editorial team that does not include the author of the article I used, Benedict Rogers, who publishes on a wide range of news and editorial publications. I don't think the tag is appropriate. Conservative Home has been around for almost 20 years and Rogers rarely publishes on the site. I'll wait a day or two to give Llll5032 or others a chance to respond before I remove it. —Zujine|talk 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources in its article say it is a partisan blog. So it is probably not for use in the encyclopedia per WP:SPS, unless it is quoted in a secondary RS. I removed the source. If a RS publishes a similar statement by the author, it could be considered either WP:RS or WP:RSOPINION and more due. Llll5032 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If they call it a blog themselves, I guess you're right. I only found it because I follow Rogers on social. He publishes a lot, so I'll watch to see if he discusses this issue on a different platform later. Thank you for taking the time to look into it more. —Zujine|talk 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hill contributor article

I have removed this particular source on the Shen Yun article, because according to WP:THEHILL, such contributor articles have no oversight from The Hill's editors themselves and should be treated as self-published sources. 193.119.98.222 (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion explaining your removal of the opinion piece published by The Hill. I added it a few months ago and think it should be retained for the following reasons:

While WP:THEHILL does note that contributor pieces (which links to WP:NEWSBLOG) should be treated as self-published sources, it also states that its opinion pieces should be handled per WP:RSOPINION.

It's important to differentiate between The Hill's contributor blog (launched in 2014), which uses only "contributor" in the byline, and their current opinion pieces, which use "opinion contributor" -- this terminology doesn't automatically designate all opinion authors as regular or official contributors. In Wu's case, a simple search confirms that this is his sole article in The Hill, indicating that he is not a contributor to the publication. Thus WP:RSOPINION rather than WP:NEWSBLOG should be applied here.

Wu is a PhD student in art history at Johns Hopkins University. His comments on the intersection of art, politics, and cultural identity contribute to a balanced presentation without dominating the narrative or overshadowing other perspectives. I believe it is WP:DUE.

Additionally, please note that an insource search for "thehill.com/opinion/" in the Article namespace returns over 500 references to The Hill's opinion articles currently used on Wikipedia, suggesting there is precedent for using such sources when appropriate.

Happy to hear others' thoughts. W9793 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As an opinion piece, the removed source might belong more with other opinions in the Reception section. But even among articles published in The Hill, the opinion piece may not be one of the better sources for an encyclopedia. For example, this article, republished in The Hill from Nextstar, is more clearly a reliable secondary source. Llll5032 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing - It seems this Nexstar piece is largely a synthesis of existing coverage that has been incorporated, while Wu's op-ed offers a unique scholarly perspective from an art history standpoint that is absent from the page. That being said, I'm fine with moving the first quote originally added to the Billing and promotion section to Reception instead. W9793 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

PHd students are not generally considered experts of the field, and self published blogs are not noted for their scrutiny either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.80.147 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an op-ed, not a self-published blog post — please see my comments above for reasoning.

Wu holds an MA in art history and is pursuing a PhD in the field at a top U.S. university. He likely possesses more specialized knowledge than many journalists whose reviews of Shen Yun have been cited on the page. Why do you see a need to exclude his perspective? W9793 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

