Talk:Shen Yun

Balance

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 find Peter Chastain comment very useful, because it is proposing a structure for the article, and I think we can elaborate and work on that, so I moved it bellow to section #Content. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello guys I'm back from hiatus. Yea the reason why I didn't include praise is because eventually you guys would find this article and add all the parts that are missing (only took 6 days), but now the situation is reversed! Now it's all praise and no criticism. I hold reservations from quotes in the official praise page because I was unable to trace the source of the quote back to the author for some (only tried 2, was busy), and so if we are going to include it can we please source it from the actual source, not Epoch Times or any FLG canvas sites or the Shen Yun official website. That way we can also avoid misquotes (v. Engadget endorsing Monster cables) and make it verifiable. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is also there. See the reference for the Guardian and Telegraph articles. Would you like to provide some statistics saying what is the proportion between the negative and the positive review's? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is how do you quantify the importance of reviews so that we only have the most important, most influential ones? Why should the reader care about what some ex-ballerina or some actress say? Should we include Tom Cruise's opinion on Cirque du Soleil? We NEED to remove every reference that goes back to the reception page instead of the actual review, to stop something like this from happening (heck I've already found one, the Washington Post relayed the official description, they did not say it). I can track down the Chicago Tribune article after some searches (and have updated the ref accordingly) but others, like the MSNBC ref, the Performance Arts Insider, Canberra Times, Ottawa Sun references (I gave up after that), there are simply no trace of the original publication. WP:V##Questionable sources says:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

the receptions on the official websites are clearly promotional in nature and rely heavily on personal opinions of the reviewers; Thus they are unsuitable for citing claims about how the reviewers made the claims, when the original claims can not be easily found (no date of publication, no author, no title, etc.). (If anyone know if past articles are in some database do tell me, I might have access to it).

I have also added a notice on Shen Yun's FLG connection since they seem to be quite proud of it on the Edinburgh chapter's website.--antilived^{T | C | G} 10:29, 17 May 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, baseless 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 out on the basis of a blunt, baseless personal attack.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I do not think a collection of FLG-websites is considered well-sourced, but hey who am I to say so. (aside: don't you think it's a ironic (to say the least) that you complain about balance on top and yet all your changes are far from balanced?) And no, calling your edit destructive is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be calling you destructive. (and ironically, again, false accusation of personal attack is in itself a personal attack) --antilived^{T | C | G} 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Antilived, thank you so much for bringing light into ingorance. Its seems that some people even don't know what a personal attack or well-sourced mean.

dilip rajeev, think about that what Antilived told you. I found something in your comment. You think I won't get far in wikipedia? Are you sure that you got far in wikipedia?Cantabo07 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of info is not a choice

The material under the reception section is extremely 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. How is it that perception of critics and the mainstream arts community of a performing arts show could be not relevant?

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."[7] 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.”[8].

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 is a presentation of "quintessential Chinese culture", on backdrops, on the costumes etc. All these are relevant information - discussion of central aspects of the show. The section also carries information on the fact that certain shows have touched upon human rights issues, how the Chinese government has attempted unsuccessfully to interfere etc. 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 hold further structuring of the article off for a while - that is, till more academic material becomes available.

Further, wikipedia articles are not about praise vs criticsm but about conveying information from quality sources. I wonder where you get this "just add equal portions of praise and criticism, mix em up well, blank the rest out - and you get a 'balanced', complete encyclopaedia article" concept from! 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 puerile to the extreme. 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! And that, obviously, is not what encyclopaedia articles are about.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dilip rejeev, you are right. We should treat all articles on wikipedia as you treated this article and this discussion site. (look at the history of this discussion site!) We should flood all articles inclusive their discussion-sites with "hundreds" of recepts. Come on dude, nobody will improve any article by doing this. By the way: Recepts have to play a minor role in every article.

You can improve this article only by adding information about the show itself, about the artists, the dances, instruments, songs, characeters, etc. I look forward to the end of this discussion and to work on this article objectivly, neutral, scientifically and informative.Cantabo07 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is just an electronic version of the JUNK MAILING they do. They even rigged in a link to this page in the FLG template. This is not an article, it is advertising, by known JUNK MAILERS. 71.202.216.210 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite this article

Since this article is about a stage show, then it should follow the guidelines. Write about the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Currently the entire article consists of skewered reception on the show sourced straight from Shen Yun and Epoch Times, making as if the show is universally praised while th reviews critical of the performance got sandwiched in between. Condense all the praise, maybe link to the official site's praise section and quote only the most notable reviews.--PCPP (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add: the show's contents, list of performers, types of acts etc. Good suggestions BTW. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Shen Yun is the performance troope behind the various shows (too bad the shows don't have a catchy, unique name, and in general they seem quite schizophrenic in naming their shows...), not the shows themselves. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, thank you for the rational engagement. The article should look like all other articles about large stage-shows: more information, less opinion. Maybe I'll have time to do a lot of the reading and writing on that in two months, if it's not done before then.--Asdfg12345 06:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Source

I'm interested why this source [1] is not considered "reliable". Why was the entire section blanked? Colipon+(T) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of information

I would like to raise serious concerns about the blanking of information on this article. I will restore the page to an earlier revision by Cantabo and then we can discuss appropriate changes from there. It is absolutely unacceptable that users continue to just remove content without seeking consensus and justifying it with completely dubious reasoning. Colipon+(T) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

2/3 of the article is directly sourced from the show's own website. To me much of this is just advertising. I have decided to leave it in for now. Colipon+(Talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission statements

I usually have a problem with including organisations' mission statements within articles, and this one is no exception. Mission statements are inward- and outward-looking statements of an organisation's declared goals, and the vast majority I've seen are woolly or like a battle cry, like 'simply the best' sort of euphoria. I believe that most, therefore, have no place within this encyclopaedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the convention? We're not here to do publicity for any organisation, but I wonder how in many cases the organisation's self-understanding would otherwise be communicated? I do assume you believe how an organisation understands itself is important for readers...--Asdfg12345 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, may be possible to paraphrase the statement to remove any battle crying or euphoric elements, instead stating it in our classic deadpan. That might also be an acceptable solution.--Asdfg12345 18:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sample articles on performing arts

Hello, please list here some sample Wikipedia articles on performing arts. I intend these to have here temporarily for content structure reference. If you feel you have better, more relevant samples, please add them here in this section. Thank You!

• Musical theatre
• Cirque du Soleil

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

• I have read all the reviews posted in the 'praise' section, except the Tulsa, which was dead. It seems pretty obvious that they all have one thing in common - a commercial motive to promote the show. The paragraph at the bottom is a dead giveaway: where, when, how much the tickets cost. Only on reading between the lines is one given a hint of what to expect. "Although at first glance the spectacular might look like more of a grand cavalcade of Chinese cultural scenes than a vehicle for a political agenda, some of the show's vignettes have depicted stories that reference hot buttons such as Falun Gong or repression in Tibet." If it were a show without any politics, I don't there any reason why the Falun Gong connection should be mentioned at all. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input. Regarding the articles "where, when, how much the tickets cost." => I see that you trimmed the reception section and removed those sources (and I see that in your edit basically you recognize that not all sources, mention ticket price). I would not necessarily agree that when a cite mentions ticket price it is automatically bought off, but for the sake of consensus I will consider your suggestion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding "If it were a show without any politics", actually there are human rights issues presented, and the relationship between Falun Gong and Chinese government is tense, yet, I see that the section dedicated in presenting that relation was selectively merged into the reception section: [2] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would have to say that the 'content' section is, or has been written, in a promotional or otherwise unencyclopaedic manner that I have put an {{advert}} banner at the top. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The content was written because it was suggested by Peter see bellow, I looked to some of the links presented in Musical theatre and I saw that content is presented, also now I see that Antilived is also asking for it "when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page.". Yet I see that much of that content section was deleted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• And also it quotes FAR too much from the official website - if the reader wants to read it they can go to the official website itself. See the Cirque du Soleil page (instead of the general Music theatre page) and you wouldn't find exhaustive details about all the personnels and every little detail, when the major things, like the inspiration of the shows, the actual content, who wrote it, special techniques use, etc, are conspicuously missing from the page. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• What is exclusively quoted from the official website? The Mission is refed twice in the text, but never stand alone, so we can even remove that, but I don't see why and the official site is mentioned on the external link section. and there are plenty third party quotes, so the ratio is at most 10% which I would not say that is far too much. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• The page is a work in progress, I will look to more sources and enrich it, regarding "the actual content" there was a draft but now I see that while I slept it was that is removed. [3] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made a mistake, I was meant to say "it quotes far too much". In your draft half the content were copied verbatim from other sources; copyright notwithstanding, it is simply not how an encyclopedia should be written. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the uncritical reviews I mentioned above: I found this review, which suggests the glowing praise heaped on the show printed in the SF Chronicle may have been parroted, in whole or in part, straight from Falun Gong PR representative. I put that into the article just to illustrate a point - I don't actually think writing about it in this fashion, including the original glowing "reviews" is terribly fair, and should probably all be removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That definitely does not belong in "critical reception" - it may as well be an ad for it! --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Content

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)

It's just BS propaganda. The Cultural Revolution ended 30 years ago, and the current Chinese government rehabilitated traditional Chinese cultures, so FLG is beating a dead horse.--PCPP (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite unnecessary remark and uncivil --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it uncivil? Wikipedia is not censored (and even bullshit isn't that much of a swear word nowadays). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cultural Revolution was an act of philistinism which did a lot of damage, some of it irreversible. However, it's the troupe's own publicity which is making these claims about how the performance are ancient Chinese art forms without any substantiation from experts. All we have is a bunch of copywriters for their press office (all non-experts) writing pseudo-reviews full of praise and claims to their cultural roots. I wouldn't have called it BS propaganda myself, I think Spam was an apt description. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• We were discussing text and sources which were placed in the aticle. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving ahead: seeking consensus

1. The show content should be presented so it makes sense to list the idea of Traditional Dance, the songs, dances, backdrop, maybe even the costumes, as presented by third party sources and as notability requires.

2. The show has a human rights message in it which is to the disliking of the PRC, so there should be a "Relation ship with the Chinese government" section.

3. Since the reception is mixed, there should be a "Reception" section, which then would list all relevant feedbacks, both positive and negative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. See Cirque du Soleil for example of similar articles and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not set out to REPLACE the official website (where those stuff belong), it's to augment it. If the reader wants to know them, they can read it from the official site.
2. We don't need a giant heading for 2 lines of text, unless you have more content to add (Wikipedia:SECTION#Section size guidelines)
3. Uh... it already is? It's called "Critical reception"? (and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics) --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't think it is such a good idea. Having such a section invites accumulation of all reviews and assorted trash which third parties have written, and would risk being used as a battleground for who can garner the most quotes 'for' or 'against', depending on which 'side' you are on. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the name "Critical reception" ameliorate that issue since critical reception implies the need for critics, which provides a criteria for inclusion (only mention responses from established critics/reviewers, not the ones that merely advertise the show). --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Antilived, I don't have any assumption of bad faith. Reception is for both positive and negative reception. Please see WP:POVFORK and [forgot the essay]. I don't see the problem, really. If we have "critical reception" does that mean we should have "positive reception"? That wouldn't quite make sense. If you don't like the initial paragraph, maybe you could write one, or supplement it. I thought it was useful because it is just quick and orients the reader to the main thrust of the criticism. If we start of with just a referenced statement, then the next paragraph is just more direct statements about sources, this may create a stilted sort of feeling for readers. This is just my thoughts. I don't feel that what I wrote was controversial at all. It just seemed to sum up briefly what was already on the page. If you can do it even briefer, that's better, of course. Looking forward to your thoughts on the issue.--Asdfg12345 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I still tend to think we're talking about a wedding when the word 'reception' is used. Otherwise, I'm not that bothered by it - the expression 'a mixed reception' is used often enough to make it acceptable, I guess. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, please read what I wrote like 2 paragraphs above what you wrote, namely the part "and no, critical doesn't mean bad, it means from critics" (see for example Fight Club (film)#Critical reception). This is especially important in here because it establishes a criteria, that it must be an opinion piece written by an established critic, so that we can wade through all the junk advertising "reviews". Also, your lead doesn't help much at all - it's a very bad idea referring to the official website for critical reception (conflict of interest and what not) and it's mostly weasel words (replacing "some say" by "the official website says some say" doesn't help much). Since there is a heading already do we really need an introduction to it? --antilived^{T | C | G} 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this quote from WP:POVFORK: "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)." Do we have a situation here where the word "criticism" must be used? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Priorities

1. 1, #2 make a lot of sense to me. There's no problem with the term 'critical reception', but here the reviews are bizarrely skewed to the negative, despite the fact that critical response has been overwhelmingly positive (when one looks across many reviews). This needs work, as the current page creates the perception that the show has ulterior motives, which does not seem to be the typical critic response, and certainly not, looking at thousands of examples of audience feedback, the audience response. I agree that the section shouldn't become a 'battleground' area -- but if there is use of strong wording against the show (these certainly is some) it needs to be balanced by strong wording for (of which there is really a lot more among established critics and the like, and again, overwhelmingly so among the audience) to maintain NPOV. Agreed that these need to be chosen well, so I've started with comments from Richard Connema, who's credentials are beyond any reproach (a well known and respected theatre critic with almost 4000 reviews under his belt).

Priorities should then be, in my view: 1. Adding much more detail explaining what the show is, details of its uniqueness, ranging from traditional dance, song, depictions of Chinese mythology (in their traditional versions), how the show reflects traditional chinese artforms, the mixed Chinese/western instrument orchestra, etc. 2. Deciding how to deal with the critical reception page (Let's have some suggestions) 3. Adding a "Relationship with Chinese Communist Party / Chinese government" section for all related content. If we are going to include that, it needs to be framed in a way that preserves NPOV; at the moment, it is not.

Liketheory (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I have no problems citing Connema saying the show was fabulous, but the source, in this particular case is not acceptable as being a clear conflict of interest. The Epoch Times is a known Falun Gong news outlet should not be cited as a reference in this instance. FG is highly sensitive to criticism, and ET will never publish any words critical of the show in its own journal. Further, being the influential theatre critic as Connema is, presumably he would have written a review for the show in Talking Broadway, or another journal, which we could cite. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)