Talk:Bhutan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Bhutan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2005.
Bhutan is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

/archive1

Contents

[edit] External link issues

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)

[edit] Bhutan photos available with free license

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)

[edit] Page issues:

Hi to avoid needless reverts, I request people who are reverting to take care of the following issues:

  1. Lack of sources:
    1. Data released by the Ministry of agriculture showed that the country had a forest cover of 64 percent as of October 2005.. -- Where can we find this data? Source needed
    2. Roughly 20% percent of the population ... -- Source needed
    3. An extensive census done in June of 2005 resulted in a further reduction of the population figure to 554,000. -- Source needed
  2. Poor =History= section. The history section should be written in a summary. Instead it rambles on and on about Bhutan's immigrant problems. Move that to the History of Bhutan and summarise the same here.
  3. Similarly details about archery in the culture section.
  4. Dates should be unwikified

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)

[edit] Removed passage

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)

I believe that there is a reference for it. I'll take a look around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repository of images

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)

[edit] The immigration issue

The reconstruction of the immigration issues on this page is heavily slanted towards the official Bhutan Government version of events

      • i think the above comment itself reflects the assumption that anything anti-immigration is obviously pro-government. besides, being pro or anti-government does not automatically mean the contents are true or false. ***

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

      • even the supposedly 'neutral' reports on Bhutan's immigration problems, such as by UNHCR are faulty in my opinion. Their reports have mixed up human rights issues with citizenship issues. when it is so difficult for the parties involved to themselves distinguish a citizen from an illegal immigrant (due to the widespread forgeries of the immigration documents plus the politicized nature of the problem), it is unfortunate that UNHCR assumes it has already figured out who is who. so you should either have the 'true' facts out, or have both sides of the story, a la CNN giving Democrats and Republicans equal airtime. ***

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)

[edit] Can someone clarify this?

In the history section there is the statement:

"After India gained independence from the United Kingdom on 15 August 1947, Bhutan became of one of the first countries to recognize India's independence.
Since Britain was no longer going to be in the region a similar treaty was signed 8 August 1949 with the newly independent India."

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.

  • In the version that appeared on the front page as a new FA last year it seemed to be much clearer. Was it wrong? Or could we reinstate it? Surely the offer of a merger with India is noteworthy, if true?
"After India gained independence from Britain in August 1947, kingdoms such as Bhutan were given the option to remain independent or to join the Indian Union. Bhutan chose to remain independent, and on 8 August 1949, Bhutan's independence was recognised by India."
  • "Since Britain was no longer going to be in the region" needs rewriting, it sounds amateurish.
  • Why is that in two paragraphs? Surely the word "similar" links it closely to the previous paragraph.
  • I couldn't understand what the current version even means. If the earlier FA version is factually correct, then at least that is clear.

Can someone please fix this? Thanks, Walkerma 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the text has deteriorated over the past 10 months. I support a revert to the version that had passed FAC. I'll explain the situation here:
  • (Note: The geographical context for the following refers to the following countries in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.)
  • Although it is historically stated that the British ruled India, there were many independent kingdoms that were not or never part of British India. Many of them however, were suzerains of British Empire.
  • After the British quit India, these kingdoms were given the option to a) join India b) join Pakistan or c) remain independent.
  • Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim and a few others chose to be independent.
  • However only the above three were recognised by India, the rest were annexed by either country. Once India recognised Bhutan's independence, the world also recognised Bhutan as an independent nation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Can you make the necessary fixes? Walkerma 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
See also: Political integration of India

[edit] Spelling

Should the spelling on the article be British style?Cameron Nedland 14:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the English taught in Bhutan is BE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I changed some of it to fit the British model.Cameron Nedland 20:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of NPOV tag to the History of Bhutan section and a specifically unmarked sub-section

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)

you might want to read this article by Prof Leo Rose: http://www.bhutantimes.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=421&forum=10&post_id=3537#forumpost3537

sorry i couldn't find it anywhere else.