After looking at the source, it's definitely time for it to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve explained why I believed it should be retained — can you please clarify why you thought “it's definitely time for it to go”? W9793 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by a Falun Gong rep, claiming the Falun Gong is "is rooted in Buddhist and Daoist traditions" while totally avoiding mentioning its founder and leader Li Hongzhi, who has always been the center of the new religious movement. This is a typical Falun Gong strategy. Statements like "Such rhetoric is often derived from the Chinese state’s vehement and defamatory denunciation of the show" and "why has the Chinese Communist Party gone to such lengths to sabotage a performance that promotes Chinese culture?" are pure comedy. Note the implication that Western media is somehow puppeteered by the government of China. It's an obvious WP:RS fail designed to play defense for a WP:FRINGE group. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The criticisms of this article all sound content-based rather than source-based. The Hill seems to surely be a reliable source, but because this is commentary, it does make sense to move it to the Reception section instead of its previous location. Just because some editors disagree with the author of the article does not mean it isn't reliable. Everything in the Reception section is the opinion of authors. Shen Yun sells millions of tickets each year. Obviously, a lot people enjoy the show and see merit in the performances. Positive opinions have a place in this article, which should be a place for readers to get information about a popular performance group. Criticism has its place as well, but all viewpoints should be represented, not just the critical ones. It should also be noted that Shen Yun is a production of a minority ethnic and religious group, with performances that represent their unique beliefs. The editors who consistently attack Shen Yun and Falun Gong on Wikipedia are biased in a dangerous way that is based on religious and racial discrimination. —Zujine|talk 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you calling me racist? A religious bigot? I "attack" Falun Gong on Wikipedia from a place of carefully reasoned skepticism. What is dangerous is letting Falun Gong adherents portray a whitewashed version of the group. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bloodofox, I was pointing your (and other editor's) biases when it comes to this issue. You consistently show a lack of respect for Falun Gong beliefs. You have tried to "out" other editors as Falun Gong believers or sympathizers and insinuated that they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to pages related to the subject, which is the same as saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed to edit articles on Islam. You seem to think that because you have deemed Falun Gong to be a "fringe" group, that they do not deserve respect. This is discriminatory behaviour. They are a religious minority facing severe, well-documented persecution, yet you dismiss evidence of the human rights violations they face. In terms of race, perhaps I should have phrased it as ethnic or cultural discrimination instead. Your editing hasn't shown any appreciation for Chinese culture or history, much less the nuanced issues within the Chinese diaspora when it comes to traditional Chinese culture. You don't seem familiar with classical Chinese philosophy, literature, or art, yet you assert your own opinions above those of actual experts, which is again discriminatory behaviour that comes from a lack of respect. I didn't call you a religious bigot or a racist. I pointed out your biases, and you drew those conclusions yourself. —Zujine|talk 13:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No attempt at backtracking is going to erase your Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. It's time to get a mod involved. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I attempted to backtrack at all. —Zujine|talk 17:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason for any Wikipedia editors to show "respect for Falun Gong beliefs" just as there is no reason for Wikipedia editors to show respect for the CCP's beliefs. Respect is not required. What is required is policy compliance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. I suggest we focus our discussion on the source itself. As WP:BIASED states: “Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Our personal agreement or disagreement with an author doesn't determine whether a source meets WP:RS. Per WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSOPED, Wu's op-ed should be considered reliable, as the Hill is a mainstream publication and Wu specializes in art history. The excerpts I cited don’t mention Falun Gong or its beliefs. I have yet to see any compelling policy-based argument for excluding them. W9793 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:THEHILL says contributor pieces receive minimal editorial oversight and should be handled as WP:SPS. So is Wu an an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? If they've been published by other sources as an expert then it should be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ActivelyDisinterested - please see below for an excerpt of my initial reply to the IP editor that started this discussion -

"While WP:THEHILL does note that contributor pieces (which links to WP:NEWSBLOG) should be treated as self-published sources, it also states that its opinion pieces should be handled per WP:RSOPINION.

It's important to differentiate between The Hill's contributor blog (launched in 2014), which uses only "contributor" in the byline, and their current opinion pieces, which use "opinion contributor" -- this terminology doesn't automatically designate all opinion authors as regular or official contributors. In Wu's case, a simple search confirms that this is his sole article in The Hill, indicating that he is not a contributor to the publication. Thus WP:RSOPINION rather than WP:NEWSBLOG should be applied here.

Additionally, please note that an insource search for "thehill.com/opinion/" in the Article namespace returns over 500 references to The Hill's opinion articles currently used on Wikipedia, suggesting there is precedent for using such sources when appropriate."

