Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I would like to hear the views of other contributors on what the criteria are for accepting external links for this article. Abercrombie for instance appears to feel that his selection is the last word as he continually reverts my editions. I've read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and related articles, and for the life of me I cannot see how my additions are not acceptable. Please enlighten me on this matter. :) Bomdeling 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There is room for both (bhutan.bt and bhutan.com). About a week ago I stumbled on this article and noticed this petty edit war between Bramlet Abercrombie and other contributors. I thought placing both links in the article would resolve the dispute. Bramlet Abercrombie has been warned by an administrator to stop disrupting this article (and others). I have reverted his/her vandalism (yes, at this point the disruption is considered vandalism). If he or she tries to change it again, he/she will be blocked from making further edits. 24.205.227.69 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Bramlet Abercrombie appears to have appointed himself as the 'remove bhutantimes.com link' police officer on wikipedia. so long as he continues with this obsession, I will continue to undo his undo's. :-) --Divinemadman (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Divinemadman - I've moved your comment below so it's easier to follow the thread. Feel free to revert if you want to. Kevin (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across some nice Creative-Commons licensed photos on Flickr that we can use here: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/Bhutan/ Someone who knows these articles better might know the best place for them. — Catherine\talk 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi to avoid needless reverts, I request people who are reverting to take care of the following issues:
I request you to take care of these problems to avoid the embarassment of getting the article listed for removal of its featured status. Else I'll have to make the necessary reversion in a week's time. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I took this out of the ==Name== section: "Historians have suggested that it may have originated in variations of the Sanskrit words Bhota-ant (the end of Bhot – a variation of the Indian Sanskrit word "Buddha" meaning enlightened, another word for Tibet), or Bhu-uttan (highlands)." because it was unsourced and doubtful. Is "Buddha" really another word for Tibet? More likely, the author of this passage has confused "Buddha" with Bod, which is the Tibetan word for Tibet. That, incidentally, seems like a far more likely etymology for "Bhutan", especially considering the name of the neighboring Bhutia people. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
Thanx.--Zereshk 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The reconstruction of the immigration issues on this page is heavily slanted towards the official Bhutan Government version of events
Some information about the Nepali refugee's version should be included.
Some details on the problems can be seen here:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&id=3ae6a6c08&page=publ
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/7/20_7.html
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78870.htm
Is this an "immigration" issue or an "ethnic cleansing" issue?
Speaking to Asia Sentinel from New Delhi, Suhas Chakma, the Asian Human Rights Center director, stressed: "The international community must be mindful of the implications of any resettlement process without any written commitment from Bhutan. It would be tantamount to supporting ethnic cleansing policies by the Royal Government of Bhutan."
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=519&Itemid=31
[Note that Asia Sentinel incorrectly stated the name of the Asian Centre for Human Rights]
Hello, In order to avoid an "edit war", I suggest that on the Lhotshampa issue, we agree on something like "The Bhutanese government consider these people to be illegal immigrants. They themselves claim to be bonafide Bhutanese citizen". Exact formulation may be discussed among ourselves. Will that be OK for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeR (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have introduced a number of balanced modifications on the recent history section. Please tell me if you would agree to keep them as such or not, AND IF NOT WHICH POINTS DO NOT FIT YOU AND WHY. In this way we may progress towards a consensual and permanent version. Thanks PhilippeR 09:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the history section there is the statement:
I don't fully understand this, and it is also poorly written. I'm not familiar with the topic, or I would fix it myself.
Can someone please fix this? Thanks, Walkerma 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Should the spelling on the article be British style?Cameron Nedland 14:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just split the section on History of Bhutan into different sections according to timeline and have added an NPOV tag into the sub-section that describes the modern history and specifically about the Immigration issues regarding the Nepalese immigration. This section makes a number of (seemingly) biased assertions attributed to the Bhutanese government, in what seems like think-tank and policy matters without quotations or references. Secondly it seems very biased against the Nepalese community of Immigrants in general, and verbally blames this population for what it calls the destruction of Tibetan Culture. These are both in clear violation of NPOV policy. Also, it alleges that
"Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps. The UNHCR aid proivded to these people attracted the poor from border areas of Nepal, who claimed to be refugees as well to receive aid. Thus the initial number of people in the camps ballooned in a year to about 100,000. The issue remains unresolved today, with Bhutan unable to repatriate refugees as they are unable to identify who are actual ones and who aren't. The refugees offer ownership of the national citizen identity cards as proof of citizenry. The government contends that there has been widespread forging of these documents."
