Talk:Shen Yun
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shen Yun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Retracted LA Mag article[edit]
@Llll5032: Thank you adding the "better source noted" tag. But I think that content is more in line with WP:DON'T PRESERVE: LA Mag retracted it because of a defamation lawsuit, and, as I said here, its featured image was defamatory in nature because Shen Yun performances are not pro-Trump at all and was also praised by Democratic legislators and celebrities like Carolyn Maloney [1] and Donna Karen [2]. So I think the excessive quote from the retracted LA Mag article should be removed. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the long quotation from LA Mag will need to be removed because of the retraction, unless secondary RS discuss the quoted matter from the LA Mag article in context. Llll5032 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- See Talk:Li Hongzhi. Please keep discussion centralized. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do WP:GREL sources corroborate its claims? Llll5032 (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Sam Braslow piece is perfectly fine to use here. Braslow is a career journalist working for multiple publications. He is his own reliable source. Beyond that, his article about Shen Yun was cited by career journalist Chris Jennewein.[3] Jennewein summarizes and quotes the Braslow piece. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- You could ask at RSN, but I will guess that editors there will agree with BSN, unless other RS said the retracting was wrong. Claims that clearly cite an unretracted RS are probably fine. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't follow this discussion when it was going on originally. I see that there is a whole paragraph dedicated to this topic in the article. If the publication retracted the report, it shouldn't be used. Full stop. LA Mag is a reliable source, and the retraction means that the reliable source no longer stands behind the article. The argument that Braslow is his own reliable source does not match wikipedia standards at all. It's surprising that this is even up for debate. A retraction means that the article is unreliable. —Zujine|talk 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You could ask at RSN, but I will guess that editors there will agree with BSN, unless other RS said the retracting was wrong. Claims that clearly cite an unretracted RS are probably fine. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Citations tag[edit]
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)
David Robertson's quote[edit]
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)
Reverted edits[edit]
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[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)
- C-Class Theatre articles
- Low-importance Theatre articles
- WikiProject Theatre articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Chinese politics articles
- Low-importance Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject China articles
- WikiProject Dance articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- Mid-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles