Talk:Shen Yun/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Media coverage of Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and Falun Gong

I've posted this collection of quotes from recent media sources elsewhere on related articles on Wikipedia, but I think it'd be handy for editors working on this article, so I am providing it here as well.

Here's some recent coverage of the activities of the Falun Gong extensions, including Shen Yun:

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, [Falung Gong founder and leader Hongzhi] Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:

• Roose, Kevin. 2020. Epoch Times, Punished by Facebook, Gets a New Megaphone on YouTube. The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Little is known about The Epoch Times’s finances and organizational structure. The nonprofit Epoch Times Association, which operates it, reported $8.1 million in revenue and $7.2 million in expenses on its 2017 public tax filings. An investigation by NBC News last summer found ties between the outlet and other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations, such as the Shen Yun dance performance series and the video broadcaster [New Tang Dynasty, New Tang Dynasty Television ], and said the organizations 'appear to share missions, money and executives.' ... Three former Epoch Times employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the organization .. described its staff as primarily Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom had little previous experience in journalism. Editorial employees, they said, were encouraged to attend weekly “Fa study” sessions outside work hours, during which they would gather to study the teachings of Falun Gong’s spiritual leader, Li Hongzhi. ... The Epoch Times has long denied having direct ties to Falun Gong. Mr. Gregory said that the organization was primarily funded through subscriptions and ads, and that "donations are a small part of our income."

Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:

• Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online.

Quote:

Despite its growing reach and power, little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times.

The outlet’s opacity makes it difficult to determine an overall structure, but it is loosely organized into several regional tax-free nonprofits. The Epoch Times operates alongside the video production company, NTD, under the umbrella of The Epoch Media Group, a private news and entertainment company whose owner executives have declined to name, citing concerns of "pressure" that could follow.

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

... In 2009, the founder and leader of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, came to speak at The Epoch Times' offices in Manhattan. Li came with a clear directive for the Falun Gong volunteers who comprised the company’s staff: “Become regular media.”

And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:

• Ruhle, Stephanie. 2019. "Pro-Trump news outlet The Epoch Times funded by Chinese spiritual group". August 20, 2019. MSNBC. Online.

Caption quote:

NBC News has exclusively learned that the popular conservative news site The Epoch Times is funded by a Chinese spiritual community called Falun Gong, which hopes to take down the Chinese government.

The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:

• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. "Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling, World of Shen Yun". The New Yorker. Online.

Quote:

Falun Gong also has its own media outlet, a newspaper called the Epoch Times, which was founded in 2000. (The chairman of the newspaper’s board has said that it is “not a Falun Gong newspaper,” because “Falun Gong is a question of an individual’s belief.”) The paper skews conservative: among its recent pieces are stories headlined “Why We Should Embrace President Trump’s Nationalism,” “Government Welfare: A Cancer Known as Communism,” and “President Trump, Build the Wall.” It also is the world’s foremost purveyor of Shen Yun content, publishing such stories as “Excited Fans Welcome Shen Yun at Taiwanese Airport,” “The Vivid Storytelling of Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra,” and “Shen Yun Audiences Already Waiting for Next Year."

And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

• Busvine, Douglas. 2018. "German far right far ahead in use of social media". Reuters. September 13, 2018. Online.

Quote:

Instead, the researchers found that AfD supporters amplified the reach of media coverage of stories that the AfD posted or commented on. Social media users sympathetic to the party often tweeted links to stories in Die Welt, a conservative daily, but also to right-wing media outlets.

These included news sites such as Junge Freiheit and the German edition of the Epoch Times, which is part of a media group set up by Chinese-American members of the Falun Gong sect and focuses on the same immigration issues at the heart of the AfD platform.

There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about the References

I would like to point out an issue about referencing: the third paragraph said Shen Yun is "filled with cult messages". I was wondering if all three references have this quote, so I went out and clicked them. I saw only one that has this quote. So why did the "editor" include the other two? Sky-Dream (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

The programs in the Shen Yun show are all based on Falun Gong's belief in Falun Dafa. All the "human masters" such as "Creators", "God", "The God of Gods" and "Falun King" appearing on the show are all Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi. At the same time, Li Hongzhi himself is the artistic director of Shen Yun Art Troupe. Therefore, a major feature of Shen Yun is to celebrate Li Hongzhi in the form of literary performances. And directed by Li Hongzhi himself. The theme of the whole performance is: Li Hongzhi came to the world from the Heaven as a savior to rescue all mankind. The purpose of the performance is to promote Falun Gong. Luhaikongsanjun (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The name "Luhaikongsanjun" means “three military types(sanjun): army(lu), navy(hai) and air force(kong)” in Chinese. Wish he/she is not from military, otherwise he/she might have bias. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening section

Several things I wanna discuss, so I'm gonna number them.

1. I propose adding the following sentences after the lead sentence to give an overview similar to how other performance companies’ pages are.

“The performance prominently features classical Chinese dance, which is accompanied by a live orchestra composed of both Western and Chinese instruments.[2][3][4][5] The name of Shen Yun means the beauty of divine beings dancing and aims at reviving the rich cultural and spiritual heritage of China.[6]

2. https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/on-stage/2020/03/14/on-stage-exclusive---the-story-of--shen-yun-#

3. https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/chinese-dance

4. http://www.stagewhispers.com.au/reviews/shen-yun-0

5. https://classicalpoets.org/2018/01/19/review-what-is-shen-yun-all-about/

6. https://placedesarts.com/en/event/shen-yun-0

Something similar, with sources #4 and #5 was up on the site for a while until recently removed. I tried reinstating, but User:Doug Weller had reverted with a concern quoting something that isn't from those sources to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For starters, the notion that Shen Yun performs "classical Chinese dance" is itself disputed in coverage of the group. Much of what the group presents as traditional appears to be the result of some level of synthesis and innovation packaged as if it were the true tradition. We certainly could use more coverage of this, but the site, of course, doesn't parrot talking points from fringe groups (or otherwise). Additionally, the soruces you provide don't appear to pass the muster of guidelines like WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Shen Yun itself is not a reliable source for what they're up to, either, as they are hardly transparent and seem to be pretty frequently misleading or obfuscating. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Society of Classical Poets is Falun Gong associated and publishes the results of a competition by Friends of Falun Gong/Dafa. I quoted some very informative critical material from two of your sources which you didn't use, ie you are cherry-picking by avoiding the bad and only using the good. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller Regarding your claim of cherry picking and misrepresentation:

• You said “from the first two” sources. Those are ClassicalPoets and StageWhispers sites. The quotes you provided aren’t from those sources. So I’m trying to understand what you meant by “misrepresentation” and how does that justify removing properly sourced sentences?

