Talk:Bhutan/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expulsion of Nepalese inhabitants 

message: 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)
thread_title: More instances of shameful lack of NPOV

message: I removed English; even though it's de facto official... it still isn't quite! -- Gavin
:It is official. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
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)
thread_title:  Official language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  abstruse word 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Least developed"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: One word: Vandalism =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederasty?!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refugees 

message: 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)
replies: text: True, it wasn't the case when it was put up for FA.  =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  western influences 

message: 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)
thread_title: freaky!!!

message: 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)
replies: text: No its referenced from the CIA factbook. Thanks for asking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: You do have a point, you can update the figures with a credible source. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  army size 

message: "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
:Yeah, you're right, you can update the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military action against insurgents 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's not called ripping. Its perfectly legal to reference your work based on credible sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such thing as "Indo-Mongoloid language" - and stop ripping off Encarta 

message: How is this a featured article when it doesn;t mention the United Front for Democracy? Sam Spade 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: "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)
replies: text: I know, it should be reverted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eur and Usd 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Security 

message: 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)
thread_title: research on bhutan

message: 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)
replies: text: I've asked User:Ran to help out. Perhaps he can do something. --Khoikhoi 04:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! --Khoikhoi 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality about recent Chinese activity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Template:Bhutan ties]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oops! Wrong IP address in revision history description.