And as I wrote earlier in this thread -

"Wu holds an MA in art history and is pursuing a PhD in the field at a top U.S. university. He likely possesses more specialized knowledge than many journalists whose reviews of Shen Yun have been cited on the page." W9793 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I read that the other way round to you, the blogs by there staff are RSOPINION and articles with contributors in the byline should be SPS. The fact there is no other articles by EU would show he's a contributor not a staff member writing a blog. Looking at the underlying discussions about The Hill point to them meaning that non-staff contributor pieces are self-published sources.

How many times a reference is used on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with how reliable it is, a search for Wikipedia.org will give you thousands of results.

Wu as a PhD student could be considered a subject matter expert, but SPS would require that some other source has already published them as such. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

However diving into the threads actually listed by RSP (which I would always suggest) only one editor mentions that the opinion contributors should be considered SPS but gives no reasons for saying so, and although The Hill is asking for contrarian pieces it's editorial control over them is unclear[6]. I can't see that they don't have editorial control over them.
So ignore my comment, although I think WP:THEHILL is saying contributor opinion pieces should be handled as SPS, I can't see any reason why it says that -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this further. Agreed - The Hill's op-ed submission policies, as outlined, do indicate clear editorial control.

If there are no other concerns or objections, I will add Wu's op-ed back. W9793 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And then I and other users will simply revert it. First, this opinion piece nakedly parrots Falun Gong talking points: do not mention the group's founder and leader Li Hongzhi (check), attempt to claim that the Falun Gong somehow represents traditional Chinese culture ("Shen Yun’s claim to represent the Chinese tradition, at least from an artistic theory point of view, is accurate") (check), emphasize persecution but do not mention the Falun Gong's intense political activities (and its extensions like the Epoch Times) (check), etc. You could generate something like this with Chat GPT prompt just using the group's typical talking points.

The article even unabashedly 'sources' its claim that "Chinese viewers have also been profoundly moved by a 'true tradition' absent in post-Mao China" to a YouTube video from another Falun Gong arm, the New Tang Dynasty, as a "source". The author also does this with the claim that "Western audiences report being elevated in the soul after the performance". Sure, no need to inform readers that this is in fact just another Falun Gong arm. lol, seriously.

So, what do you think this author's connection is to the Falun Gong? Remember, this is a WP:FRINGE topic and WP:PROFRINGE is therefore a point of major concern.

Whatever the case, the author is not a subject matter expert—this individual has no peer-reviewed publications on for example new religious movements, for example—and it's an obvious WP:RS fail, which you know. Stop wasting our time. If you want further rejection, go ahead and take it to WP:RSN. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Epoch Times debunk of NYT

The Epoch Times recently wrote a debunk on the NYT articles a couple days ago. We should probably add this as it disputes most of the arguments that the New York Times made against Shen Yun. Of course it would be biased since TET is founded by Falun Gong practitioners, but the same goes for New York Times and their untrustworthiness.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/new-york-times-relies-on-distortion-deceit-in-effort-to-smear-shen-yun-5707763 144.121.83.58 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but Epoch Times is specifically blacklisted as a source at Wikipedia for repeatedly promoting conspiracy theories. See WP:RSP.

Also, to add to the CCP interference of Shen Yun section, they have also sent bomb threats and slashed tires of Shen Yun tour buses.

https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/spirituality/challenges-we-face https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq_2PagLsa0

There's also an US report talking about this issue. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/china/

"The Falun Dafa Association reported the PRC government pressured foreign entertainment venues in multiple countries to refuse to host or cancel already scheduled performances of the U.S.-based Falun Gong-affiliated dance troupe Shen Yun. Many of the performers are Falun Gong practitioners and, in addition to traditional Chinese dances, some dances portray present-day religious persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.83.58 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither have to do with internal issues at Shen Yun. In fact, the FBI is currently investigating money laundering at Epoch Times.