Talk:Bhutan/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Expulsion of Nepalese inhabitants
The article states that:
Approximately 100,000 ethnic Nepali (who are generally Hindu) were exiled from the south of the country in the late 1980s in the wake of supposed pro-democracy demonstrations. A large number of them were later found to be immigrants from Nepal who had been living in Bhutan illegally.
What is the source for the claim in the last sentence? Who made the determination and how? Indeed, how would it be possible to make a determination of someone's immigration status *after* they had left the country?
And why does the article refer to the pro-democracy demonstrations as 'supposed'?
This paragraph alone presents a slanted view of the expulsions, suggested both (1) that the pro-democracy demonstrations were instigated rather than genuine and (2) that many of those expelled were unlawfully in the country.
This article needs to be cleaned up by someone with a less dewey-eyed view of Bhutan. 62.49.56.42 12:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
More instances of shameful lack of NPOV
The article states:
'"Nepali activists have claimed that Nepali-language education has also been restricted on grounds of national unity, however these claims have proven false."'
Proven false? By whom? and how? This kind of claim should either be sourced in an authoritative manner or deleted altogether.
"From the perspective of Bhutanese, the issue is one of preserving a Himalayan Buddhist culture and way of life"
There are somewhere between 300,000 and 2 million Bhutanese. It's deeply unlikely that support for Bhutan's cultural policies commands 100% support from the Bhutanese themselves. Rather, it is more likely that the Bhutanese are like everyone else on the planet, capable of holding divergent opinions. Perhaps the cultural policies command widespread support, but - if that is the case - then that is what the article should say instead of offering a kind of simplistic pro-Bhutanese slant on everything.
"A group comprised of ethnic Nepalese claiming to be Bhutanese exiles have criticized the constitution saying that the king is trying to overshadow the refugees problem in the country by introducing "limited democracy"."
Another example of how the article fails NPOV. Dissent against Bhutan is ascribed to "ethnic Nepalese" (i.e. not truly Bhutanese) who are "claiming to be Bhutanese" (i.e. suggesting that they are merely foreigners instigating trouble).
"It signalled his commitment to building an economy that is appropriate for Bhutan's unique culture, based on Buddhist spiritual values, and has served as a unifying vision for the economy"
excuse me, but is this the PR page for the King of Bhutan?
"Some Nepali activists claim that the downgrade was motivated by a desire to minimise the proportion of immigrant ethnic Nepali population. However most believe that the population was artificially inflated in the seventies because of an earlier perception that nations with populations of less than a million would not be admitted to the United Nations."
Again an opposition is set up between 'some' activists who are identified as being non-Bhutanese as against 'most' who are helpfully not identified. Moreover, the idea the populations of less than a million would not be admitted to the UN is patently stupid: there are many countries smaller than Bhutan who are members of the UN and this would have been readily apparent even at the time that Bhutan sought entry. To suggest that this is the main reason for the significant disparity over population estimates in Bhutan strains all credibility.
I'm putting up these criticisms for discussion, but, unless some compelling justification can be shown for this kind of sloppy language, I will make the necessary amendments to make this article NPOV in the near future.62.49.56.42 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Indian Rupee as Currency
On the CIA world factbook located at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html, the Indian rupee is listed as one of the currencies for the country. I've been to Bhutan before. In every store, the Indian rupee is taken. The ngultrum is pegged to the Indian rupee. I'm going to add the Indian Rupee has the 2nd form of currency in the country.
Dzongkha fonts
To download a good Dzongkha font (that is free) go to the Department of Information Technology of Bhutan’s following website: http://www.dit.gov.bt/downloads.php
Zntrip
Yoga Journal ran an article quoting King Jigme Singye Wangchuck (from an interview in Financial Times) concerning the slow pace of developement in Bhutan in relation to neighboring Nepal. "Gross National Happiness," he declared, "is more important than Gross National Product." It's since become a sort of Buzz phrase.
- Ya, even I read this interview in an Indian newspaper. Can this be mentioned in the economy section? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.yogajournal.com/views/1332_1.cfm
Rain Mateo
flag of bhutan
i looking for a flag of Bhutan please contact me at : crackwindobe@voila.fr
Official language
I removed English; even though it's de facto official... it still isn't quite! -- Gavin
All documents and notices dealing with the court have to be written in Dzongkha all court records are also maintained in dzongkha. other official documents and notices are written in both dzongkha and english.Rinzin 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
abstruse word
I wonder whether 'gellid' can be changed to a more common word ('cold' or 'frosty'?); very few readers will know what it means, which will defeat the purpose. Tony 11:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- extremely cold would be better. Great copyediting by the way. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's a pleasure, Nicholas. I wonder what the pegging of inflation to 3% means. I don't think this statement can be retained in its present form. (I've changed it.) Tony 12:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
some queries
Nicholas: It's unclear why the 20 districts are mentioned in 'The Royal High Court has original jurisdiction over the 20 districts of the nation.', rather than in a separate sentence. If the Court's power over these districts is at issue, can it be briefly explained here?