• Those sources were in the article for a long time. Removed couple days ago by User:Bloodofox without a discussion, editing against the existing consensus. I simply reinstated the earlier WP:CONS version. I suggest User:Bloodofox holds off on editing the lead section while there’s an ongoing discussion.

• You rv’d my change and issued several warnings. Included a potential future ban warning citing me adding uncited material — which is untrue.

Regarding the sources:

• As per WP:SELFSOURCE Shen Yun’s site is a self-published source that can be used, especially in an article about itself.

• Well-known performance companies like Cirque du Soleil and Bolshoi Theatre use their own sites as a reference for what they perform, what their name means and their mission.

• In fact, I’m modifying my proposal slightly to tack on the troupe’s mission into one of the sentences, since it’s an important driver for the troupe’s existence. Berehinia (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:SELFSOURCE says it may only be used when "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"—and these extensions of the new religious movement are most certainly self-serving, and commonly make "exceptional claims", both about themself and others. Comparing Shen Yun, a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong, a new religious movement which promotes fringe theories regarding evolution alongside The Epoch Times, another wing of the new religious movement, to apolitical performance arts groups is clearly a false equation. Please review WP:FRINGE. We don't cite fringe groups for information on themselves because they're not reliable sources, and these groups are certainly not. There's WP:FRIND, WP:PROFRINGE, etc. Shen Yun is on park with The Epoch Times, and, like it, is a clear WP:RS fail. Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet for fringe groups and new religious movements. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant the first two sources I looked at. Obviously a Falun Gong organisation isn't criticising itself, and User:Berenhia if you didn't check to see where the quotes came from to see what sources were being misrepresented, maybe you shouldn't be replacing material that was removed by another editor without coming here to ask why. If a source is mainly a negative critique and that isn't mention in the text it's used to source, that's clear misrepresentation meant to make readers think the source was positive. And we don't include mission statements, they are always promotional and often conceal the real mission of a group. And are you suggesting that subjects of an article have some sort of right over their article, ie that the Bolshoi is editing their article to use their site as a source? Bolhoi.ru is used for factual statements about the building, its formation, etc, ditto cirquedusoleil.com. Not to describe their style, no mission statements. And of course there is no way that Shen Yun is apolitical. If you are going to argue that you should realise that your argument will get nowhere, and I advise you not to try it. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My goal here is to have an intro that is consistent with how other performance companies are. The description, name’s meaning and mission I proposed are all very straightforward. Which of the statements are self-serving or an exceptional claim in your opinion?

Your claim that a performance group can’t be used as a source to describe what it does is quite absurd in my opinion, especially since others do. Everything proposed in these two sentences is factual. Does the performance prominently feature classical Chinese dance? Yes, it does, as well as some ethnic dances too. Is it accompanied by a live orchestra composed of both Western and Chinese instruments? You bet, been there seen it with my own eyes. Does the name of Shen Yun mean the beauty of divine beings dancing? Indeed, it does, look up the Chinese characters yourself if you’re in doubt. Do they describe their mission as reviving the rich cultural and spiritual heritage of China? They do, your opinion of how well or why they do it non-withstanding.

You say,” we don't include mission statements, they are always promotional and often conceal the real mission of a group.” Who is “we”? World Health Organization’s opening paragraph for example includes its mission. Berehinia (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller You haven't explained why you issued a ban warning referring to me adding uncited material — which is untrue. Berehinia (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

2. Opening section doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Doug WellerAlso I understand now what you mean about misrepresentation. Well certainly it wasn't my intent, I guess I should've looked at the articles more thoroughly. What I did was put back the material with the original citations because I felt it was appropriately sourced. So keeping your feedback in mind, the second paragraph appears to be misrepresenting sources. Neither of two sources says anything about Shen Yun being founded by Chinese expatriate adherents of Falun Gong in 2006. <------ That was added by User:Bloodofox. You've neither reverted him, nor issued the same warning as you've issued to me. So following same course of action, we can remove that material. I mean, I'm sure you'd agree that the opening overall could use some work. Opening paragraph is short and skimpy. The rest of the opening has an exploitative tone and seems to focus solely on the relationship to Falun Gong, Epoch Times and the critique of the show rather then summarize the article as an opening should. Here's a reference for what feels more in line with how other performing companies are presented. We can work out the details together but I think the overall approach is good. Berehinia (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

3. Misinformation in the second paragraph. Currently the article says "The company remains an extension of Falun Gong. Adherents pay for venue costs, promote the show, and sell tickets; after performance expenses, proceeds go toward Falun Gong." however the cited source (Becoming Activists in Global China) actually says attn! "After expenses are covered through ticket sales, proceeds go to Shen Yun". Berehinia (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You aren't pinging me, by the way. @Doug Weller: would work, treating my name as an article doesn't. An alt-right fork of Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source, see Vox Day. I'm nor monitoring this article enough to notice every edit, please read WP:AGF. I have over 21,000 pages on my watchlist and that doesn't include talk pages. Give your own warnings, don't depend on other people. No other comment on the above, no time. And why are you adding "§"? Doug Weller talk 11:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The reference I provided isn't meant to be a source to quote, it's meant to illustrate the current page's POV vs the one on info galactic (this is discussion for subsection 2) In this subsection I'm trying to focus on the misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

About homosexuality

Shen Yun supports morality and traditional values, which make it receive challenges from evolution theory and atheism. Although Falun Gong does not support homosexuality, Shen Yun has not indicated its view directly toward homosexuality. Regardless, there is no negative views. Sky-Dream (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Morality" and "traditional values" are commonly invoked by anti-LGBTQ organizations. The Falun Gong's stance on these topics is well represented in media sources. Shen Yun is an extension of the Falun Gong, as the New Yorker entry you invoke makes quite clear (and so do countless other sources). Here are just a few:

Falun Gong has moralistic, socially conservative beliefs, preaching against homosexuality and sex out of wedlock.
— The Guardian

