Talk:American Council for Cultural Policy

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Warapalawas has things very wrong, and either miscites published articles or relies on libelous misstatements that were ultimately the subject of corrective statement posted by the ACCP on the University of Chicago's Iraqcrisis list host, which was itself under fire for uncritically posting libelous material to begin with. Neither I nor the ACCP ever advocated an unrestricted free trade or free market in antiquties, but rather a licensed trade of lawfully deaccessed duplicates. This concept is entirely consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. If Warapalawas advocates universal national retention of anything old he is breaking new policy ground. William Pearlstein October 4, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.12.198 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The American Council for Cultural Policy is not a museum and is not very museum related (it is more heritage related) so the "Museums" category is inappropriate (for example). If more categories are added, they should be narrower and more focused than was previously the case. Jonathan Bowen 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Jonathan, thanks. --Warpalawas 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I believe your article is more than slightly biased against the ACCP and I agree with their argument that people will continue to collect antiquities regardless of international law, and this just pushes the antiquity trade under the rug (so to speak) and propogates the illegal trade of objects which will disappear into private collections, never to be seen by anyone again.

Also, it's a misleading to brand them as wealthy; I know from personal knowledge that isn't true.Jonathan Bowen

Well. I will have to disagree with pretty much all what you have said above. One: It is especially not possible to write an unbiased piece about such an organization, I don't deny the subjective nature of what I have written. I guess scientists still have the romantic utopia of objectivity? But I must say, all that is in the article are published things, already expressed opinions, I am not fabricating them myself and that is sufficient. If there are disagreements, the article is open to editing. This is wikipedia. Two: International law must take an ethically sound stance, you can't expect international law allow open circulation of antiquities and wild looting of archaeological sites (that would have been delightful for the wealthy collectors of the US). Your argument (and ACCP's) does not hold well I am afraid in relation to such commonsense. And three: please let me know about the low-income recruits of ACCP and their affiliates. I'd be delighted to know. --Warpalawas 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging with an NPOV dispute per comments by article author admitting that the article was written with bias. Article makes the group sound like a conspiracy theory from the get-go, and primarily written from the standpoint of archaeologists who disagree with ACCP on most issues. Article does a disservice by not summarizing the complexities of the rift over cultural property between the museum/collector/dealer world and the archaeology world, which is by no means one-sided as very respected academics and individuals have argued in favor of both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.100.0.110 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]