I agree we can do better than the above prose, but more importantly, the main Bhutan article page is not the place to have the knock-down drag-out royals/ngalop vs democracy/christian/illegal alien/nepali fight. I came to realize a while ago that we need a separate article on this topic. It's a rich topic, with history that goes back to the early 19th century and plenty of blame to go around to make the reading spicy. Perhaps "Bhutanese refugee crisis" is a title that would be acceptable to both sides.
its history goes back to the 'late 19th century' not the 'early'. there is a big difference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.138.116 (talk • contribs)
Creating a new article would not only allow the topic to be treated in greater depth, but would also keep these half-hearted efforts from cropping up again and again all over the Bhutan pages (this topic already has grown like topsy on the main Bhutan page, is rediscussed again on the demographics page, occurs again in the History page proper, etc.). I'm too busy at present but maybe someone else out there is inspired to have a go at it. The world would be a better place.  technopilgrim 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Bhutan and television

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)

[edit] NAME section -- origin and use of "Bhutan"?

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).

[edit] Introduction

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)

[edit] Contradiction with Jigme Singye Wangchuck

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

  • JSW was born on 11 November 1955. his father JDW died in 1972 when he was 16 going on 17. He formally ascended the throne in 1974 when he was 18 going on 19.--Divinemadman (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

Please do not add quotations to this article. Quotations are meant for wikiquote =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

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)

I'm not totally sure what the CIA website gives, but it's neither a direct transliteration of the written Dzongkha/Tibetan ('Brug Rgyal-khab) nor a transcription of the spoken Dzongkha (Dru Gäkhap). I tend to think that it's modern Tibetan, since 'Druk' would be the modern Tibetan equivalent of Dzongkha 'Dru', though I don't know enough to be absolutely sure what version of Tibetan it is.

The problem in deciding what to put here is the diglossic situation that Dzongkha is. Firstly, the Dzongkha script reflects the pronunciation of words in classical Tibetan times, as does the Tibetan script, so they're pretty close to being the same, except in a few grammatical respects. So you could transcribe the Dzongkha as Tibetan mistakenly quite easily, which may well have been what the CIA did. BovineBeast 12:05, 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)

But it's still not Dzongkha. Which is what we've got down as the official language BovineBeast 09:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway pelase restore the native script name Ybgursey 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, "Druk" (`brug) in modern Lhasa Tibetan is pronounced [ɖ,ʐuʔ] ([ɖ,ʐ] is a sound which vaguely resembles "dr" in English). My point is, the "k" isn't really clearly pronounced. I wish, by the way, we could get some phonemic informmation for Dzongkha in Wikipedia.— Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I know (and admittedly it's not that much), dr in Dzongkha is a simple retroflex most of the time. And I don't think the k is even pronounced as a glottal stop. BovineBeast 15:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citing the CIA website

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

  • this is just the usual chinese government gobbledegook version of history. In bhutanese history, the british were a much greater felt presence than the remote chinese on the other side of the tibetan plateau. And the Tibetans never had any control over Bhutan, though they tried to invade bhutan many times. as history shows, the redhat kargyups were chased out of bhutan by the yellowhat gelugs more than a millenia ago and the redhats never accepted the dalai lama's authority in bhutan, sikkim or ladakh. Incidentally, the CIA website has already correct many of its mistakes including the 'independence day' mistake.--Divinemadman (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife of Bhutan

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

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)

[edit] Government

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)

[edit] English is an official language?

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)

[edit] Bhutan Scout Tshogpa

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)

[edit] Brug rGyal-Khab and Dru Gäkhap

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)

In the infobox, the same name is rendered in three ways: འབྲུག་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་ is the spelling in Tibetan script, 'brug rgyal-khab is a direct transliteration, & "Dru Gäkhap" is a rendering of the Dzongkha pronunciation. "Druk Yul" is 'brug yul (འབྲུག་ཡུལ་) - 'rgyal-khab & yul are both words for "country", so that difference is unsurprising. This article is inconsistent in transcribing 'brug as "Dru" in one place & "Druk" elsewhere... Earlier on this discussion page is an exchange on the topic. (I'm pretty sure that User:BovineBeast is mistaken to say that "Druk" is Tibetan rather than Dzongkha - I think it's more an issue of different transcriptions than different languages. "Druk" may not be the official romanization, but it seems to be much the most common one on Bhutanese websites. Tibetan languages/dialects in general tend to be romanized unsystematically.) Butsuri (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
phonetically, dru would be the correct spelling, but it has been the convention to spell it as 'druk' for decades and it is now even mispronounced as 'druk' by most Bhutanese. Even the airline Druk Air is pronounced like that. But in Dzongkha, when referring to Bhutan, druk is pronounced as 'druk' (as in 'do'). --Divinemadman (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China or Tibet

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)

  • Good point. Not to try to challenge China on what it treats as a hypersensitive issue, but the fact is that Tibet and even what China calls the Tibetan Autonomous Regions (TAR) which excludes several provinces of Tibet including Kham, is VAST. Therefore chinese influence, or whatever of it existed in Tibet, rarely ever reached the borders of Bhutan, Nepal, Sikkim etc. Chinese border guards appeared on these borders only after 1959 and that too it was the red army soldiers. During the times of the qing or ming or whatever dynasties, Chinese influence was non-existent. --Divinemadman (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

Just so everyone knows, the .bt links in the external links section are now working again. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • question is for how long! the downtime issue seems to be a topic enough for discussion! faltering news websites --Divinemadman (talk) 06:00, 12 May 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 think it is appropriate to have a link to the official Government site in the article. Any misinformation there is really out of our hands. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutantimes.com

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)

A quick explanation - when I re-added the link a few days ago it was because I didn't originally intend to remove it while getting rid of other spam. Now that I've looked at the site I agree that it does not belong here. If you remove the aggregated news there is nothing left other than a forum / blog. As RegentsPark points out, this site falls into several 'to be avoided' categories, and as such a strong and clear argument would be needed for the link to be included. For info, my quick investigation showed the site to based in Texas. Kevin (talk) 02:39, 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 don't think decisions on this link should be based on the actions of Bramlet Abercrombie. Or on the existence of any other link either. The argument is whether this link is suitable or not. I don't see how it can be used on the other pages either. Bhutan Times is about the newspaper located in Bhutan, while the link is not, and as for Media of Bhutan, the article is Media of Bhutan, not Media about Bhutan. Thanks for coming to the talk page though, even if we disagree. Kevin (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, bhutantimes.bt is third manifestation going by this name. the first was some nepal-based organization that was focused on criticising Bhutan. then came www.bhutantimes.com and only 3 years later did bhutantimes.bt emerge. I feel the page Bhutan Times should be focused on the name Bhutan Times and not a paper just because it is 'government-authorized'. regarding Media of Bhutan, please feel free to think that a media can be 'of' bhutan ONLY if it is based in Bhutan. I would add however that it would ALSO qualify if it is done BY Bhutanese no matter where they are located. Your position on both these points plays into what wikipedia is trying to reduce, government influence on private media.--Divinemadman (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
On Bhutan Times, to me they are clearly 2 different subjects, a newspaper in Bhutan, and a news aggregator/forum website. If bhutantimes.com is notable of itself (note - I don't think it is), then it should have it's own article. Regarding Media of Bhutan, I don't see the bhutantimes.com website falling into the category of media. I'm not sure I understand your point on my position. Kevin (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
i agree they are different topics but with the same name. you can 'disambiguate' it anyway you like, but they are all entities and topics everyone has the right to initiate and edit. abercrombie has vandalized every effort on my part, either on the Bhutan Times page or as a separate page. so i gave up and focused on the main page alone. we can debate our different definitions of what constitutes 'media' but from what i understand, it is difficult for the media within bhutan to write what they want. not necessarily the government but government officials definitely are prone to taking insult very easily. so i can understand why websites like www.bhutantimes.com are struggling from outside the country. as you know this website was also blocked by the government because it overstepped what they considered 'okay'. that is not what bt.bt and other local papers can risk and it is definitely reflected in their coverage. I have kind of 'adopted' bhutantimes.com because i feel this anonymous website has contributed much to opening up the media in Bhutan by teaching government officials in bhutan a simple lesson on the futility of trying to control the press. In my opinion, the coverage of Kuensel the government newspaper bi-weekly as well as what they allow to be said in their forum,has become decidedly independent and liberal over the past 4-5 years and I attribute it mostly to bt.com. That is why I consider bt.com to be not only to constitute 'media', but to be a significant one OF Bhutan.--Divinemadman (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You still need to show notability of some sort that is independent of your desire to promote the website. I know it doesn't sound like a big deal to include the site but the reality is that everyone has their own pet sites that they would like included and, if we go down that path, pretty soon every article will have long lists of external links. Do you have an independent evaluation of the notability of the site? Newspaper articles, scholarly or magazine articles that back up some of what you say? Also, it is a generally accepted practice on wikipedia that you include the link (or other statements) after there is consensus to include, rather than keeping it in while the discussion is ongoing. Thanks for coming to the talk page! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
if citations are the sole measure of 'notability' sadly i must give up. in the world's press, Good News is Not News and the entire kingdom of bhutan receives very little press coverage given the dearth of bad news coming out of it. the refugee 'crisis' was the sole exception and bhutan took a beating because of it. so all i can offer in terms of 'notability' is the bad press bt.com has received thanks to its blocking by the government:
Kuensel, Asian Media, Global Voices, Bhutan Observer.com, Bhutan Observer.com, Prachathai, US State Gov, Stuff, [Bhutan Observer.bt], News Blaze, Himalmag, MHM, IFJ --Divinemadman (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's notable enough for me. bhutantimes.com has my vote. (See, all you have to do is to back up your claim!) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If this website is notable, which I agree it is, given this evidence, then it should have it's own article. If this article had a section on censorship in Bhutan or something similar then the blocking (and the link) are appropriate. I'm sure that Divinemadman has enough info to create a section like this. Same goes for Media of Bhutan and Bhutan Times I guess. Kevin (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
muchos gracias!!much appreciate it. --Divinemadman (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How does a site become notable simply because it is blocked? China blocks thousands of sites, are they all ipso facto notable? The fact that all of Divinemadman's links above refer to the same single event (of the site being blocked) only proves that the site is of no intrinsic significance. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that bhutantimes.com provides a different perspective on the news (which it seems to do) and balances news from the official .bt site. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 13:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't provide any original news, just links to other sources and then provides a simple discussion forum. What "official .bt site" are you talking about? Bhutan Times is a private newspaper, which is not censored. The bhutantimes.com block was also lifted soon. Contrary to what Divinemadman wants to insinuate, freedom of the press is not terribly restricted in Bhutan. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that its not the perfect news site out there. But, it does seem to provide a compendium of news that is not available from the .bt site and does seem to provide information about Bhutan (current news, in this case) that would be missing if the article were FA. Since news about Bhutan is hard to come by, a non-official site that collects news from independent sources (.bt may or may not be free but it is in Bhutan) is not necessarily a bad thing. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Might as well just use http://news.google.com/news?q=Bhutan then. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
why don't you, and compare the difference in result btw a google search on bhutan news and the front page of http://www.bhutantimes.com. If you can't see the difference, then you could be blind.--Divinemadman (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Kevin, any comments? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:43, 19 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