Among them, Li has railed against what he called the wickedness of homosexuality, feminism and popular music while holding that he is a god-like figure who can levitate and walk through walls. [...] Hurley, who wrote for The Epoch Times until he left in 2013, said he saw practitioners in leadership positions begin drawing harder and harder lines about acceptable political positions.
“Their views were always anti-abortion and homophobic, but there was more room for disagreements in the early days,” he said.
— NBC News

Ma, who faced intense pressure from the city's Chinese community not to vote for the resolution, also came under attack because of Falun Gong's antigay teachings
— Bay Area Reporter

(@MarkH21:, who compiled these on another entry.) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

But, no source talks about ShenYun.Sky-Dream (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I got your point, you said Shen Yun is an extension of Falun Gong, so because Falun Gong does not support homosexuality, so does Shen Yun. But....If A's father does not like B, it does not necessarily mean A does not like B. Sky-Dream (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not an extension of my father. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are an extension of your father's genes. My point is that if there is no reliable proof saying that Shen Yun is against homosexuality, then we cannot talk about it.Sky-Dream (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I reckon it would pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" test. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources: Los Angeles Magazine (2019) and ABC10 (2020)

Here are a couple of perpahps useful sources the article doesn't currently draw from. The first is form Los Angeles Magazine:

• Rittiman, Brandon. 2020. "VERIFY: Unsolicited 'The Epoch Times' paper spreads outlandish COVID-19 claims". ABC10. Online.

Sample quote:

Falun Gong decided to fight Chinese propaganda with its own: most notably, the dance show Shen Yun.

Ads for Shen Yun sell theatergoing folks on folkloric-looking Chinese dance and orchestra, but leave out that the show also contains skits about the evils of the Chinese government.

That’s how Falun Gong reaches people who go to the theater.

The Epoch Times is the same movement’s way of reaching a different audience: conservatives in America and elsewhere around the globe.

• Braslow, Samuel. 2019. "Just How Big Is Shen Yun’s Marketing Budget?". Los Angeles Magazine, March 5, 2019. Online.

Sample quote:

While similar cultural exhibitions like Riverdance commodify culture for the purpose of generating a profit, Shen Yun functions as anti-Communist China propaganda. For this mission, the members of Falun Gong willingly give their money and time to promote the spectacle.

This is the secret to Shen Yun’s marketing strategy. Instead of a centralized team of marketers, Shen Yun relies on a network of volunteers in each city that the show visits who raise the money and buy the ad space publicizing Shen Yun, according to the Guardian. Falun Gong’s founder Li serves as the overseer of these efforts, offering general guidance on messaging and scolding volunteers when they’ve erred. “If you decide to bring Shen Yun, then really ensure that you do it well. And since it is Master who is personally guiding Shen Yun, if your area doesn’t do well it will very quickly get back to me,” he says to his followers in one speech.

For the many theater-goers who are surprised by Shen Yun’s religious and political connections, that’s by design. In that same speech, Li cautioned against emphasizing the relationship between Shen Yun and Falun Gong. “You needn’t insist on telling people that Shen Yun has ties to Falun Gong and make a big fanfare out of it,” he explains.

The latter source seems like it is particularly relevant, although first of the two sources discusses recent targeted promotions of conspiracy theories regarding Covid-19 by The Epoch Times, and its connection to Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"seems like". Anyways, Steve Jobs can be a good example. Please read the 2nd last topic. Also, Elon Musk. Sky-Dream (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Message to the editor and concern about neutrality

Thank you for pointing out the referencing concerns. I will use “devinely inspired” instead of “devine inspired” based on the website that I cited. For the term, “revive traditional Chinese culture”, I can use another website to support this. However, other than these two things, the rest of what I added on May 24^th is unlikely invalid. For example, I used the materials form New York Times, Queen Elizabeth Theatre, FOX40 and even the report from U.S. Department of State as my references to illustrate the current development of Shen Yun and its relationship with the Chinese government. Is it a good idea to delete all I wrote? It might be necessary to check all the references before deleting them. The main point of this discussion is that your view and edit defied NPOV that states “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” My edit is supported by reliable sources, so it should not be deleted without any discussion in advance. Thanks to all for reading this message. Sky-Dream (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The primary problem with this edit, besides using sources like "covertottawaguy.com" for an increasingly controversial extension of a new religious movement, is the language you've used, which parrots that of Shen Yun and The Epoch Times and, ultimately, its parent organization, the Falun Gong.

Sources like this quite transparently do nothing more than report on what they're told by Shen Yun, whereas sources such as this one consult experts on Shen Yun's claims. And it happens that the results don't align—a few quotes from the latter source:

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. This art form seemed to resemble both ballet and gymnastics, they said, but, they explained, ballet and gymnastics had in fact borrowed the traditional techniques of Chinese classical dance. The dancers were showcasing a tradition that was thousands of years old, they went on—a tradition that had been single-handedly rejuvenated by Shen Yun. It was impossible to see a show like this in China, because of the Communist regime, they told us.

The report then goes on to ask an academic, Emily Wilcox, about specific claims by Shen Yun, which she rejects:

In February, I called up Emily Wilcox, a professor of Chinese studies at the University of Michigan and the author of the book “Revolutionary Bodies: Chinese Dance and the Socialist Legacy.” “I studied Chinese classical dance at the Beijing Dance Academy for a year and a half,” she said, “and, a few weeks after I came back to Michigan, a group promoting Shen Yun came up to me at the mall, handed me a flyer, and gave me the whole spiel about how Chinese dance is banned in China. It was hilarious to me, and so ridiculous, and, in a way, it inspired me to write this history in my book.”

Wilcox then goes on to explain the reality of the situation, which rather pointedly doesn't align with the group's claims. For example, she says:

Shen Yun insists that it is a singular source of generative purity—that five thousand years of culture were reborn in upstate New York in 2006. Wong suggests that Shen Yun’s claims to purity are a way for Falun Gong practitioners to reclaim their identity from persecution—and that they’re bolstered by a preëxisting tendency on the part of Western audiences to perceive Asian bodies, and Asian culture, as “authentic.”

