Talk:Shen Yun

Reception

This article needs a reception section to describe the positive and controversial things being said about this performance. Here are a few articles.

• http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/29/shen-yun-china-falun-gong-anti-chinese-communist-party-propaganda/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/dance/3671451/Shen-Yun-Propaganda-as-entertainment.html
• http://www.vcstar.com/entertainment/shen-yun-the-politics-behind-the-pageantry-ep-293197562-351833431.html
• http://www.buffalonews.com/20130413/in_return_to_buffalo_x2018_shen_yun_x2019_raises_red_flags.html
• http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/life/2015/03/12/shen-yun-tours-political-baggage/70163960/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/shen-yun-show-china-doesn-returns-new-york-lincoln-center-article-1.1048886
• http://www.chinaconsulatechicago.org/eng/zt/z83/t831473.htm
• http://triblive.com/aande/music/3422004-74/dafa-falun-chinese#axzz3tvCB9Pre
• http://www.oregonlive.com/performance/index.ssf/2014/01/shen_yun_performance_masks_ant.html

Waters.Justin (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite an interesting assortment to make a reception section with. But judging from the page's recent history, it's going to be an uphill battle against Shen Yu Performing Arts watchdogs to keep this sort of section in it. --Elnon (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More reliable sources that review the performance and its association with the Falun Gong movement.

• https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2016/eap/268740.htm
• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/12/shen-yun-falun-gong-traditional-chinese-dance-troupe-china-doesnt-want-you-to-see
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-shen-yun-20160409-story.html
• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/inside-shen-yuns-delicate-dance-between-politics-and-thestage/article34201842/
• http://www.dallasobserver.com/event/dancing-with-falun-gong-8512212

Waters.Justin (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

This article probably even needs a Controversy section. A friend went to one of Shen Yun's show in Canada and showed me the program book. Apparently a song was sung in Chinese which included lyrics lambasting Atheists and calling it a "darkness" in society. The Falun Gong opposes the Chinese Communist Party, sure, but should not spread hatred in public performances! 99.248.0.198 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you expect from those evil cultists? All they know is hatred. At the same time they portray themselves as poor victims who need pity. They mask their true intentions with cultural events to misguide foreigners and overseas Chinese. Since Wikipedia and other mainstream platforms are infiltrated by Falun Gong, there is no chance major criticism will be allowed on articles connected to any branches of their political organization. --188.99.188.82 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Added inclusion of remarkably bigoted material, with citation. The topic would benefit from expansion.Mavigogun (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations should be made to reliable sources (not theater program books).... whether or not the material is remarkably bigoted (we try to edit with a neutral point of view here). Happy monsoon day 21:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In what way is the published program book from the performance not a reliable source? It is the primary documentation of the performance, listing performer, composer, lyrics. What, exactly, are you claiming is inadequate?Mavigogun (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviews

Does it strike anybody else as bizarre that the "reviews" section merely says that various people and publications have written reviews of Shen Yun performances, but doesn't even give any summary of what the reviews said? 69.73.57.117 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Photographs

Some pictures mentioning 'Shen Yun' are available in Wikimedia Commons. Are they from Shen Yun Performing Arts?

• 
• 
• 

Anna An-yun 563-298 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC).

discuss

hello, @Tsumikiria:. I think it's should be edited precisely according to content form prominent sources, and no original research.

WP:No original research：

【Using sources】"Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. "

【Synthesis of published material】："Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. "

