Talk:Tibet Museum (Lhasa)

POV
Most of this is taken directly from the Chinese government. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It does feel politically charged. Maybe change the wording or as far as purpose, make it clear that the POV stuff is that of the government entities in charge of the museum.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Esp. the intro claiming that this museum is "comprehensive" when large chunk are simply left out is, well, false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I re-instated the tag. The removal of one sentence does not solve the issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) What issue? What are you talking about? I innocently create an article about a museum and you have to bring politics into it. I am fully aware that the museum is obviously not fully "comprehensive" in relation to Tibet's cultural history. The PRC army destroyed many monasteries and artifacts during the Cultural Revolution. What the source was sayig to me is that the it is the first large sized modern musem in Tibet which it is. I am suspicious at the reasons why this article is being tagged, to me is looks like somebody with anobvious political viewpoint is trying to bring politics into it, I geninely am neutral in regards to writing an article, I just want a half decent article about the museum. I'm taking some leave from wikipedia, this is upsetting to me that you think I am inserting POV on purpose. . Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * no-one was talking about "on purpose". The sources you use are predominantly from the Chinese government; as such. it isn't possible to leave politics out of this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You completely exaggerated this. I didn't claim that the museum was "very comprehensive2 or that the Chinese had done a remarkable job of putting together the museum. I just claimed that it was the largest and most comprhensive museum within Tibet to date. This is true and there are other sources to support this. If you believe this is false and that actually a much larger, better museum preexisted let me know. I know that some of the tradiational monasteries before the Chinese attacked them were very notable repositeries but were not museums. merely storage. But if you think I am claiming the museum to be "very comprehensive" you are wrong. I am only too aware of what they did to much of Tibetan tradition and how many thousands of artifacts were burned with the monasteries during the cultural revolution. Very sad, but if you think I am here to implant PRC POV into article you've got it completely wrong. From a personal viewpoint I'd rather than Tibet was an independent country but I most certainly do not reflect my own views in my writing. I agree caution needs to be exercised given that most of the info available on this musuem is goverment related. I don't think your concern was a major one but what you seemingly saw as POV I think I've addressed, a minor one at that. The article was started to provide knowledge about the museum artifacts, not for PRC propaganda...That's why I was offended by your tag and comments and the way you belligerently restored the tags, rather than rectifying such a minor issue itself. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)