In short, we're not here to uncritically parrot the talking points of an organization, and this is a fine example of why. We report on what reliable secondary sources say, whether they be academics or WP:RS-compliant journalists. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, in my edit, I stated a few facts about Shen Yun including numbers of performers, cities, and audiences. (These can be found in many websites including The New York Times.) These facts can be included, just as other groups such as Cirque du Soleil and National Ballet of Canada. I am referring the normal way of introducing the art troupe.

Secondly, you used the source from New Yorker to show the results don't align. I can also used the source from Obersver to show alignment in some degree. Therefore, according to WP:NPOV, it is also valid to use this source to illustrate the human right situation and people's feedback to Shen Yun.

In short, I am stating the facts from reliable sources. Facts can be and should be included. Sky-Dream (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm assuming the link you've provided for Yun's Encyclopedia of Software Engineering is in error.

First, Shen Yun isn't a "normal" performance arts group by any sense of the word. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. A straightforward comparison to Cirque du Soleil or the National Ballet of Canada isn't valid. Neither promote fringe theories. Neither are propaganda arms of a new religious movement. This list goes on.

Second, sources before 2016 are not likely to discuss the political involvement of Shen Yun. It seems that once Falun Gong and its extensions became involved in the 2016 US presidential election and its aftermath, media coverage increased immensely, particularly regarding the ideology the group promotes. That's not likely to change.

To be clear, these topics have now received so much coverage, that any coverage that avoids mentioning topics discussed by The New Yorker is likely to be of suspect quality. We can and should introduce technical aspects of the group's current operations into the article, but only with recent and WP:RS-compliant sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The focus of my talk is that I included some facts and views, that are published by the reliable sources, about Shen Yun. WP:RSP These can be and should be included. We are having this conversation because you defied WP:NPOV by deleting the materials that I published two days ago. You said “Shen Yun isn't a ‘normal’ performance arts group by any sense of the word”. It suggests that you have your own opinion towards it, and you strongly don’t allow other aspects by saying “any sense of the word”. This violates WP:NPOV that says: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

What do you mean by fringe theories? Nicolaus Copernicus claimed the Earth circulates around the Sun, and it was not accepted by the general public at his time. What made this “fringe theory” now accepted by the public is people allowed it to be presented in the first place.

Shen Yun is a performance arts group on paper. I am using the similar style to other art troupes in the introduction section, but not comparing them. On the other hand, Shen Yun performing arts group is a form of art and it can be presented, regardless whether or not Shen Yun is a propaganda arm of a new religious movement. Take the The Last Supper (Leonardo) as an example, it depicts the story in Christianity, and it is cherished by the globe at least for its artistic value.

Thanks for pointing out the citation error about Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. I fixed it by citing the New Yorker, the one you used to support your discussion. No Wikipedia rule says this source outweighs The New York Times and Observer. Therefore, all can be presented.

I did not use Epoch Times or Shen Yun websites as my references, so there is no need to talk about them. By the way, The New Yorker also reported and commented on Donald Trump. Would you say that it is not reliable, because of its involvement in politics? Before 2016, the ban from China and the persecution have already happened. Therefore, the sources before 2016 are valid to be used to talk about human right issue in China. Sky-Dream (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

If you have a problem with using The New Yorker as a source, take it up to WP:RSN. Again, as is obvious, performance arts extension of a highly political new religous movement is unique in that it is propaganda for the new religious movement. Attempt to paint the group as just another perfromance arts will is not a wise route.

As for Wikiedia's stance on fringe theories, see guidelines like WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.:bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You reference Emily Wilcox, who is referencing someone else talking about identity. Now does Emily Wilcox anywhere state that Shen Yun does NOT perform classical Chinese dance? Secondly, the interpretation of why and what the discourse is behind performance groups outside of China surely sounds interesting but seems vaguely relevant here.

So you claim that Shen Yun is not a “normal” performance group. Please explain what your definition of “normal” vs “not-normal” show is? Additionally your claims of promoting fringe theories, propaganda is all a form of WP:OR which again is your opinion.

“the political involvement of Shen Yun” — what political involvement is that? “It seems that once Falun Gong and its extensions became involved in the 2016 US presidential election” — how has falun gong gotten involved in the election? This is neither factual, nor relevant to the description of the performance group. Is there a narrative you’re trying to promote here?

Also if we're going to be fair here, then we gonna use the New Yorker article and reference things like the fact that orchestra includes Chinese instruments. For no apparent reason you removed the factual description of the orchestra that combines western and eastern instruments. Berehinia (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

First, review WP:RS. Second, here's just a small sample of media coverage of Falun Gong, its propaganda arms, and the 2016 election and its aftermath. Third, "fairness" means we report on what reliable sources say on these topics, we don't try to create some kind of false balance between reliable sources and what is essentially a propaganda arm. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not painting ShenYun as other art groups. I am using the similar format as other pages that introduce art troupes. Different art groups represent different arts, there is no need to paint Shen Yun as other art groups.

I am good with The New Yorker. The reason I mentioned it is its reports about presidential election, which you used to question Epoch Times. Again, I am not using Epoch Times.

"Highly political new religious movement". Just by mentioning China or the government does not mean it is political. Take the professor of politics as an example. By the way, how do you define the word “highly”?

I am showing materials that are supported by reliable sources, and you deleted them. You have not responded this yet. Sky-Dream (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please review these sources, as a start. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

By showing a lot of sources, you are trying to persuade the readers that Shen Yun is pro-Trump. Going too far. Again, if you want to talk about Trump or Epoch Times, go to their pages. This page is about Shen Yun, NOT its tertiary relation with other people or group. Shen Yun is just a performance art group, it is not a political group. So let's just focus on its art, development, current situation, some challenges, etc. It's like I am introducing one person, I don't need to talk about his/her teacher's mother or somebody else. Going too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 老坛陈醋 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Shen Yun is a propaganda arm of a political group, definitely not "just a performance art group." Clearly you're not looking at the sources which are primarily observing the political and propaganda aspect. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Shen Yun itself, go ahead. If you want to talk about politics and suggests some "political movements", start a new page. Sky-Dream (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Binksternet to our talk. First of all, before you joined, the references list was fine, but now it has some issues. Please help us fix it. Thanks.