First, this is not referenced or sources not cited, secondly the tone and intention of the editor(s) seems specifically hagulatory, demeanistic, and ill-intentioned towards the Nepalese community, especially in the absence of citations.
I therefore think this section of the article is in violation of the NPOV policy and have added the tag. I am not competent on matters to do with Bhutan but please have a look at this ection and if you can help, please improve it. Thanks130.209.6.40 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
sorry i couldn't find it anywhere else.
Concerning the "history" section, I think that instead of re-editing again and again without mutual consultation, we should follow the NPOV rules, particularly the folllowing: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Please read the full page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 195.98.254.16 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would very much lremakeike to see a discussion of the effects of Bhutan's recent decision to permit TV after banning it for many years. The country is extraordinary isolated as it is, so much so that stalkers probably couldn't follow anyone there. But satellite TV overcomes such remoteness all too easily. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If the native population uses Druk Yul or whatever, who originally named Bhutan "Bhutan" (does it appear as such in some ancient Sanskrit texts for example)?
Who uses this name in the region today (is that the name of the country in Hindi for example?), and from what specific source did "Bhutan" enter English as the name of the country?
Also assuming there has been/is some non-English use of the name, we could use a second "native" IPA pronunciation (with aspirated B certainly).
I think the TV was not banned as such. It just took time like anyother technology to be adopted and introduced. We intorduced cellular communication in 2003 that doesn't mean we banned. I think this is a very misguided word 'banned' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.69.179.135 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what in the world is the point of this sentence: "Bhutan is the smallest non-Arab nation in mainland Asia."
What is the point!? It seems so trivial, that I really question why it's even in the article at all. If no one objects, I will delete it. Perakhantu 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I was doing research on Bhutan and noticed that the CIA World Factbook has a very different population number than what was listed in the introduction to the article. Without deleting the previous figure, I have added the Factbook numbers. 208.178.18.185 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
. . .and only afterward did I notice the Demographics section. Sorry. I cut and pasted it there instead. 208.178.18.185 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
At the end of section 2.3 this article claims, "Jigme Singye Wangchuck ascended to the throne at the age of 16 after the death of his father, Dorji Wangchuck." However, at the beginning of the Jigme Singye Wangchuck article it says he ascended to the throne at the age of 17. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than myself could resolve this apparent contradiction. Jsaxton86
Please do not add quotations to this article. Quotations are meant for wikiquote =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the native name in the article - the reason being that the version given is, in fact, modern Tibetan, not Dzongkha. I changed it to Dzongkha (and I'm sure of it here, check out 'Dzongkha', by George van Driem), but also added a transliteration of the spelling in the Tibetan alphabet. BovineBeast 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
please give more details. I added what is given in the CIA website. Ybgursey 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the form given in the CIA site seems to have some native usage, as there is a "Druk Air", the national airline. Ybgursey 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway pelase restore the native script name Ybgursey 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
the CIA information on bhutan is flawed in some areas such as the date on which bhutan supposedly became independent (1949) when in fact bhutan was never colonized. it also claims that bhutan's population is over 2 million when a much more accurate figure is given on the website of the bhutanese census office. in the absence of more accurate information or knowledge of better sources, the over dependence on the CIA website is causing more confusion than clarity.
The CIA website was correct in most parts. 1) It was officially became independence when the Tibetan and Mongol religious/military hierarchy was eradicted by the advancing force of the Chinese Communist Party. The old Tibetan/Mongol religious/military forces had been in power not only in Bhutan but also in eastern Nepal, Sikim, Qinghai, western Sichuan and pled their loyalties to the Chinese Emperors of Mongol Yuan, Han Ming and Manchu Qing, as well as the Presidents of Republic of China, both the Northern Military Presidents and Nationalist Presidents of South China. Various local chiefs with title of 'To Si' or local commander were rulers of simi-independent states throughout eastern and southern slopes of the Tibetan platteau and pled their loyalties to Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama, as well as the titled Mongol princes. 2) The figure of 2 million included those people from various Indian states during the British colonial period who moved to Bhutan. The figure in Bhutan government site counts only Bhutan of Tibetan and Buddhists by heritage.
