Talk:Shen Yun/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead mention of homosexuality

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

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

In addition to that, many Western LGBTQ+ rights advocates like Donna Karan and Carolyn Maloney expressed praise for Shen Yun [1] [2] and did not interpret its shows as Jia Tolentino did. This means that we should not elevate one person's negative interpretation to the lead section that contradicts the positive ones of others that are equally notable. Hope this makes sense. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Record is filled with forgettable statements such as the one from Maloney, statements that praise some group or business, politically motivated statements that are not considered important by anyone outside of the group. No attention is paid to these statements, and they immediately disappear from the public eye. They are not part of the literature about a topic, and certainly not defined as reliable on Wikipedia.

I don't have any "personal" interest in Shen Yun. I have never seen a performance, nor have I met a Falun Gong adherent as far as I know. My only interest is to retain Wikipedia's rules and policies here, to prevent Falun Gong from using this page as a promotional tool. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all your input Llll5032, Ohnoitsjamie, Binksternet, Nivent2007, HollerithPunchCard. Before, gauging consensus, I wanted to add that in addition to many LGBTQ+ advocates not interpretating Shen Yun's shows as Tolentino did and the fact that Chinese culture regards holding hands as normal and not indicative of homosexuality (presented above), the Falun Gong practitioners who founded Shen Yun also say that they never impose their views on homosexuality upon others and have never opposed the LGBTQ community or any efforts to establish their rights [3] [4], further invalidating Tolentino's interpretation. In light of these three factors, could you state your opinions on the removal of homosexuality from the first sentence of the third paragraph in the lead? Thank you, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is more in-universe apologetics by Falun Gong adherents. Ernie Li is from the Falun Dafa Association of Washington, so his "guest" piece at Spokane Favs is useless to Wikipedia, along with anything at all from faluninfo.net, and Thomas Meng's continued violations of original research involving the analysis of Chinese hand holding practices in general. Nothing here is worth discussing. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing it; the New Yorker is a solid reliable source regardless of how others may interpret the show. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. Because NBC and SFGate concur with the New Yorker in noting Falun Gong's opposition to homosexuality,[5][6][7] and all three are independent reliable sources, the claim should not be removed based on the non-independent sources cited above. An argument for the claim being put in the second sentence about Falun Gong's opposition instead of the first sentence about the show might be valid, but it should not be removed. Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

For now, I suggest not eliminating the issue of homosexuality altogether because there seems to be no consensus, but I do think it is justified to delete it from the introduction and move it to the Reception section, both because of what Thomas has said and because of the absence of neutrality (good reviews are still not reflected in the introduction). In addition, the introduction should be a summary of what is stated in the article, and homosexuality only appears now in the introduction, which is a great incongruity. Nivent2007 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality is currently mentioned twice outside the top, although the statement could be repeated more thoroughly per MOS:LEADREL ("If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy"). Llll5032 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The mentions in the body are about Falun Gong's belief against homosexuality, while the lead says that Shen Yun is against homosexuality. Please note the distinction here. If a arts group is founded by Christians, who are against homosexuality, their dance group doesn't necessarily promote homophobia in their shows, even though they may promote certain moral messages held traditionally by Christians (such as The Christmas Carol). Also, despite that it came from an RS, including one person's interpretation and its derived criticism in the lead may be WP:UNDUE given that most/all others do not make this criticism against Shen Yun nor interpret it this way. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be less DUE if the San Francisco newspaper[8] had not made a similar claim. Do any recent independent WP:GREL sources dispute the claim? Llll5032 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032: The San Francisco article made a claim of Falun Gong's beliefs being against homosexuality, while the New Yorker opinion article claims Shen Yun promotes homophobia. I agree with you that the former is an undeniable fact (no sources dispute this claim), but the latter's inclusion in the lead is the crux of our discussion here as no other sources concur with the latter's claim (WP:UNDUE).Thomas Meng (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Meng Thanks for tagging me. I followed this discussion and read Jia Tolentina's source for the first time today, for the quotation on "negative views of homosexuality", or homophobia in short.

I confess that I'm not the fastest reader, and I wasn't able to find anything on this in the article using "Ctrl F" by entering "homo", "homosexual", "homosexuality", or "homophobia", until I came across the following passage in the article:

In the final dance number, a group of Falun Dafa followers, who wore blue and yellow and clutched books of religious teachings, battled for space in a public square with corrupt youth. (Their corruption was evident because they were wearing black, looking at their cell phones, and, in the case of two men, holding hands.

And it finally dawned on me where the homosexuality edit came from. I absolutely agree with whoever introduced this edit. I just don't think that editor went far enough. Clearly, by the logic of this reading, Shen Yun is not just "promoting" homophobia, it is "promoting" cell phone phobia and black clothings phobia too. Why aren't these also in the lede?