There's a slight sense of wanting to encourage readers to expand their vocabulary; while this is a worthy aim for all readers, may I suggest that this is not the place for it? Tony 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
'Because of a shortage of diplomatic personnel in Bhutan, ...'—I do find this hard to believe as a reason for having India do it; I suspect that it's rooted in the treaty. If there are several hundred thousand military personnel, and a coterie of talented people in the government (as was apparent in a recent BBC doco), it's highly unlikely that there's a shortage of willing and able people. Tony 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Can the section on districts be subsumed into that on government?
Can the quote at the top of this page be included at the start of the section on goverment: it's unique and fascinating, and important to understanding the nation. Tony 00:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Replying to your concerns:
- There's no issue with the courts having jurisdiction over the smaller courts. I'd added it so that the paragraph wasn't small.
- Ok I concede defeat on the vocabulary issue. It was a worthy cause while it lasted. :)
- Diplomatic personnel: That sentence is sourced from: [1] under the "Foreign Relations" link. (The absolute URL does not exist, its generated on request.)
- No, according to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries, the subdivisions of a country merit a top-level heading.
- Yeah, the link above can be mentioned.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll add the quote about Gross National Happiness somewhere—it's brilliant. Can the section on districts go immediately after Government, then, and before Foreign affairs and military? It might flow better. Tony
Rinzin 07:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) He quoted the thing about gross national happiness way back (I think it was in 1972). But these days a lot of Indian politicians using it.
- I've addressed Taxman's history part, but the 17th century part it seems jagged now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Lead rollback
I have reverted Tlogmer's split of the name. It weakens the lead, FA's are supposed to have a longer lead and according to the Wikiproject countries, the name of the country can be mentioned in the lead in. See India. I have no problems with the split if Tlogmer can expand it to compensate for the loss. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
TV
Nicholas—I'm a little confused about the TV statement; was the state TV service introduced in 1999 a cable service, or free-to-air? Tony 11:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Rinzin No the broadcasts are free but is aired in some select cities only. a few years ago it was only Thimphu ( the capital. some cable operators record these broadcasts and show them to their customers.(sorry about all the re edits but dont know much about editing)
"Least developed"?
Do you really want to say this?! It is a severely loaded term, has a strong negative connotation, and could be argued as being misleading and inaccurate by those holding that it is highly developed from a spiritual perspective. How about "least modified" or "least commercialized" or "least industrialized" or "most traditional" or "best preserved" or "most culturally cohesive" etc, etc.? Haiduc 12:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
-From amitroy5
I agree with that. Just because a country does not follow or attempt to be at the status of western countries does not mean it is developed. It is more tranditional.
-From amitroy5
Pederasty?!?
Foreign influences and tourism are heavily regulated by the government to preserve its traditional culture. Particularly, its tradition of pederasty is protected from international prosecution.
Is this true? That's a pretty loaded statement to be here with nothing to back it up. (Alphaboi867 04:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC))
Refugees
Bhutan is implicated in a most serious refugee problem (e.g. see: http://www.saag.org/notes3/note223.html) Is there some reason why this issue is not even mentioned?
- Well, a thorough read-though of the article will answer your question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
SAAG is unequivocally anti-bhutan in its stance. all of its content is anti-bhutan. there is in fact not a single article in that website that says anything positive about bhutan. I would not consider that to be a neutral source of information on Bhutan.
western influences
The article states that Bhutan has "remained almost completely unaffected by Western philosophies and economic practices". However, it later goes on to mention a variety of things that would seem to contradict that, such as its legal system being based on English common law. I think the real situation may be a bit more complex. --Delirium 06:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Bhutanese are trying to live according to their historical traditions and buhist philosophy. The art of life and the art of politics are to different things. The policical system is becomeing internatinal, but the way people live isn't. PBS27 08:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
freaky!!!
Freaky!!! This is the umpteenth time Wikipedia has featured something just days after I discover it for the first time. My pastor mentioned Bhutan and "gross national happiness" only last Sunday. LOL. *looks around* You guys ARE reading my mind. *puts on tinfoil hat*
(CalgaryWikifan 15:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC))
Article unworthy of "featured article" status
Too much of it reflects the perspective of Bhutanese tourist promotion. For instance, half of Bhutan's population is probably Nepali, but they're barely mentioned (and not at all under "demographics").
Of course this makes hash out of Bhutan's claims to have avoided "foreign" influence--whatever "foreign" might mean in a country which is half Tibetan (but in denial about it), half Nepali, and generally dominated by India. And the word "Bhutanese" is defined (in "demographics") according to citizenship, when one would expect a discussion of ethnicity.