  • [1] - says it's a press release, so not really reliable.
  • [2] - a blog reporting another online source.
  • [3] - on Kuensel News site - I think this is reliable.
  • [4] - APFA News - probably reliable for this report.
  • [5] - This is by a Reuters correspondent, so I consider it reliable.
  • Divinemadman has some of these and some others listed above also.

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)

Its mention on Censorship in Bhutan should be sufficient. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
well if bramlet will finally let it exist even on one page then that's a victory. fine leave it on Censorship in Bhutan. but the minute he again starts removing it from every page on wiki then it's back to the front page --Divinemadman (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
bramlet's still not letting it be on [Censorship in Bhutan]--Divinemadman (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This can be continued at Talk:Censorship in Bhutan. Kevin (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that article. The blocking fits perfectly at there. I think a mention at Media of Bhutan also is not inappropriate. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I got caught up in an imbroglio at Burma but probably on the losing side since it involves a bureaucrat and these bureaucrats stick together! I agree with removing the link from Bhutan, discussing the blocking in Censorship in Bhutan and am indifferent to whether it should be included in the media article. Google news pulls up the same titles - I must be an idiot! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

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)

In this case, I don't agree with the protection threat. In the past, the skirting has been without a dialogue but this time a reasonably healthy dialogue has taken place with an assumption of good faith on all sides. IMHO, anyway. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
talk,you're forgetting old bramlet :-) --Divinemadman (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's good that we've come to a consensus on the way forward, but I do feel that once everybody has come to the table for a discussion, stepping out for a quick revert does make it harder to assume good faith. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Now, about that bank link ....

[edit] Happiest country

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)