Karolus 20080327
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This page has been subject to a lot of vandalism - I'm going to suggest that editing be limited to registered users.Sylvain1972 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the government be listed as "in transition, currently absolute monarchy"? Because Bhutan is having elections next year. QZXA2 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook page does not list English as an official language. What is the status of English in Bhutan? Wingedbeaver 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help render Bhutan Scout Tshogpa, and also "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Bhutanese script? Thanks! Chris 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
What are those? The name of the contry in Dzongkha? It says in the article they call Bhutan by "Druk Yul", I'm a bit confused here. --Shandristhe azylean 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, "The Bhutanese call their country འབྲུག་ཡུལ་" Maybe this article needs the "This page contains Indic text. Without rendering support you may see..." This page has a gizmo for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha Sorry, I dont know how to change it, too complicated for me. Johndoeemail (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I tried to fix the article using the sandbox for about an hour and I failed. I was right, it was too complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the wikipedia policy is on this, but shouldn't it say India and Tibet, or India and Tibet (China), or something that acknowledges Bhutan's physical proximity to Tibet given the rich shared history and culture of the two regions? --RegentsPark (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, the .bt links in the external links section are now working again. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
should bhutan.gov.bt stay on the front page? it supposedly provides all bhutan related information at a glance but it is updated very infrequently leading to misinformation to the unaware. this is similar to the drukair website where it is always wiser to call the HQ for the schedule than to depend on the schedule posted on the website.--Divinemadman (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I see no discussion on why this link should be included (re divinemadman's edit summary that the 'link has been discussed enough'. In general, the onus for explaining the addition of material is on the person adding the material and not on the person removing material. If anyone feels that that particular external link is essential for the article, they should explain why it is essential as per Wikipedia:External links. As far as I can see, www.bhutantimes.com satisfies the following four conditions on Links normally to be avoided:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. You need to explain what it provides beyond what a featured article would provide.
9. Links to the results pages of search engines, Search aggregators, or RSS feeds.. This site appears to be a news aggregator with no original reporting.
If the link is to be included, you need to explain the above two points. It would help if the difference between the organizations bhutantimes.bt and bhutantimes.com was explained satisfactorily as well. As far as I can see, the bt version is a local Thimpu newspaper while the .com version is an online site based outside Bhutan. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
kevin and RegentsPark, while you guys seem to agree for some reason that all the so-called legitimate newspaper links have a right to be on the main page external links section but that http://www.bhutantimes.com does not, how do you feel about its right to be on other pages on wikipedia such as the Media of Bhutan and Bhutan Times pages? my reason for insisting on putting on this page is because abercrombie has for some years now it seems declared war on anything i put no matter where. If wikipedia rules allow for him to do what he likes like removing my links once a day, then i shall continue to put them up whenever i find the time.--Divinemadman (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
←I will have, but I'm supposed to be working now. I'll be back later. Kevin (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have found these news sources that refer to bhutantimes.com being blocked
I think it is reasonable to expect that the blocking of an internet site will be mostly reported on other internet sites, so overall I think that the blocking of bhutantimes.com is notable, although only just. So now the question might be - where should this information go. As I said before, I don't think this link should go in this article unless a section on media in Bhutan is added. I haven't found enough reliable secondary sources to make anything more than a stub on bhutantimes.com itself, so it's difficult at present to support a standalone article (note - I've looked a bit deeper at the sources than I had before). The Media in Bhutan article seems to me to be the best place for this info. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of you (Divinemadman and RegentsPark) are up to 3 reverts on this article, and the history shows a long term pattern of skirting just outside the 3 revert rule. If the back and forth can't be stopped then I think page protection is the next step. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've qualified this ref, because I'm not yet sure that this is well enough accepted to allow for an unqualified statement. I'll have a look around for another source, I'm sure I read the same thing somewhere else. It doesn't seem to fit well in the lead either, maybe someone has some ideas on where it could be moved, if at all. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've qualified this ref, because I'm not yet sure that this is well enough accepted to allow for an unqualified statement. I'll have a look around for another source, I'm sure I read the same thing somewhere else. It doesn't seem to fit well in the lead either, maybe someone has some ideas on where it could be moved, if at all. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nepal has nothing to do with Bhutanese refugee issue prior to their temporary settlement in refugee camps in South Eastern Nepal. Nor has Nepal been involved in the pro-democratic movement of Bhutan or of the ethnic cleansing of the Hindu population of Bhutan. Ethnic Nepalese population, who form the Hindu population of Bhutan, are found all over Greater Nepal, southern Bhutan being no exception. Except for the fact that Nepal has been hosting 1 million Bhutanese refugees in Nepal for more than a decade (as per United Nations protocol), Nepal has no role in the issue. Hence, Nepal can have no role in delaying of the resolution of crisis. Nepal is neither regional superpower (like India) nor a global one (like US or UN). So, all Nepal is doing is preventing a clash in the region (such as between the racial Government of Bhutan and Bhutanese Communist Party or other pro-democratic movement against the King) by creating a space for dialogue. Saying that Nepal is hindering peace process (as is written in article) is like saying Quebec, Vantu or Nauru is hindering peace process. Federation of Nepal is facilitaing the dialogue and peace process of the tiny nation of Bhutan. If Nepal were not to moderate between the Hindu refugees and Bhutanese government, Bhutan would have been in civil war at the moment. So, please spare Nepal of this nonsense. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
These are not reliable sources under the definition of WP:RS. The articles are travelogues and are the author is not 'authoritative' on the subject matter. One cannot use this as a source to claim, for example, that 'rampant destruction to the environment has been avoided'. (Please read WP:RS and explain why you think that the source is reliable before adding again. Thanks. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)
I appreciate your desire to keep the Bhutan article as accurate as possible, and I respect your desire to make certian that there are no inaccurate references in the article. Yet, the article referenced is a work of journalism and was published in National Geographic Adventure magazine. It is defniitely not a personal travelogue as you stated. NGA has a readership of over half a million, all articles are fact checked for accuracy, and Kira Salak is an award winning author (Penn award , Associated Writing Program Award, etc ). A published article is a legitimate reference as far as I know in Wiki. You can see the NG version of the article at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/adventure-travel/asia/bhutan-kira-salak.html , I linked to Salak’s website because the format is easier to read, all the photos that were in the original article are included, and there are no advertisements. Salak’s article is the only reference that exists on the snowman trail in the Wiki article, and so by deleting it you remove the reference for that section. If you still feel that the link does not belong, then we will have to get an arbitrator on this because I do not agree with your assessment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeSturm (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Please note that the Kira Salak article, while doubtless interesting, can in no imaginable way be considered scholarship. At wikipedia, the quality of our sources is important and this article does not even meet the minimum requirements of reliability as defined in WP:RS. May I reiterate that Ms. Salak is neither an authority on GDH, nor an authority on the state of the environment, and, dare I say, not an authority on Bhutan either. I suggest, for example, that you count the number of references in her article as an evidence of the scholarship that has, or has not, gone into the writing. Finally, I question the propriety of including a link to a personal website with advertisements to her books. I am assuming good faith here but you may want to question your own motives. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)
I am quite confused by your refusal to include this link. I thought the entire idea was to make certain that all content was referenced. In the section that you linked me to it clearly states: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications." As the above person mentioned, National Geographic is a reputable mainstream publication, so, by the criteria of the very article you referenced, you should allow the link. I am new to adding entries so I would be interested in knowing your reason for not accepting a link to a reputable publication. I will also watch to see if this person puts it into arbitration to see what the admins comments are on this is, as it still seems to me the link should be there. Thanks! Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSpitzera (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I have read the opinions expressed above, and while Nat Geo Adventure may be respected and well-researched, it's target audience (travellers presumably) makes it unsuitable as a source for controversial environmental claims. I note the argument re using non-academic sources, however this is highly dependent on the subject matter. In this case a more academic source would be more appropriate. Kevin (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Kevin,
I respect your dedication to this Wiki entry, but I am asking you to please compromise here. By the rules of Wiki a National Geographic Adventure reference is acceptable. It is a reputable mainstream publication, thoroughly fact-checked. I have left out the reference from “Gross National Happiness” and the environment and only linked the NGA article to the Snowman Trail reference. The NGA article is a well written and rigorously researched article about Bhutan, and it is the only reference on the Snowman Trail, the ancient Buddhist pilgrimage route from Bhutan to Lhasa. The article also includes pictures and discussions of some of the remote indigenous people of Bhutan found along the way(i.e.-- the Thanza people). This is the type of informaton that should be accessible to the Wiki readers. Hopefully we can agree on this compromise.