The phrase "national etiquette" is used without comment, when it is as Orwellian as one could ask for. It amounts to laws which privilege Tibetan customs over Nepali ones, in areas such as clothing. (That is, Nepalis are required to dress like Tibetans.)
The article has zero discussion of the recent introduction of foreign television and its impact on Bhutan's society. Certainly the Bhutanese talked a lot about it.
Some discussion of Drugpa Kargrud Buddhism would have been appropriate. The political power of the monasteries invites comparison with Shiite Iran, I think.
What else. Archery? Zongsar Rinpoche (director of "The Cup" and other films)?
--Dawud
To answer your post:
- Its a little harsh that you mention that it is unworthy of "Featured status".
- Bhutanese tourist promotion – you don't mention instances of such usages
- half of Bhutan's population is probably Nepali do you have a credible source for it? Please do not claim arbitary numbers.
- Please keep in mind that the FA version draft and the current draft may not always be the same.
- Instead of direct criticism, would you be kind enough to join us and correct such errors?
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's true. I was frankly astonished that something like this could be put out as an "example" for others to emulate. (1) You really need me to find a tourism link for you? And then ask for "credible sources" for other information? (2) Population "statistics" are really murky for Bhutan. It would be better to give a plausible range than a canonical figure. (3) Yes, they're different. I did try to hastily fix a few things, but people kept taking down the NPOV warning (without discussing, I notice). (4) I will try to make some time for it, but this "featured article" thing kind of took me by surprise. --Dawud
Dawud, this is certainly a very good article about Bhutan. Please stop making a fool of yourself. Given the limited information that is published about Bhutan, it's a great work. I recently had some interviews with people from Bhutan, and it is not contradicotry in anything. If you want to make some reachers on Bhutan. go ahead. It will be in our best interest. I don't know what is your background, but it seems that you want us to write belligerently about that country. Clarify.--PBS27 14:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Dawud: Half of Bhutan's population is Nepali? Anyone who has been to Bhutan would know that this isn't true. Druksoogs 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
'half of bhutan's population is probably nepali'? "probably"? is it or is it not Dawud?
in denial of being Tibetan? there is no denial. there are religious differences which cause no desire to be mistaken for the other. do the terms gelukpa and kargye ring any bell for you?
(That is, Nepalis are required to dress like Tibetans.) that's right, and westernized bhutanese feel equally stricken. why politicize it by speaking just for nepalese people?
army size
315,000 seems like quite a lot for a country with a population of 2 million. Military of Bhutan, Foreign relations of Bhutan says only 260,000 are fit for military service. If no one objects I'm going to remove the number until someone comes up with a reference for a plausible number.
--Mr link 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- No its referenced from the CIA factbook. Thanks for asking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.capitals.com/geos/bt.html says 283,493 males are fit for military service. Since the army is voluntary that is an upper limit (assuming it is 100% male ). Can you provide a link to where the CIA factbook says the enlisted armed forces or enlisted armed forces + reserve amount to 315,000. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35839.htm claims the armed forces strength is 8000. --Mr link 18:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's harsh, and perhaps a little unconstructive, to leap in and claim that the article is not of FA standard. It has recently undergone extensive reviews in the FAC room, and in my view is generally of a high standard. All the same, your ideas are welcome, and if there are a few gaps and inconsistencies, let's update the text accordingly. Tony 14:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Military action against insurgents
"In late 2003, the Bhutanese army launched a large-scale operation to flush out Indian insurgents from their training camps in southern Bhutan."
Just thought I'd mention this, but there was some concern on a local (Indian) mailing list that the above sentence might be misleading, considering that the dislodged insurgents were actually *fighting* Indian forces and thus aren't quite Indian. One possibility would be to mention them by their name, ULFA, but that is quite cumbersome for the fact that the military operation was against three such groups. The other possibility could be to call them as 'anti-Indian' insurgents, and mention that the operation was, in fact, given logistical support by the Indian army.
The other interesting thing here to me is that this was Bhutan's first military operation in 138 years (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/2_23.htm#ASSESSMENT1), something that could be mentioned in relation to the relative lack of crime and the whole concept of Gross National Happiness.
Thank you for your attention.
-RA
No such thing as "Indo-Mongoloid language" - and stop ripping off Encarta
Someone changed back to an assertion that Sharchopkh, also called Tshangla, is an "Indo-Mongoloid language". There's no such thing - I can't find a single instance of it in the academic literature or other authoritative source. Indo-anything is Indo-European, and Mongolian is Altaic - two totally separate language families. What I did find is that the only references that show up when "Indo-Mongoloid language" is googled are Wikipedia and its copiers, and Encarta - and the whole paragraph as it had been was a blatant rip of the paragraph from Encarta, with just enough twiddling of the wordage to avoid direct copying. Stop trying to perpetuate Encarta's error. Reaverdrop 18:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's not called ripping. Its perfectly legal to reference your work based on credible sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Reaverdrop, no one is trying to perpetuate errors, and Nichalp is right, Wikipedia often evolves in relation to credible sources. Your input can be a valuable part of this evolution, and I hope that you're going to contribute. Tony 09:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Featured article?