for example,

1. User worte "The 2018 performance includes lyrics disparaging atheism and belief in evolution as "sins", and is a common complaint of attendees of the performance. "----Is it a "common complaint"? Did the two sources say this content? and the report did not say "sin, atheism and belief in evolution". The edit is misleading and ORIGINAL RESEARCH .
2. this source[1](Walter Whittemore wrote on The Ledger). First, It's just a vert short opinion article by a non-expert, and what he mentioned was about the faith but not to the content. Second,If his opinion is about the faith, It's not a review to program. and also not a expert in this faith area. Not a reliable source.
3. After the two above, the User worte in the page that "As of December 2018, the critized content was still present in the show."-----But this Misleads readers, and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. There is no mentioning of aliens in the show, nor is homosexuals. No sources said that in the program content.
4. For example, If you see a show performed by actress/dancers with Catholic faith, the review should be about her performance or her faith? Indeed, the Users further created self-opinions away from the sources, it's Original Research. and I think if we edit about faith. especially a faith persecuted by Communist Party Totalitarian Regime , we should edit carefully.
5. User wrote "Reviewers characterized these contents as an "anti-evolution", "religious sermon", and "cult propaganda"."-----
   1. But in the only one source[2], the writer did not say that,　he just quote a comment from YELP, it's not his viewpoint, it's not "reviewers".
   2. and the same source quote The Guardian to oppose the CCP's(Chinese Communist Party regime) label to Falun Gong,-----【The Guardian reports "there's no evidence of the kind of coercive control that the label suggests." Besides, it's not like the Chinese government has a stellar human rights record. According to Shen Yun's website, many of the dance company's members were persecuted and tortured for practicing Falun Gong in China....Thousands of practitioners were imprisoned or in some cases tortured.】
6. User wrote "Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers. Kristin Tillotson from Star Tribune wrote that "Beneath all the colorful costume changes, pounding drumbeats and relentlessly repetitious acrobatic movements lies a political undercurrent that feels more like propaganda than straightforwardly presented cultural heritage."----But Kristin Tillotson did not say "Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers"
7. User use this source"Li, Hongzhi (2018). 2019 Shen Yun, Houston 26, 2018-January 16, 2019. Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. p. 132."----What's it? Where's it? I can not find it out(a book? program book with 132 pages?),and I doubt if correctly used?Wetrace (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Not necessarily "sins", it might be quoted from a disseminated lyric sheet. The New Yorker article did wrote "'Atheism and evolution are deadly ideas. Modern trends destroy what makes us human,' he sang.", which still could be summarized as "disparagement of atheism and evolution" Chron article also displays Yelp reviews, including sermon against evolution [...] anti-evolution statements were made on screen, and a song that Darwin theory lead people to nowhere.
2. The Ledger is a reliable source, use WP:RSN if you have complaints, and this article from it is a legitimate review. It was indeed about how the content of this show constitute Falun Gong propaganda. What we got was two hours of propaganda for a movement dating all the way back to 1991. The banner summarized it succinctly for those dulled by tedious musical compositions, cartoon-like computer graphics, trap doors or flashy colors: “Falun Dafa is Good.
3. Jia Tolentino watched this show in December 2018, around Christmas. Her account verifies such content.
4. What user are you referring to? No one said anything about the faith of its performers. Falun Gong is no more persecuted by the CPC than other religious groups, this is not a reason we give them some special treatment here.
5. An RS quoting primary sources like tweets and yelp reviews is still RS. We just can't cite Twitter and Yelp directly.
6. This defense for a new religious movement appears to be unrelated to the performance it created.
7. Misrepresentation of content in advertising was also commonly complained by viewers. This is summary of multiple sources.
8. That appears to be an article, leaflet or lyric sheet published by Falun Gong itself. It may only be used to supply other secondary sources, but it may not be accessible. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

1. My comments to some of the questionable statements from user Tsumikiria:
2. 1. User Tsumikiria said "No one said anything about the faith of its performers". But the Ledger lines quoted in the page did attack the faith saying "...claims the earth was inhabited by aliens, demonizes atheists and homosexuals, and condemns mixed marriages". In fact, these lines are not related to this page on one hand, as there is no such a content in the show. On the other hand, such attacks have long been debunked by scholars in this area. For example: In discussing the portrayal of Falun Gong as "anti-gay," Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.[3] As to the concern over Falun Gong’s teachings on distinct heavens for people of different races, this aspect of the practice’s cosmology is "in no way amounts to an endorsement of racial purity," and in fact many Falun Gong practitioners have interracial children.
3. 2. User Tsumikiria said "Falun Gong is no more persecuted by the CPC than other religious groups, this is not a reason we give them some special treatment here." These words are not true. a. According to the Freedom House's statement [4], "The intractable nature of the CCP’s campaign against Falun Gong presents unique challenges for advocates, policymakers, and victims. Tools available when dealing with other large-scale human rights violations in China are not feasible. The openness and occasional compromise that Chinese officials display when dealing with workers’ rights, discrimination against Hepatitis B patients, or even the one-child policy, are non-existent when it comes to Falun Gong. But in their interactions with regimes such as the CCP’s, democratic governments must not let the authoritarians dictate the agenda. It is precisely because victims of the Falun Gong campaign have so few avenues of recourse within the system that international solidarity, exposure of abuses, and pressure on their behalf are even more vital. For these reason, since 1999, Freedom House has consistently tracked the campaign in its publications, called for the release of illegally detained practitioners, and participated in annual rallies calling for an end to abuses against them." b. Appealing to stop the hate attack against the Falun Gong faith is not calling for a special treatment. On the contrary, it is for stopping the existing special treatment, as the special attack against FG is visible here. It is not strange. Actually 50-cents of CCP defaming Falun Gong can be often seen on Internet.

1. 1. 3 User Tsumikiria said "Jia Tolentino watched this show in December 2018, around Christmas. Her account verifies such content." The source does not say there are contents about aliens and anti homosexual in the show. But your edits on the page misled readers to believe so. This is original research. What user Wetrace stated "There is no mentioning of aliens in the show, nor is homosexuals. No sources said that in the program content." is correct.
   2. 4 User Tsumikiria said: "That appears to be an article, leaflet or lyric sheet published by Falun Gong itself". The source "Li, Hongzhi (2018). 2019 Shen Yun, Houston 26, 2018-January 16, 2019. Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. p. 132." indicates this recent edits here is a CCP hit job, as there is no such a book by Mr. Li. In mainland China, owing to the Great Firewall, people have no freedom to visit Falun Gong website. Jiang Zemin's 610 made up fake Falun Gong books for cheating mainland Falun Gong practitioners. In overseas, fake FG books can be easily identified. There is no such a book on FG website. Marvin 2009 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)