Thank you.
Jake
I have come across a number of website that claim there is severe persecution of Christianity in Bhutan, including arrests, disenfranchisement, exile, job discrimination, etc. However, I just read though the brand new Constitution of Bhutan in which the King pledges to protect religious freedom, freedom of thought, and peaceful assembly. Does this mark a radical change in policy? Does anybody have reliable information on this? FusionKnight (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I second FusionKnight's request for information on the subject. Perhaps a link to the U.S. State Department annual report on religious freedom would be appropriate. The 2008 copy does not detail any major abuses, but it refers to some significant issues in the past, particularly concerning the ethnic Nepalese minority.Trinite (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction: there's already a link to the 2007 State Department report. The 2008 report contains the same language, which has been quoted verbatim in the article text. Should this link be updated to the latest report?Trinite (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In the intro after where it says, "The Bhutanese call their country..." all I see are boxes. It displays properly in the infobox at right. I don't know how to correct it. 68.230.71.24 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no ongoing discussion regarding the neutrality of the history section, I will be removing the neutrality tag. If there are any neutrality issues that have yet to be addressed, please list them here and revert my edit so that we can resolve them together. --Gimme danger (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Chorten ( Stupa in Sanskrit)
In the Himalayan world( Specially in Bhuatn) it symbolizes Buddha's mind and is sacred. As an sign of repect and to gain merits, a chorten should be circumambulated in a clockwise direction. There are eight kinds of chorten. All chortens contain religious relices and they are consecrated.
Lhakhang (Temple)
Temples or Lhakhang are fairly small builldings, usually a single building with a caretaker. Sometimes a monastry or goemba has a lhakhang as a central tower. They have red band painted on the upper part of thier walls and an oranament of giled copper on the roof.
Goempa ( Monastery)
In Dzongkha, a monastery is called Goempa. Goempas' are usually located far away from busy toen life so that the monks find peace and less disturbances for thier studies and meditation. Goempa's are fairly large buildings either in clustured form of fortress form with colourful prayers flags surrounding them. Thses places usually host monks ans nuns for Buddhist education, and they have places dedicated to hostings statuas ans religious texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choeying (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Is English really an official language of Bhutan? There is no mention of it being as such in the CIA World Factbook, and a source hasn't been provided in the article, either. Can someone at least please back this up with a source or something? 82.45.234.136 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
i've changed the name of this section to "ethnic cleansing in southern bhutan" a couple of times, but some dude keeps changing it back. wtf? it's pretty much a known fact that ethnic cleansing is what occurred in the early 1990's in southern bhutan. there are like 600 refugees living down the street from me here in the US, and yeah, rapes, murders, torture and getting their houses burned down because they are of nepalese decent and are hindu instead of buddhist - that'd be called ethnic cleansing. heck, just google it. if anyone *really* thinks we need to cite some source for this, fine, but otherwise let's just call it what it is. the guy who keep calling them "problems" probably works for the bhatan government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.201.25 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Section is poorly worded and is in need of sources; could be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.190.185 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
When the government attempted to remove the illegal settlers, there was a violent backlash. Many government officials, buildings, offices, schools and hospital were attacked.
the government was forced to recruit many young men and able-bodied civil servants into a militia force
the violent activities and racial riots instigated by the illegal immigrants
The UNHCR's primary failing in this matter
Many of the people living in these camps are in-fact economic opportunists living off of the aid provided by the UNHCR
This section is biased and has been used to cover up the wrong things the Bhutanese government did during the ethnic cleansing it carried out. The refugees currently living in camps in Nepal have also been slandered as economic opportunists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.242 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The above comments concerning the neutrality of this section are legitimate; yet, they have still not been addressed. Thus, I am adding a "POV-section" template to the "Illegal Immigrants" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.252.125.40 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This section reads directly from the Bhutanese Ministry of Propaganda. It is completely one-sided and obviously false based upon my work with some of the refugees who have now been resettled in St. Louis, Missouri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.224.170 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to include a file that works on the concept of Bhutan and its relationship to the world. In particular it deals with the concept of supranationalism. This file is included for editors should they ever needed and also to receive any suggestion on the correct writing of the name. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the following section is incorrect:
Single tourists are not allowed in the country. Even Indians and Bangladeshis are discouraged to travel alone, unless you know someone personally or have relatives in Bhutan.