Clearly, you are not reading my message on political involvement. I learned that Shen Yun includes things about China from the sources you and I listed. But just by mentioning China or the human right situation in China does not mean that Shen Yun is a political group. Take a Politics professor as an example. Also, deleting my materials that are supported by reliable sources, without any discussion, is not cool. I will revert it soon. On the other hand, somebody used things from Chinese Government (or quotes from other sources that used materials from Chinese Government) to support the Chinese Government is not professional as a WK editor. As Bloodofox said before: "WP:RS fail". Therefore, I will fix it as well.

Lastly, the point about "Shen Yun is an extension of Falun Gong" is not supported by the sources. Steve Jobs had positions in both Pixar and Apple, but Pixar is not an extension of Apple. Same idea applied to Epoch Times, but it is not point of this page.

To conclude: this page is about Shen Yun and its facts, not for anti-Shen Yun activism or other topics. Wikipedia is for facts and neutrality. Sky-Dream (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"I will revert it soon" @老坛陈醋: Not with clear consensus against your changes you're not. Please take a very deep and clear read of WP:DUE, the most relevant governing policy here, as well as WP:SECONDARY. See also WP:OSE: essentially, the way other articles are is often a red herring and not a good argument to make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

List of rules. Great, I will look at these. However, did you check the WP:NPOV? It seems like you are pointing at me about neutral point of view (on my talk page), but no one is questioning other people about their bias, and the use from Chinese government.

The materials that I added includes: number of audiences, ban by Chinese government, human right issues in China. These are supported by the reliable sources. Did you check? If they are facts, it is okay to put them up.

Regardless, let's have an agreement on facts. Sky-Dream (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV page states that “As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.” I saw that people use the author’s view from The New Yorker to this page. That is fine, I accept that. However, as long as it is from the reliable source, which is verifiable point of view, it obeys the rules from WP and can be used. Therefore, in order to become a better WP editor, we need to work together to make sure not to exclude certain point of view (from reliable source). It is a good idea for someone to correct things and add good sources back. Sky-Dream (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it professional to talk about Things about Chinese government using the source from or indirectly from the Chinese Government?

Just out of curiosity, discussion welcomed:

After reading the newly edited version, the article in the Chinese Embassy website, the cited articles and the report from US and other countries (such as Australia), I understand that some editors want to add some materials about Shen Yun's relation with the Chinese government. That is fine, and that was exactly what I did few days ago, but got deleted. That's okay.

But, is it okay for us to talk about this matter using the quote, or the source that used the quote, from the Chinese government? I mean, even though some people used "reliable source" to present a point, the quote is still from the Chinese government. We are still using Chinese government's things to talk about Chinese government. So... is it still independent or reliable? If so, then Shen Yun's website is okay to be used to talk about Shen Yun. If not, we might need to something to fix it. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We can use material from independent reliable sources stating the position of China or SY, that's entirely different form using SY's website and I'm a bit concerned that you can't see the difference. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Add {{pp-vandalism}} template --ENTRalIs (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Government's Involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=960180977 Removing valid material about Chinese government's efforts to interfere with Shen Yun performances seems odd to me. The Guardian and Bitterwinter.org are WP:RS and WP:IS. I would like to collaborate with users like User:Doug Weller, User:Bloodofox, User:Neutrality, User:Binksternet who are contributing to the discourse around connecting Shen Yun to Falun Gong and Epoch Times by further connecting it to the Chinese government's side of this narrative. After all if we didn't, we wouldn't we be describing the topic from multiple points of view and with an appropriate context. Berehinia (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The material was removed because it was being given too much WP:WEIGHT, presented as if the experience of one South Korean performance series was much more important to the topic, or perhaps more widespread, more frequent. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Berehinia is not representing my actions accurately, let alone my edit summary. The text was:

" The performances has also been interfered with outside of China by way of threats to venues from the Chinese government."

My edit summary states "removing accusations of interference, it should be obvious that we can't use CESNUR, they are major lobbyist for groups like FG, and the Guardian article mainly reports what the company says, plus reactions from the Chinese & a comment from SY saying there have been fewer attempts - the article might be usable in the article if not cherry-picked this way, - I've reverted at least one similar edit not using sources properly." Starting with the WP:IS issue, if Berehinia thinks that Bitter Winter is an independent source, that's concerning. It's written by the "founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)) and CESNUR is (besides the publisher of Bitter Winter}, our article tells us, "the highest profile lobbying and information group for controversial religions" - or at least it's been described that way. There are other opinions in its article, but the criticisms don't suggest that this is an independent source. Here's what Max Blumenthal's The Grayzone says:[1] "an obscure, far-right online blog....Bitter Winter and its parent organization have vigorously defended fanatical Chinese religious movements including Falun Gong" It described the author of the article being used as a citation as having"deep roots in the religious far-right" etc. - some of this might belong in Cesnur.

As for the Guardian article, it does say that SY has made those claims, and I'm not saying that it can't be used as a source somewhere in the article, but not for that statement in the lead. It's more nuanced than the text suggests, has the SY spokesperson saying that there have been fewer attempts in the last few years, and mentions the Chinese position. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

...

As @Doug Weller: notes, this is a sourcing issue, as usual. As always, stick to WP:RS-compliant sources: That means no propaganda organs, fringe groups, pseudoscience proponents, personal blogs, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree, the singular South Korean event is perhaps better suited for another section. Here’s a better source describing the systemic show interference the Chinese government engages in.

In Ecuador and Ireland, Berlin and Stockholm, theatres and local governments have reported receiving letters or visits from Chinese embassies attempting to shut down the dance show. Sometimes the threats work. In Moldova in 2010, the company arrived at their theatre in Chisinau hours before their scheduled performance and found themselves locked out. More often, confused theatre managers shrug off the pressure and threats from government officials. In February of 2014, Jörg Seefeld, the event manager of the Stage Theater on Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, where a Shen Yun performance was scheduled, received a visit from the Chinese Embassy’s cultural attaché who “tried to influence things.” Seefeld refused and the show continued. “I am from East Germany,” he told the Berliner Zeitung. “With the Chinese it is like it used to be with our rulers at the time. They are simply scared.”

Just to be clear @Doug Weller: you claim that referencing the Chinese government’s interference with the show by citing an article titled “New York dance troupe says China banned shows over Falun Gong links” is cherry picking?

