User talk:Divinemadman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Merbabu 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Immigration problem
I moved this page to Immigration in Bhutan. Maybe not perfect, but a little better. It seems that this came from the Bhutan article, right? It seems like just an opinion essay, not an encyclopdic entry. Were you the one trying to remove it? I was trying to reinstate it, but i didn't really look at it. Turns, out that it can't be in Bhutan in its current form. If you had explained, the move, it wouldn't have reverted. It just seemed like vandalism. Sorry. --Merbabu 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
Hi again, it's a good idea to use the edit summary box (above the "save page" button) to explain any changes. Longer discussions can go on the discussion page. regards --Merbabu 13:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Hi there, welcome to wikipedia. Its nice to have users interested in South Asian topics. One thing that I would like to bring to your notice is that while writing about topics esp. about South Asia, lets not try to refer to a particular class of people without a proper citation of global bodies as these issues are very volatile at times. About Bhutanese refugee page, I have reverted the "hostile takevoer" that you had initiated. Lets try to build a better page with mutual co-operation with views from all sides rather than a single sided saga. Besides, non neutral articles are not of much value and information in an encyclopedia. So, lets discuss the matters in discussion page and cite the global neutral organizations before making changes. You are welcome to discuss at my user page if you need help of some sort here in wikipedia. Thank you.--Eukesh 20:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- hello eukesh. i agree with you that we should attempt to build a better page. but it seems you idea of a 'better page' includes making statements like " who were expelled from Bhutan as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Druk majority" which is merely the opinion of people in nepal and the refugee leaders. 'ethnic cleansing' is a very harsh criticism and is in no way proven to have happened in bhutan. if that is the type of text you would like to propagate here on wikipedia, then i'm afraid i cannot accept it. i desire to make a good page, whether or not it hurts bhutan or helps it. but i cannot accept text such as that. that is the type of self-fed propaganda that almost all people in Nepal believe because that is what keeps cycling around in the Nepali press.
- instead of reverting what i wrote, please explain to me what was unacceptable to you and I will do the same. thank you for your cooperation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinemadman (talk • contribs)
- I don't know much about the actual issues involved, but i have a suggested way out. Rather than saying " who were expelled from Bhutan as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Druk majority", why not say: " who were expelled from Bhutan under what (NAME) claimed to be ethnic cleansing carried out by the Druk majority (CITATION)". Thus, the topic is still discussed, but rather it presents facts (i presume the actual expulsion is not disputed) and it presents point of view as point of view (ie, whether it was ethnic cleansing is cleary debated). Ie, it is disputed it is ethnic cleansing, but it is NOT disputed that someone claimed it was ethnic cleansing (i presume)--Merbabu 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks Merbabu. yes the claim of ethnic cleansing is made by all the press in Nepal which is why most people in Nepal believe it to be true. can't blame them. here on wikipedia, we should try to put the established facts as neutrally as possible. i don't think citing references is going to get to the bottom of the matter however, as there are plenty of references to cite from the nepalese press. the unchr's report is also fundamentally flawed in that it has confused deportation of illegal immigrants with the human rights dimension of being stateless and somehow jumped in their logic to conclude that everybody in the camps are genuine bhutanese who were kicked out because of their ethnicity. nothing could be further from the truth. anyway, the point is 'getting to the heart of the matter' may be a bit tougher than we think! what is obvious however is that both sides of the issue must be reflected on this pages. Divinemadman 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there people, thanks for keeping cool head and acting in a constructive manner. I was just about to take a wikibreak due to my semester exams. However, I would like to say a few things here before doing that. Citing is the only way that an encyclopedia can be formed. An encyclopedia without citation is no encyclopedia and thats something which I dont want wikipedia to become. You can include the Bhutanese Government perception as the Government version (please do not call it Bhutanese version as the refugees have not been verified as non-Bhutanese) and at the same time include the version of media representing Bhutanese refugees (Lhotsampas) as the refugee version. There is little value of Nepalese side here as the conflict is entirely Bhutanese internal problem. Nepal has no other business there than to see that justice be done to Lhotsampas who the Bhutanese claim as Nepalese (they dont hold Nepalese citizenship and Nepalese kins are found spread whole over South Asia). Linking Nepal to this problem is something like linking India to the crisis involving people of Indian origin in Fiji. However, if I am not mistaken, views from authorative bodies like UNHCR cannot be unrepresented just because I, or maybe even Jimbo, himself, find it flawed in ones view. Views from global bodies should be cited the most as they have no business in this issue other than humanitarian. About the statement of ethnic cleansing, it is based on the following lines of UNHCR report