The tour companies I know of require single tourists to pay a $40 surcharge per day, but, single tourists are most definitely allowed in. See the following link for a tour company pricing breakdown:
http://www.jachungtravel.com/pricinginfo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.96.51 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=tobacco+bhutan&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Shouldn't there be some mention of tobacco prohibition in Bhutan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says that there's a $200 fee to visit, but that actually includes more than just the visit. http://www.tourism.gov.bt/travelers-information/travel-requirements
The minimum price includes: * All internal taxes and charges (including the royalty) * Accommodation * All Meals * All travel with a licensed Bhutanese Tour Guide * All Internal Transport * Camping Equipment and Haulage for Trekking Tours
So, it may not be quite as high as it seems. 205.154.237.150 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) No single traveler not allowed in Bhutan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.197 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Judged against the entire history of the country and its people, this issue seems fairly irrelevant. I have removed the section per WP:UNDUE.UberCryxic (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
dude - this is bs. 150,000 people get forcibly displaced from a country, and this is "fairly irrelevant" ?? seriously, what are you thinking? do you work for the government of bhutan or something? Prefetch (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a bigger map that shows it in relation to its surrounding countries. Most other countries have this kind of map right at the top. Bhutan's location is definitely not common knowledge. NMP Dice (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Enough for good article? --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two externally linked websites under Military and Foreign affairs. Are they allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, or should be referenced in "See also" or Reference section? --Mistakefinder (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who would like to hear the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese music both traditional and modernized, you can now hear a streaming broadcast of Kuzoo FM, Bhutan's youth radio station. Go to http://www.kuzoo.net and click the Listen Now button. They currently stream live during during their day (GMT/UTC + 06:00 hour), and stream pre-recorded shows at night. While Kuzoo FM broadcasts both Dzongkha and English programming in parallel over the air, currently only the Dzongpha side is being streamed over the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.59.49 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This came up a while back on the Talk:Gangkhar Puensum page. While discussing the issue of the location of Gangkhar Puensum (whether or not it was actually in Tibet or Bhutan), it was noted that the northern border of Bhutan was different depending on the map being used:
These were the two maps, top left and right, that were once in the Gangkhar Puensum article. Apparently it was decided to use only the green one on the right for reasons I can only assume had something to do with a belief that it was the more accurate of the two.
Now this article uses the pink/brown one on the left and the topographical map below right in which the border resembles the upper left pink/brown map:
The last and final map in the Bhutan page is the more detailed district map, lower left, which has a border very similar—identical?—to the upper right green map from the GP article.
Is there a border dispute between China and Bhutan, or is this more to do with inaccurate and conflicting surveying sources? ...or just bad maps? Anyone have an explanation for this? Racerx11 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Marriage of current king
Have added info on marriage of the current king to Jetsun Pema, on Oct. 13, 2011. Myles Callum 05:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myles Callum (talk • contribs)
I found the following sentence in the Geography section "Within the 150 mi (240 km) between the southern and northern borders, Bhutan's elevation rises from 150 m (490 ft) to more than 7,550 m (24,770 ft)." The first measurement cited the standard distance first and then the metric. The second to measurments cite metric first and then have the standard in parentheses. Should there be a standard order for these kind of things? Cite everything in metric and then have the standard measurement in parentheses behind it? Just a thought.Stryc9 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've checked country pages, mountain pages, etc. Metric system is first. make sense since the "United States customary units" (aka Standard system ) is only standard in the states. Everywhere else in the world is metric and wiki seems to reflect that. I'll fix it Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, it was already correctedMighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This article
(second section (History), second sentence, 1st parenthetical clause: "Historians have theorized that the state of Lhomon (literally, "southern darkness", a reference to the indigenous Mon religion), or Monyul ("Dark Land", a reference to the Monpa, the aboriginal peoples of Bhutan) may have existed between 500 BC and AD 600. The names Lhomon Tsendenjong (Sandalwood Country), and Lhomon Khashi, or Southern Mon (country of four approaches), have been found in ancient Bhutanese and Tibetan chronicles.[17])