How is this a featured article when it doesn;t mention the United Front for Democracy? Sam Spade 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. A featured article does not need to have everything single detail about a country on the page. And we can't use the tripod site as it's not a credible source. Please check the wikipedia:Featured article criteria before shooting at the featured status of the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sam Speed, please let us know on this page what you think should be mentioned about the UFD. Tony 09:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
See Political Pressure groups and leaders. Sam Spade 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Eur and Usd
"Bhutan has a Gross Domestic Product of around USD 2,913 million (adjusted to Purchasing Power Parity), making it the 162nd largest economy in the world. Per capita income is around $1,400 (€1,170), ranked 124th. Government revenues total €122 million ($146 million), though expenditures amount to €127 million ($152 million)."
Why do you use first USD and EUR in the brackets in the first sentence, while in the next sentence first EUR and then USD in brackets? Makes it difficult to follow. PBS27 08:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Security
If I'm not mistaken, according to a treaty, the security of Bhutan is the responsibility of India. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article as it has several implications for the relationship between India and Bhutan. --Gurubrahma 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, its not clearly mentioned. The only thing mentioned that "Bhutan was a suzerain of Britain." This role was taken over by India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I added a bit on this. Should probably add something on their border settlement too... --Dawud
Indo-Iranian
An anonymous contributor has recently changed 'Indo-European' to 'Indo-Iranian', which refers to a subgroup of the 'Indo-European' category of languages. Please check that in Bhutan, the non-Tibetan-Burmese languages are all Indo-Iranian (they may be, I don't know); and I wonder about the use of Indo-Iranian as an epithet for people as opposed to languages, as further up now in the article. Tony 04:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The salient terms are "Tibetan" and "Nepali". Note that Bhutanese publications attempt to minimize the influence of both.
- Nepali is Indo-European, but then so is Swedish. One would hope we could be a bit more specific...? Anyway this is a language family, not an ethnic group. (And "Tibeto-Mongolian" is just bizarre...) --Dawud
- Indo-Iranian is only slightly more specific than Indo-European, as it includes about two thirds of the 450 or so Indo-European languages. As a more specific grouping, Nepali belongs to the Indo-Aryan Northern Zone languages. It was previously thought that Nepali is the only non-Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman/Himalayish/Tibeto-Kanauri language in Bhutan, but the Himalayan Languages Project (the same group that was commissioned by the government of Bhutan to devise a standard romanization of Dzongkha) recently reported that two languages, Gongduk and Olekha, are each separate sub-families of their own within Tibeto-Burman. ~ Reaverdrop 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
research on bhutan
i plan eventually to do some research on bhutan. right now, i really don't even know where to begin.
meanwhile, my research on tibet is coming along very, very slowly... Gringo300 11:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No such thing as Ngalong culture
I have removed reference to "Ngalong culture" being promoted, since there is no such thing as ngalong culture. There is Bhutanese culture which is heavily based based on Buddhism and is the culture of the majority ethnic Bhutanese group.
Lack of neutrality about recent Chinese activity
The section under Military Affairs that deals with recent Chinese incursions into Bhutan displays a lack of neturality. The information may be relavent, but the section was clearly written by someone whose sympathies lie with Bhutan and who views the Chinese action as wrong, even referring to it as "sociopathic." The wording of the section seems to express the (unnamed) author's personal opinions of the situation and is not objective enough for Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, I am not well enough informed to do it properly, but this section clearly needs to be rewritten to state this information in a form that is factual without an editorial slant.
Charleatls 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've asked User:Ran to help out. Perhaps he can do something. --Khoikhoi 04:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- ran (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Khoikhoi 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --Charleatls 06:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced the footer templates with Template:Bhutan ties. Such templates on country articles have been deprecated for some time, after lengthy discussions at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries. Since most countries belong to at least a half dozen international organizations, which creates quite a mess at the bottom of articles when a box is added for each. Since my knowledge of Bhutan is very limited, I recommend you to make changes to improve this template. (See also United Kingdom, Canada and India for examples). CG 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Wrong IP address in revision history description.
I made a mistake! When describing my most recent revision, I accidentally said that I reverted some 7 March 2006 edits by 69.141.27.237. That is the wrong IP address. The 7 March 2006 edits (which had distorted the second paragraph of the History section) were actually made by IP address 156.63.190.132.
I apologize for this error!
Yansa 02:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved; I identified the proper IP address in my next revision's comments, as another Wikipedian had advised me to do.
Yansa 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)