Talk:Bagan

Proposal

Hi, this is a minor content modification but having been this year in Bagan, I can relate the horse-carriage only rule is not at all respected. I have photos to prove it and even saw 3 buses for local tourists hidden behind one of the most famous temples for the sunset view (no photo of that), plus minibuses and 4WD for westerners. I suggest deleting : "Thus in order to preserve the original pagodas, only horse-driven carriage are allowed to travel among the pagodas.[1]" or adding to it "This rule is however largely ignored". I post this proposal beforehand because this is my first participation to wikipedia and do not want to do any wrong-doings. Antoinerev (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

The second paragraph of the article seems to be non-neutral against the actions of the military junta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.232.197 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

the second paragraph only recounts the actions of the junta. it does not pass judgment on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.12.140 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph simply states the fact, IMO. I was in Myanmar at the time of the repairs and it was controversial whether to repair ancient structures or not. It was suggested that the repairs should be done with advises from UNESCO experts but the government went ahead without significant archaeological protections to the repair works. It is no issue of dispute on this paragraph stating what actually happened. The editor also referenced to a valid, non political and neutral National Geographic article.[1] If there's no objections, I will remove the dispute tag. --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why bother with disputes between two users that don't even care to sign their posts? In my opinion, unsigned comments should be perfunctorily deleted. --AVM (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic is not necessarily neutral (note: NatGeo uses Myanmar, but the author uses Burma). However, I feel the part about the golf course and watch tower are somewhat irrelevant, as pagodas were not destroyed for their construction. As Kyaw has said, the repairing of pagodas are a very controversial topic. Almost all pagodas, as places or worship, are repaired continuously, as visible with the Shwe Dagon Pagoda. The Shwe Dagon is also not in the UNESCO list, even though there have not been radical changes. This might suggest that UNESCO may be influenced by current issues. And, if we must drop our tradition of repairing pagodas (of course not radically) to be on a list, then, the Burmese should keep their identity than conforming to outside rules.

And the notion of repairing the pagodas to preserve their archeological style is a fairly recent importation into the Burmese mind. Their rampant repair is destroying the architectural heritage of Bagan, I do not argue. It is also occuring in other parts of Myanmar.

As for the unsigned comments, it shows there is lack of freedom of expression, as one side of the arguement is apparently more favoured by the "contributors" of wikipedia articles on Myanmar. Commentators who profess certain views are also attacked due to their views, which might prompt them to keeping themselves anonymous.

Bottom line: Repairing pagodas haphazardly, bad. But imposing western ideals on eastern culture is also wrong. Politics stinks everywhere.137.132.3.6 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)