I’m also concerned that an experienced editor and administrator would conflate opinion with factual organizational status for the purpose of supporting an argument that a source is not WP:IS. Someone’s criticism of the topics that CESNUR and Bitter Winter choose to research/cover doesn’t make them non-independent organizations. This form of WP:OR with regards to the reference source is irrelevant to the our topic at hand. “CESNUR is independent of any religious or political organization.” George D. Chryssides [2]

Moreover, this is the second time you’ve used the “far-right” label as a counter argument. This widely misapplied these days political dog whistle is not a very constructive approach to discussion in my opinion. Berehinia (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to go to WP:RSN about CESNUR. I assume that you are now agreeing that FG is a new religious movement, correct? Cherry-picking is when you choose to use only the part of a source that fits your views, rather than presenting the source according to WP:NPOV. Unfortunately the far right is very real and very dangerous and calling it a dog whistle is ignoring it (and probably a misunderstanding, see Dog-whistle politics). Doug Weller talk 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Does using "far-right" in your argument against CESNUR as a source mean that you believe sources labelled "far-right" by some are dangerous and shouldn't be used in wikipedia articles? Since you've claimed that this source may not be independent as a way to challenge its use in my edit, please go ahead and present the supportive evidence. If no such factual and reliable evidence is present then I think we can agree CESNUR is an acceptable source. Additionally, a generic description of cherry-picking doesn't apply to my edit, so feel free to explain how from your point of view "I've used only a part of the source that fits my views, rather then presenting the source according to WP:NPOV". Berehinia (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: heya, please take a look at the above conversation. Since there was no good argument provided for why Bitter Winter would not be WP:RS we should be able to use it.

Interesting Point

@Bloodofox: You presented an interesting point: "Irrelevant, Shen Yun and the rest of the new religious movement is based out of the US, where they face no such persecution and actively lobby the US government". What I did was to add some detail on Falun Gong, because someone talked about the relation between Shen Yun and Falun Gong. It is similar to other people, who talked about opinion from Chinese government on Falun Gong: "where the Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be an 'anti-society cult'." Because Chinese government cares, we need to talk about its involvement on this topic or related, so that the readers can have more broad view. But what you did few hours ago did the opposite. Also, you said Shen Yun is based on US and there is no persecution in US. Are you limiting the scope of this topic? Shen Yun is also based on New York, on North America, on Earth. Just because it's not being persecuted in US, doesn't mean we cannot talk about the persecution by the Chinese government. According to International Religious Freedom Report on Korea and on Japan and from Moldovafrom US Department of State and Embassy. China is influencing other governments or venues about Shen Yun, where no such persecution is taking place. So why is China trying to ban Shen Yun in other places, where Shen Yun is not based on? Why does China care about a performance troupe from other country? Chinese government is involved in this. Sky-Dream (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For unfamiliar readers, Falun Gong often attempts to smoke screen its political activity by emphasizing religious persecution in China. It gets pretty old, particularly since the organization is based out of a shadowy and controversial compound in Deerpark, New York. Really, this is pretty stale, and you're not going to get anywhere with attempting to turn this and related pages into puff pieces that parrots the new religious movement's prefered presentation. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To unfamiliar readers and few biased editors: Shen Yun is based on US, so why is Chinese government, which is from China, trying to influence Shen Yun's performance outside of China? The EU and the United States point out how Chinese government is trying to cancel Shen Yun's performance overseas. These facts are supported by reliable sources, and can be mentioned because these are related to Shen Yun, directly. User:bloodofox ignored and deleted these facts about the involvement of Chinese government. Also, he/she deleted a great number of reliable sources that are different with the narrative he/she added. This is against WP:NPOV. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Bloodofox: July 1st, 2020. You deleted the contents that are supported by reliable sources. You also did not respond to my talk page, which is about your action (see last paragraphs), for more than a week. You call everything that is against your view as puffery and delete them, yet they are supported by reliable source. Your action has violated WP:NPOV. I urge you to read the Wikipedia's rules despite you have been a long-term editor.

You also rearranged things in the lead section, and mentioned details about Falun Gong. This page is about Shen Yun, so the lead section should be about Shen Yun. You have violated WP:LEAD. If you want to talk about Falun Gong, please go to Falun Gong's page. Sky-Dream (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "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." ([3]). Please stop edit-warring to censor the topic.

It is in fact common for sources to note homophobia associated with The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and Falun Gong. For example, here's a report form NBC News that discusses this topic:

It has also invited scrutiny of the spiritual leader’s more unconventional ideas. Among them, Li has railed against what he called the wickedness of homosexuality, feminism and popular music while holding that he is a god-like figure who can levitate and walk through walls. ([4])

Another example, of many:

Shen Yun has a political bent. Shen Yun translates to "divine rhythm," and according to the show's website, the artists who put on Shen Yun practice Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, a belief system that encompasses meditation, tai chi-type exercises, and "strict morality" (smoking, alcohol, and extramarital or same-sex sexual relations go against the teachings). ([5])

Again, personal blogs aren't reliable sources (such as www.butteredveg.com and bitterwinter.org). Refrain from adding blogs as sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The main focus/topic of our discussion here is that you deleted contents that are supported by reliable sources. You are avoiding the main focus, and talk about other issues. We have talked about political things in the previous talk, you need to review them. Falun Gong is another topic. This is Shen Yun page.

Are the reports from US government[6][7][8], reliable sources? Is EU[9] a reliable source? Also, is Fox40 [10] a reliable source? Is Observer [11] a reliable source? Is the business journal [12] a reliable source? How about New York Daily News [13] and BitterWinter [14]? Also, Nation and State[15]? This question can go on and on.

Again, if you think one source is unreliable, you can discuss in the talk page. Why did you delete things supported by other reliable sources? Did you check WP:NPOV?

Above all: Chinese government is interfering Shen Yun worldwide. Because it is related to Shen Yun, we can and should include it in Shen Yun page. Sky-Dream (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Sky-Dream (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence nor the intelligence of readers by claiming that "Shen Yun is different than Falun Gong"; Shen Yun literally operates out of Falun Gong's Dragon Springs compound, as source after source highlights. Personal blogs are not acceptable sources. Don't be disingenuous. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is Shen Yun page, not Falun Gong page. Loot at the title, shall we? You have over-reacted to my message. I don't think there is a single word that is insulting.

You did not answer my question regarding reliable sources. Please respond. I have asked you this type of questions over and over again.