On a more serious note, I can see how a reader can interpret this passage from the article as alluding to some sort of a critical message on homosexuality, but I don't think this is a necessary interpretation, and certainly not one that a wikipedia editor should draw on its own.

And even more certainly, I don't how anyone can rely on the aforementioned paragraph to assert that "Shen Yun has been described as promoting negative views of homosexuality". You can say, based on Tolentino's article, that "scenes in Shen Yun's dance performance has been observed to allude to critical (or adverse) messages on homosexuality", but the article definitely does not contain the explicit "description" of Shen Yun as "promoting negative views of homosexuality" that the edit is asserting.

But if my friends insist that this edit is correct, it remains a stretch to give this editor's own interpretation of an imagery (partially) expressed in a singular paragraph, in a singular opinion piece, of a single source, the seat of the first sentence in the third paragraph of the lede, amongst the sea of other sources and information on this topic, many of which are no less reputable and bear countervailing views.

Even in that single Tolentino source, this picturesque allusion to homosexuality (assuming it is interpreted as such) was only given a casual and passing mention, and was not even close to the main theme of that article - yet it was cherrypicked by the wiki editor and shoved into the lede on wikipedia. How is due or neutral?

I won't belabour the point that WP:Lede is intended to summarize the most important content on a topic - we all know. What does this edit summarize? Any reason why this edit takes the prominence and the limelight? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You missed the part where Tolentino said "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." Tolentino's analysis stands. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the merits of Tolentino's analysis. I'm not in a position to do so and neither are you. And thanks for pointing me to this sentence which I finally did find buried at para 17 of 27 (excluding conversation quotes) of this article. Even in this sentence, the h word is mentioned casually, expressly as a side to something else that the writer found "most odd".

Clearly, the allegation of homophobia is not central even in this opinion piece, which is one opinion amongst a sea of countervailing opinions on this subject, which have been extensively discussed and raised in both this wiki article and this talk.

In the circumstances, to elevate this passing mention and confer it pre-eminence and centrality in this entire topic on wikipedia - how is this neutral or due? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A great many sources describe Shen Yun as promoting Falun Gong dogma, the listing of doctrinal points always including anti-homosexuality. There is no "sea of countervailing opinions" here. The mainstream media are connecting the dots between Shen Yun and Li Hongzhi's anti-gay stance. A few describe explicit anti-gay moments in the Shen Yun shows, but many others emphasize that Shen Yun is a tool used by Li Hongzhi to push his anti-gay viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If any WP:GREL sources besides the New Yorker describe it specifically in the performance, then adding those refs would help confirm WP:DUEWEIGHT in that sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"The mainstream media are connecting the dots", "Shen Yun is a tool used by Li Hongzhi to push his anti-gay viewpoint" - these are strong adverse claims to make baldly. If there are "great many sources" on this, as you allege, in support of these two statements, you should have no difficulty producing them. None has been produced and until you do, these allegations are a non-starter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas' latest edition, but as I said before, I would change the last paragraph of the introduction to the paragraph I already proposed or something similar. It is totally unacceptable, from an editorial point of view, that no positive reviews are reflected in the introduction and only negative reviews are included. Editors who object to including reference to positive reviews are clearly violating the neutral point of view. If there are positive and negative reviews, there is no need to elaborate on them in the introduction, that is what the rest of the article is for. Finally, let's remember that this article is about the Shen Yun performing arts troupe, not about the teachings of Falun Gong. Does anyone really believe that Shen Yun would be allowed to perform in so many opera houses if it was discriminatory or poured hatred on LGBT people? Nivent2007 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Conjecture about whether the issue of homosexuality has caused Shen Yun to be denied a chance to perform isn't appropriate here. They have definitely been denied the chance to perform in a great number of venues because of their ties to Falun Gong and pressure from China. The venue managers who deny Shen Yun are not calling out particular issues. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet Greetings Binksternet, second time I'm inviting you to produce the "great many sources" that you alleged to support your edit. If you cannot produce these sources, despite your bare allegation that they exist, then the content of your edit is not as prominent or well established as you allege, and its placement in the lede is undue. You should not be reverting other editors' attempts to fix the issue with your edit, until you've backed up your edit with reasoned, substantiated arguments, which frankly, I haven't yet seen. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

David Robertson's quote

I'd suggest to remove minister David Robertson's quote in the Reception section. As @Llll5032: correctly tagged, it is self-published and not about the author himself. He is not an established expert in the subject matter either, which, in this case, is performing arts. Nivent2007 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Citations tag

Calabax, in May you added this tag, that "An editor has expressed concern that this article may have a number of irrelevant and questionable citations." Can you explain which citations are problematic? Llll5032 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to be active, so I will remove the tag unless there are objections. Llll5032 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Llll5032 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2023 (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)