| Revision as of 00:08, 10 May 2009 editDilip rajeev (talk | contribs)5,244 edits →Rewritting of the article← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:16, 10 May 2009 edit undoDilip rajeev (talk | contribs)5,244 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| ==Rewritting of the article== | ==Rewritting of the article== | ||
| I decided that the article has to be rewritten on the basics of the lastest version before dilip rajeev's destructive changes. One paragraph about criticism and one about praise, that's balanced, isn't it? Now the article have to be expanded with interessting and important informations like Peter Chastain wishes. The reception doesn't have to be expanded. ] (]) 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | I decided that the article has to be rewritten on the basics of the lastest version before dilip rajeev's destructive changes. One paragraph about criticism and one about praise, that's balanced, isn't it? Now the article have to be expanded with interessting and important informations like Peter Chastain wishes. The reception doesn't have to be expanded. ] (]) 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Friend, personal attacks, baselessly characterization of well sourced material contributed by another editor as "destructive" to achieve your ends, etc. won't get you far on wikipedia. If you see specific issues you are more than welcome to point them out - and that would be a much more constructive approach than blanking an article with a personal attack. | |||
| ::] (]) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Blanking of info is not a choice=== | ===Blanking of info is not a choice=== | ||
| I think we'd rather keep the info than just blank out material . | I think we'd rather keep the info than just blank out material . | ||
| ⚫ | The reception is important - till academic sources become available - the best information we can have come from the perspective of critics qualified enough to pass a judgement on the issue. | ||
| ⚫ | The reception is important - till more academic sources become available - the best information we can have come from the perspective of critics qualified enough to pass a judgement on the issue. | ||
| Just to make my point, that much information on the show is conveyed by comments from critics, clear: | Just to make my point, that much information on the show is conveyed by comments from critics, clear: | ||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The Washington Post says the stories are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," and weaves "traditional martial arts with music and dance." The Chicago Tribune says the show is: “Indisputably a spectacle.. a nimble mastery of traditional talent." |
The Washington Post says the stories are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," and weaves "traditional martial arts with music and dance." The Chicago Tribune says the show is: “Indisputably a spectacle.. a nimble mastery of traditional talent."... “A dazzling array of costumes, and a crack orchestra that seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation… Bright background scenes underscored the idealized tone with rainbows arching above flowered meadows and sun rays kissing snowy mountain ranges.”. | ||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The above para alone can tell the reader that the stories played are '''"plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables,"'' that the orchestra '''"seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation."''' The Globe and Mail review ads further info allowing the the reader to know that the '''"music is a fusion, layering a Western orchestra with traditional Chinese instruments."'' There are comments from qualified critics on themes of the plays, that it touches upon " quintessential Chinese culture" etc. All these are relevant information. The current template of the article forces us to present this information under the title "reception" - but that does not |
The above para alone can tell the reader that the stories played are '''"plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables,"'' that the orchestra '''"seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation."''' The Globe and Mail review ads further info allowing the the reader to know that the '''"music is a fusion, layering a Western orchestra with traditional Chinese instruments."'' There are comments from qualified critics on themes of the plays, that it touches upon " quintessential Chinese culture", on backdrops, on the costumes etc. All these are relevant information. The current template of the article forces us to present this information under the title "reception" - but that does not imply all this information is irrelevant somehow. Blanking out all this is not a choice - perhaps we could find a way to better structure it and present this under more encyclopaedic subtopics - or we may have to wait till more info becomes available. | ||
| Further, wikipedia articles are not about praise vs criticsm but about conveying information from quality sources. Readers go through an encyclopaedia for info - not to see one para of criticism and one para praise - and to structure an article thus would be extremely puerile. If we go by that logic, we ought to balance out all articles by that criteria .. Articles on ], ], ], ] - all ought to have 1 part praise and 1 part criticism! That, obviously, is not what encyclopaedia articles are about. | Further, wikipedia articles are not about praise vs criticsm but about conveying information from quality sources. Readers go through an encyclopaedia for info - not to see one para of criticism and one para praise - and to structure an article thus would be extremely puerile. If we go by that logic, we ought to balance out all articles by that criteria .. Articles on ], ], ], ] - all ought to have 1 part praise and 1 part criticism! That, obviously, is not what encyclopaedia articles are about. | ||
Revision as of 00:16, 10 May 2009
For a more balanced presentation we could draw from the source below as well - instead from a single critical article as being currently done in the article.
Look at http://www.divineperformingarts.org/reviews/the-media
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cantabo07 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The article was well balanced before your changes. there was one paragraph of praise and one paragraph of criticism. Do you call this unbalanced? Cantabo07 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
NPOV etc.
Having a section called "criticism" demands having a section called "praise," in the interest of NPOV, which states that the relevant points of view be given air. It would be simpler to just have "Reception" and in there include all kinds of reception, rather than compartmentalising them. To give a clear example, what if we did not have a criticism section but just had "Praise"? Would that be neutral? So I think it's pretty clear. I'll restore it to how it was until we discuss.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think the proportion of praise/criticism at the moment is out of kilter; the ratio is clearly off centre. I suggest paring it right back to a short statement of each. Actually, I'm going to be bold and just do that.--Asdfg12345 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I realise I broke the tags,sorry, I just dont'w ant to deal with this now. I have to start doing other stuff. I'll fix it later. I am sorry. --Asdfg12345 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that bracketing response as "praise"/"criticism", in itself, would be POV. Just present what notable sources have said .. and the proportion of praise/criticism should reflect the proportion of the same in mainstream media - we can't make it 50-50 if there is far more praise in mainstream media than criticism. Making it so, again, would just be trying to make things conform to personal POVs. .. If we've got 70 articles, in mainstream media, praising the show for one criticizing it.. we can't just go ahead and make the ratio of praise:crticism in the article 1:1 .. could we? Would doing so be doing justice to the mainstream view on the topic? Wouldn't it be a biased presentation likely to mislead the reader?