Remember, it is not just "your" Wikipedia, it is everyone's Wikipedia. I am following the rules but you followed your opinions. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me understand how this thread complies with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I'm trying to figure out what improvements to the article are being discussed. Explain specifically what it is you want to change in the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The main topic of this talk is that I added some contents from reliable sources, such as Fox40, reports from US and EU, New York Daily News, etc. These contents were deleted by Bloodofox for several times, but he/she did not provide reason for that.

The improvement that I would like to make is to provide more information directly related to Shen Yun, supported by reliable sources. Sky-Dream (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am guessing you want to restore this series of edits to the article. I notice you tucked into that edit a large number of promotional and non-neutral things. One you put in the lead section is that Shen Yun has "received praise for its artistic value" which is not supported by the Bitter Winter source. Instead, the Bitter Winter source is dismissive of the dancing and music. Another lead section addition is that Shen Yun has "courage" to expose human rights abuses which is not supported by the Observer source – no description of courage or daring or bravery. Your edit removed Falun Gong from the history section header, which looks to me like an attempt to hide the connection.

Down in the reception section, you added a promotional paragraph with one sentence sourced to Fox40, which is a small local TV news outlet in Sacramento, California. This little news piece uses text copied and pasted verbatim from shenyunperformingarts.org, so obviously it's not an independent report. Other small local news pieces, for instance from Boise, Idaho, can be found online copying and pasting this same text. It's a common occurrence in understaffed websites, but it doesn't make the words original. It's still a primary source.

You also added something promotional from the cooking blog butteredveg.com, as if this self-published cook has any journalistic independence or importance. Following that, you inserted a bunch of quotes from attendees at Shen Yun, all with a postive message, and none who had investigated the topic.

I agree with the removal of this non-neutral material by Bloodofox. It was wrong to insert it, and correct to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, if it is a small organization, you will doubt its reliability or its standpoint. Every company or organization started from small to big, including New Yorker and Fox40. If we judging the source by its scale, it is not cool.

If it is a positive feedback, then it is not supposed to be added because you said it is "promotional". On the other hand, if it's negative or criticism, you allowed it to be placed on the page. There is a concern about neutrality of this page and WP:NPOV. For example, for a movie such as Toy Stories, Star Wars, Titanic, etc, if an audience gives the positive feedback, will you say it is promotional? Do you think it is fair or neutral to block the positive messages while leaving "negative" messages untouched? If an audience likes the movie or a show, will he/she be allowed to say positive message?

The reason I added "courage" was because the Observer source talked about "exposing the country’s current political brutalities". I think it is very hard to be brave enough to talk about it nowadays. People more or less care about themselves, we rarely talk about this things. In fact, until I read the related articles, including the reports from US and EU, I then realized this issue. If you want to remove the word "courage" and have a better word choice to have some level of neutrality. We can discuss.

By the way, the contents about Chinese government interfering Shen Yun was also deleted by Bloodofox. These contents are supported by the US and EU. Do you agree with it? Thanks for your time. Sky-Dream (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Shen Yun funding

Here we go with this topic again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=966218107

@Binksternet: You not only have misrepresented the quote from Junker but also removed the accurate and nuanced information I added. Why would you do that? This is what you put into the article: “Falun Gong adherents pay to rent the performance venue, promote the show and sell tickets, with the profit going to Falun Gong.” And that’s what the book actually says: “In each city, local practitioners pay for the venue and promotion costs and sell the tickets. After expenses are covered through ticket sales, proceeds go to Shen Yun.” Berehinia (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't like how I reworded the sentence? I should have pointed my edit summary to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing because Junker's words were being copied into the article without inline attribution. Which is a copyright violation.

You'll notice that new editor Lijifly removed parts of this series on July 5, which made me revert the changes. Lififly had justified the removal with this edit summary: "Due to lack of evidence regarding 'Falun Gong adherents pay for venue cost' etc., replace 'Falun Gong adherents pay for venue costs, promote the show, and sell tickets; after performance expenses, proceeds go toward Shen Yun.' by 'Falun Gong adherents promote the show, and sell tickets'" Of course we both know the evidence is solidly in Junker. There was no "lack of evidence" and thus no justification for the removal by Lijifly. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that other editor's material has anything to do with you misrepresenting information from a source? Why have you reverted accurate information on where the proceeds go, placed by different editors? You've changed it to Falun Gong, manipulating Junker's quote twice now. Have you even checked the actual source? This is blatant edit warring and information falsification. Berehinia (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

POV in the lead section

There are several issues with the article not being NPOV, particularly in the lead section. Currently it doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article and also isn’t in line with how other performance companies are presented. See Opening Section, #2 discussion. There’s also issues of misinformation and source misrepresentation. That need to be resolved. See Opening Section discussion. Berehinia (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wondering what the significance of talking about Falun Gong's status as an "anti-society cult" in China is in the opening paragraph for a Shen Yun performance? Although Shen Yun features stories about Falun Gong, it seems odd to have the above in the opening without really qualifying it in any way. Falun Gong is certainly related to the show but then we should give a more balanced picture to the reader and actually talk about how the "anti-society cult" classification is a political construct for the purposes of the genocide. Berehinia (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

5 edits wiped at once

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=965747676

@Binksternet: reverted 5! of my edits without a substantiative justification. You claimed my edits to have "horrible sourcing". Only one of these edits introduced new information and new sourcing. It was about Shen Yun's recognition for its cultural contribution in the US, source referenced was US Congressional proceedings. Please explain how your perception of this WP:RS source as being "horrible" has anything to do with wiki policies? Secondly please elaborate on why you wiped out the other edits. Please address all of them separately. Berehinia (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the difference between Bloodofox on July 1 and me just now on July 9. Doesn't look so bad, does it?

Here's what you did on July 3. The problems I had with your contribution are as follows:

• You wrote that Shen Yun was "recognized in the US for its cultural impact and promotion of Chinese culture", which is a gross misrepresentation. No such consensus exists. There are both negative and positive reactions to the Shen Yun performances, with some critics dismissing the "impact" and calling it propaganda.
• You cited the proceedings of the 113th Congress, which is simply a record of speeches in front of Congress, not a reliable secondary source. Anybody can say anything in there. And you failed to supply the name of the person talking, which looks a lot like you were hiding it. When I tried to find it, your citation was unverifiable. I found two instances of praise for Shen Yun in the years 2013–2014, but always from single speakers who were making a promotional statement for the record. There was never a resolution made by Congress about Shen Yun being culturally significant.
• You removed the sentence, "Falun Gong adherents pay for venue costs, promote the show, and sell tickets; after performance expenses, proceeds go toward Shen Yun." This sentence is extremely well supported by the Andrew Junkers book, but it does not sit well with the official line manufactured by Falun Gong and Shen Yun management, so you removed it. This is terribly disruptive behavior.
• To replace the above removal, you wrote, "Shen Yun is a non-profit that relies on revenue from ticket sales and its proceeds go into the show." Bland and acceptable to Falun Gong management. But you supported the sentence with a citation to a tiny church blog, from Reedy River Presbyterian Church in Conestee, South Carolina. Not good. This little church blog says the reader should beware that Shen Yun is run by Falun Gong, which you chose to ignore. This means you were cherry-picking your facts.

I removed your edits because of these problems. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

- Firstly, the accusations you're making about these edits and acceptance by some sort of Falun Gong management are bizarre. I'm not sure why you insist on making some kind of tangential claims about me as an editor. Please show some respect and stop assuming things, you're editing an encyclopedia, not participating in a party struggle session.

- I'm not sure why of all users you use a disruptive Bloodofox user to legitimize your edits.

- So you acknowledge that there are both positive and negative reactions to the Shen Yun performances? Have you added anything to illuminate the positive reactions to reflect a more balanced view? Or do you believe that only critical voices should be represented in the opening section?

- Seems you've had difficulty finding the appropriate Congress Proceedings materials. Here's the name of the Congress member who recognized Shen Yun, HON. William L. Owens. If I was in your place I'd start a discussion first and perhaps even help improve the citation so it can be easily found, but that's because I tend to assume others edit in good faith and want to collaborate with others. I think US Congress hearing is as reliable a source as any, prove to me why its not.

- Actually I haven’t removed the following sentence "Falun Gong adherents pay for venue costs, promote the show, and sell tickets; after performance expenses, proceeds go toward Shen Yun.”.

- I paraphrased it in a way that’s more general and fitting for the intro section while preserving the meaning. You acknowledged this yourself, albeit in a derogatory form “Bland and acceptable to Falun Gong management.” So not even remotely disruptive like you claim, while your wiping of all of my recent edits certainly is.

- The way the Reedy River Presbyterian Church is an additional source to go along with the primary Junker source and it doesn’t say what you claim. In fact you’re cherry picking by taking one single sentence from the article and misquoting it here.

- And why would you claim that this doesn’t sit well with someone and try to implicate me by association? Some kind of allegations about a manufactured official line. Why are you interested in promoting this narrative here?

- You’ve not explained why you removed material from Junker’s book which talks about the show as being more effective then conventional activism and a means to saving audiences. Berehinia (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the speech by William L. Owens. Thanks for the name; that helped a lot to locate it. The speech is exactly as I pictured it: a paid piece of promotional puffery that received no attention and was never considered important. It makes Owens look bad, reduced to pushing an advertisement, repeating phrases found at shenyunperformingarts.org. Disgraceful. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Outside of indignation and accusations against Owens will you actually be addressing my points? Berehinia (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights Without Frontiers source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=980975785

I don't see any issue with this source. Doug Weller please explain your position on source removal that you've stepped in to do following Binksternet attempt to do that.Berehinia (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The source does not appear to be reliable. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've not provided any justification other then just an opinion. Please elaborate. Berehinia (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bitter winter

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=983330403

We've had several discussions here (with all the usual suspects) with regards to bitterwinter source and at no point were convincing arguments presented to justify its omission. So the removal of the source especially given it's been in place for a while following an in depth discussion is disruptive editing. You've altered the meaning completely from a venue manager being the source of disruptions, to instead Shen Yun. In other words it's no longer truthful and manipulates the contents presented. In the same edit the following was removed "Massimo Introvigne thinks anti-Shen Yun campaign by the Chinese Communist Party was “remarkably unsuccessful”" without an explanation. Introvigne is a known expert in the field, so this again is tendentios editing by Bloodofox

Please revert your edits and first discuss here the edits you removed against WP:CONS. Berehinia (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

'Propaganda War' material and source removal w/o discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&oldid=982922651

Once again scorched earth approach like the one I've seen by Binksternet on other pages is not in the spirit of collaborative wiki WP:AFG editing. So please revert your edit and discuss here to reach consensus. Firstly some evidence of your grievance with regards to the source is required. Secondly do you disagree with the fact that PRC government is waging a propaganda war on Falun Gong? If like most experts and mainstream sources you acknowledge the existence of the propaganda war then why don't you find further sources to support this edit? That is unless you're engaging in tendentious editing to promote a POV? Berehinia (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The www.globalmediajournal.com reference is garbage. Anybody can submit a "manuscript" to get instant "peer review", which is completely worthless nonsense. The author, Chin-Yunn Yang, was a student and a co-founder of New York University Falun Gong club back in 2005 when the paper was written.[16] Wikipedia cannot use this paper, although we can cite the evaluation of it that Professor James R. Lewis uses in his book, The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, in Chapter 16: "Understanding Falun Gong's Martyrdom Strategy as Spiritual Terrorism". Perhaps we cite Lewis who is using the paper to illustrate Falun Gong strategy.[17]

I'm happy to see good sources but Chin-Yunn Yang's paper is not one of them. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem angry, using charged language. I'm quite surprised a seasoned wiki user like yourself would make such an absurd claim as to say that a peer reviewed journal is 'garbage'. The only explanation for this is that it doesn't align with your POV. Counter to WP:NOTPROPAGANDA you continue to present sources to promote your POV. I've observed you skirting direct questions, like the one I asked above. Do you or don't you acknowledge the fact that PRC government is waging a propaganda war on Falun Gong? Berehinia (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's garbage because the "peer review" is fake. They don't have peers who do reviews. The website is a way to bypass the normal peer review system. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your question, "do you disagree with the fact that PRC government is waging a propaganda war on Falun Gong?", any impartial observer would conclude that Falun Gong and the Chinese government are at war with each other. It's a two-way street. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Beijing

Not sure, but two buses with Shen Yun dance on the side in English and Chinese just pulled into Beijing. 76.18.144.70 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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)