mentions something about the Bhutanese indigenous "Mon religion", of which I can find nothing more about anywhere, so I strongly suspect that it should be "Bön religion". I won't change it though until I know for sure. Shanoman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this even there? Bhutan's national language is Dzongkha, English is the medium of instruction. There are no newspapers or any kind of official or unofficial information published within Bhutan using the above script. I think we should remove it or to be fair include simplified Mandarin, if we want to make easier for the neighboring countries. --Druksoogs (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a specific part of the wiki about Bhutan' expulsion of some of it's southern citizen (hundreads of thousands over a population of 700k).UN mission concerning the refugees in Nepal and the massive expropriation and village burning is all under "language"... The UN has many reports on theses. I believe that problematic should have its own section to reflect this specific reality of the country (which still hasn't been resolved). All is not so well in Bhutan
Sources:
http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.7.pdf
http://www.unohrlls.org/en/orphan/66/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22668&Cr=Nepal&Cr1=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8310013.stm
Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
added POV bias on top of page until we can address the issueMighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
We need better sources concerning the religious composition of Bhutan. All the notes send back to a census which is nowhere to be found. Any way we could find a direct link to that census? Also since the numbers are approximate and unverified I believe that producing a graphic is uncalled for at the moment. Checking the cited source it would be pertinent to add part of the report information such as : "The law provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government limited this right in practice by barring non-Buddhist missionaries from entering the country, limiting construction of non-Buddhist religious buildings, and restricting the celebration of some non-Buddhist religious festivals"
Source : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90227.htm Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised when i found that Bhutan is included in the Category:States and territories established in 1949. Bhutan was regocnized by India as an sovereign state in 1949, but it is uncertain for me who they might have been dependent of prior to that. --Orland (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the section called "Happiness Policy" needs correcting. I just returned from 2 weeks in Bhutan and found the tone of this article to be biased and incorrect. The Bhutanese are very serious about this policy and it has nothing to do with subjugation of anyone. Their happiness policy is well thought out and many of the 72 points under the 4 main pillars are measurable. Overall, much of the entries on Bhutan appear to me to be biased and don't reflect what I saw about Bhutan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.118.19 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states in the led: "Its total area was reported as approximately 46,500 km2 (18,000 sq mi) in 1997 and 38,394 square kilometres (14,824 sq mi) in 2002" and gives three references to support the figures. My question is why/how did the government come to knock off 3,200 sq. miles of territory (a decrease of nearly 18%)? An explanation of such a large change in only 5 years seems necessary. I'm sure it's just because of better measurements of their mountainous terrain but I think it still needs to be addressed, if possible. Coinmanj (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This etymology section is way too long and should be on another page but I don't know how to fix that since the etymology page already redirects to the Etymology section of this article. If someone knows how to fix this please just removed the redirect and migrate 90% of what's in the etymology sub-section over to the new page. No country page should have 4 paragraphs for etymology at the top of the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would be nice to have a section on education. Any colleges/universities? How about medical services? Hospitals/Medical schools?65.81.79.71 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Bhutan uses GNH " Gross National Happiness", not GDP. It's GDP should be listed of coarse, however GNH should be listed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.204.168.254 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not include the percentage of the population for each of Bhutan's ethnic groups in the article? This would be helpful, and expected for any other Wikipedia article about a nation. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Environmental stewardship needs increased coverage; I would suggest since the term "carbon neutral" is no where to be found. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This map is absolutely non-neutral. The State of Arunachal Pradesh is one State of the Republic of India. Its border is not disputed. This map should be replaced with an actual map of Bhutan's eastern border with India, not the "disputed territory" which this map implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.40.107 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ภูฏาน. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 05:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"These customs roll over to a woman's public life and can cause them to be timid and not confident in making their voice heard."
I read the article referred to (no. 65), and found that nowhere does it say anything like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanDHarris (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This is also a way of phrasing that presents information in a "it is natural for women to stay out of politics" frame instead of "prevailing culture keeps women out of politics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:4F4:8200:D933:80FC:DE5B:35EC (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.