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, I absolutley agree with you and I must disagree with Dili rajeev. I lined out the criticism because in dili rajeev's edition there is much of praise and very little of criticism, but that's not enough. rajeev, in your edition the criticism is a bit hidden. And I believe it is possible to make the praise and criticism ratio in center. I found the ratio was quite in center, before dilip rajeev flooded the article with praise and the discussion site with praising articles taken from the shen yun web site. asdfg, you should take a look at the latest version of the article before rajeev changed it. there was each one paragraph about praise and criticism. Rajeev, it is quite obviously that you are a big fan of shen yun, nevertheless, you should try to be objective. And of course every organisation and company will list a collection of praise and credentials on his website. So if the website of shen yun is your only source of information, then this is not objective nor scientifically. I believe there are as much people who liked the show as those people who don't like the show. the article in his current version doesn't represent this at all, and isn't objective at all. The article can and must be well-balanced, because this is an encyclopedia and not a private website nor a blog.
Asdfg12345, please take a look at the version before dili rajeev changed it. I think we should undo dili rajeev changes, or make the article more balanced. The current version and state of the article is unacceptable and must not stay in this condition. Cantabo07 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way: Is it really necessary that 75 % of the articles handles with reception??? There are many things which could be written about the show and less about reception. Guys I give you 5 days to revise the article or to make a suggestion, or the article will be rewritten.Cantabo07 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I think that reception should not be a great deal of the article; it is a set of notes about what people think．Is that the most important thing for an encyclopedia to focus on? There should be more on the substance of the show, what they perform, the background of the dancers, why they are famous, the growth, and those kind of 'meaty' details that tell us more what Shen Yun Performing Arts is, rather than merely what people think of it. For the reception section, I think the criticism should be in there, as well as the praise. Whether they should be in equal proportion, I'm not sure. Probably the important thing is to keep it brief, some journalists complained about it, some audience goers loved it to bits. It's enough for these two sides to be represented without going overboard. A sentence or two explaining that the Shen Yun website has a large page of gushing praise from media may be appropriate to add to the article, rather than extracting a series of quotes from there; there is no need for zealotry about any of this. Let's just document things in a straightforward way. We are collating information about the subject, nothing more.--Asdfg12345 07:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see something about the history of the show, how it began, how it got to where it is today, the people who direct and perform in it, etc. Does the show concentrate on particular aspects of Chinese performing arts or particular parts of China, or does it try to give us a little bit of everything? The Shen Yun promotional videos on YouTube show footage of the destruction of art during the Cultural Revolution, so I also wonder whether and how they have been affected by political events within and outside of China. Peter Chastain (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Rewritting of the article
I decided that the article has to be rewritten on the basics of the lastest version before dilip rajeev's destructive changes. One paragraph about criticism and one about praise, that's balanced, isn't it? Now the article have to be expanded with interessting and important informations like Peter Chastain wishes. The reception doesn't have to be expanded. Cantabo07 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Friend, personal attacks, baselessly characterization of well sourced material contributed by another editor as "destructive" to achieve your ends, etc. won't get you far on wikipedia. If you see specific issues you are more than welcome to point them out - and that would be a much more constructive approach than blanking an article with a personal attack.
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Blanking of info is not a choice
I think we'd rather keep the info than just blank out material .
The reception is important - till more academic sources become available - the best information we can have come from the perspective of critics qualified enough to pass a judgement on the issue.
Just to make my point, that much information on the show is conveyed by comments from critics, clear:
The Washington Post says the stories are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," and weaves "traditional martial arts with music and dance." The Chicago Tribune says the show is: “Indisputably a spectacle.. a nimble mastery of traditional talent."... “A dazzling array of costumes, and a crack orchestra that seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation… Bright background scenes underscored the idealized tone with rainbows arching above flowered meadows and sun rays kissing snowy mountain ranges.”.
The above para alone can tell the reader that the stories played are "plucked from ancient Chinese history and fables," that the orchestra "seamlessly fused Chinese and Western classical instrumentation." The Globe and Mail review ads further info allowing the the reader to know that the "music is a fusion, layering a Western orchestra with traditional Chinese instruments." There are comments from qualified critics on themes of the plays, that it touches upon " quintessential Chinese culture", on backdrops, on the costumes etc. All these are relevant information. The current template of the article forces us to present this information under the title "reception" - but that does not imply all this information is irrelevant somehow. Blanking out all this is not a choice - perhaps we could find a way to better structure it and present this under more encyclopaedic subtopics - or we may have to wait till more info becomes available.
Further, wikipedia articles are not about praise vs criticsm but about conveying information from quality sources. Readers go through an encyclopaedia for info - not to see one para of criticism and one para praise - and to structure an article thus would be extremely puerile. If we go by that logic, we ought to balance out all articles by that criteria .. Articles on Dalai Lama, Beethoven, Mahatma Gandhi, Al Qaeda - all ought to have 1 part praise and 1 part criticism! That, obviously, is not what encyclopaedia articles are about.