During the 1980s, the Bhutanese authorities adopted a series of ethno-nationalist policies. In 1985, the government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship that effectively disenfranchized many ethnic Nepalis, depriving them of their citizenship and civil rights. In addition, the government introduced measures to enforce rigidly the Druk dress code and forbid the use of Nepali in the educational curriculum. Special permission was required for admission to schools and to sell cash crops. When the Lhotshampa minority in southern Bhutan began to organize politically in the late 1980s to lobby against restrictive legislation, the authorities declared these activities subversive and unlawful. Some Lhotshampas became activists in the Bhutanese People's Party, which called for Bhutan's democratization. Large-scale protests broke out in 1990, resulting in violent clashes with the police and army and mass arrests. The authorities increased their intimidation of the Lhotshampas in southern Bhutan by destroying their property and arbitrarily detaining and torturing activists. Individuals were forced to sign 'voluntary migration certificates' before being expelled from the country. In December 1990 the authorities announced that Lhotshampas who could not prove they were residents of the country before 1958 must leave. Consequently, tens of thousands of Lhotshampas were made stateless and fled to Nepal and the Indian state of West Bengal.
If someone find the word ethnic cleansing too offensive still, one can always put <citation needed> there. However, please do not delete the lines which have been derived eg- alomost all the data of Bhutanese refugee just because it is incompatible with ones view of reality. I do not know what the Nepalese media profesize about the Bhutanese crisis as I have never cared to read such stories. However, I have been doing some research in the net about this article just to increase the articles of South Asia (which I think is underrepresented here in wikipedia) and have used only global sources for that as such. I will write more once I finish my exams. It will take about 3 weeks. If thats not a long time for you, please do not make the article too Bhutanese Government based and hence unsuitable for a featured artilce nomination by then. Thank you.--Eukesh 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi there people, thanks for keeping cool head and acting in a constructive manner. I was just about to take a wikibreak due to my semester exams. However, I would like to say a few things here before doing that. Citing is the only way that an encyclopedia can be formed. An encyclopedia without citation is no encyclopedia and thats something which I dont want wikipedia to become. You can include the Bhutanese Government perception as the Government version (please do not call it Bhutanese version as the refugees have not been verified as non-Bhutanese) and at the same time include the version of media representing Bhutanese refugees (Lhotsampas) as the refugee version. There is little value of Nepalese side here as the conflict is entirely Bhutanese internal problem. Nepal has no other business there than to see that justice be done to Lhotsampas who the Bhutanese claim as Nepalese (they dont hold Nepalese citizenship and Nepalese kins are found spread whole over South Asia). Linking Nepal to this problem is something like linking India to the crisis involving people of Indian origin in Fiji. However, if I am not mistaken, views from authorative bodies like UNHCR cannot be unrepresented just because I, or maybe even Jimbo, himself, find it flawed in ones view. Views from global bodies should be cited the most as they have no business in this issue other than humanitarian. About the statement of ethnic cleansing, it is based on the following lines of UNHCR report
During the 1980s, the Bhutanese authorities adopted a series of ethno-nationalist policies. In 1985, the government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship that effectively disenfranchized many ethnic Nepalis, depriving them of their citizenship and civil rights. In addition, the government introduced measures to enforce rigidly the Druk dress code and forbid the use of Nepali in the educational curriculum. Special permission was required for admission to schools and to sell cash crops. When the Lhotshampa minority in southern Bhutan began to organize politically in the late 1980s to lobby against restrictive legislation, the authorities declared these activities subversive and unlawful. Some Lhotshampas became activists in the Bhutanese People's Party, which called for Bhutan's democratization. Large-scale protests broke out in 1990, resulting in violent clashes with the police and army and mass arrests. The authorities increased their intimidation of the Lhotshampas in southern Bhutan by destroying their property and arbitrarily detaining and torturing activists. Individuals were forced to sign 'voluntary migration certificates' before being expelled from the country. In December 1990 the authorities announced that Lhotshampas who could not prove they were residents of the country before 1958 must leave. Consequently, tens of thousands of Lhotshampas were made stateless and fled to Nepal and the Indian state of West Bengal.
If someone find the word ethnic cleansing too offensive still, one can always put <citation needed> there. However, please do not delete the lines which have been derived eg- alomost all the data of Bhutanese refugee just because it is incompatible with ones view of reality. I do not know what the Nepalese media profesize about the Bhutanese crisis as I have never cared to read such stories. However, I have been doing some research in the net about this article just to increase the articles of South Asia (which I think is underrepresented here in wikipedia) and have used only global sources for that as such. I will write more once I finish my exams. It will take about 3 weeks. If thats not a long time for you, please do not make the article too Bhutanese Government based and hence unsuitable for a featured artilce nomination by then. Thank you.--Eukesh 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eukesh, you say all the right things, that we need a neutral article, that you want to be constructive, but at the end of it, it seems your mind is closed. You say you have not read the garbage from the nepalese press but that you have done a lot of research on the internet. isn't that where all that garbage is available? you say you want to be constructive but you are already fixed in your view that all the ethnic nepalese people in the camps are from bhutan. FYI, if they’re not from Nepal, it could be they are from india also, ie, not necessarily from Bhutan. being 'stateless' is not such a big thing in this region for which someone HAS to be blamed. you can count the number of poor nepalese without any documents who are finding their way to india every day. if ever there was a census to be done between nepal and india, you will find millions ‘stateless’ by your definition, definitely in the hundreds of thousands. is bhutan responsible for that? is it inconceivable to you that some of them might have made their way to bhutan? You conclude that it is 'entirely a Bhutanese issue' and nothing could be further from the truth. If nepal wasn't quite the economic basketcase it has become, maybe the rest of us in the region wouldn't have to deal with such an outflow of emigrants from your country.
- About UNHCR, all i'll say is that when they have never bothered to make a system to distinguish a bhutanese nepali from an indian nepali or from a Nepalese nepali, it is impossible to accept what then is merely their assumption that each and everyone who came to the camps definitively came from Bhutan. secondly, when they do not have access to the bhutanese census records, it is again merely their assumption that even those nepalese who might have come from bhutan are in actual fact legal citizens of bhutan. Abraham Abraham has always been pro-refugees in his stance and has completely overstepped his mandate of addressing humanitarian issues and gone on to defining political and citizenship issues of a sovereign country. If his confused approach has permeated the UNHCR report it is not surprising. It is also not acceptable. For that reason i believe citation alone will not address this issue. the type of citation is also important. if you are so fond of citations, here is one i found which might interest you: http://www.bhutantimes.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=421&forum=10
- You also say that these people ‘have have not been verified as non-Bhutanese’, which again is forgetting the conclusion of the joint verification teams’ report in 2003 of the first verified camp. here’s a link http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/btn-summary-eng Remember, this was a JOINT verification.
- i find it intersting that you raise the Fiji issue. it is almost the same as the Sikkim issue which Bhutan is particularly sensitive about. Both are cases of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of a nation to immigrants. Those two cases are past repair however. Bhutan is not and it is not unreasonable for the Bhutanese people and government to be worried. If you can’t understand what I am saying, you could look at the parallel Nepal itself faces in the Terai with rampant settlement of Indians. I think you people have a bigger problem than Bhutan does. In the years to come, when these settlers completely dominate the economy (which they already do) and when their numbers allow them to dominate the politics as well, and when the ‘future’ of Nepal is that as seen by people from India, then perhaps you will be a bit more empathetic to the cause of Bhutan. Divinemadman 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Hi there, since you do not wish to have a united article representing all point of views and would like to stick to your point of view, I have no rights to prevent you other than that of a fellow wikipedian from South Asia. I have divided both the pages under discussion into two parts. One for Government point of view and one for refugee point of view. Since there is no neutral or united point of view, I will not be editing or discussing in those pages as actively as I have been doing. Besides, I can not prepare for my exams with no other than my fellow South Asian accusing me of fancy accusitions in place no other than wikipedia. Here is something that I have to say as regards your recent posts in this page:
- About:
Eukesh, you say all the right things, that we need a neutral article, that you want to be constructive, but at the end of it, it seems your mind is closed. You say you have not read the garbage from the nepalese press but that you have done a lot of research on the internet. isn't that where all that garbage is available? you say you want to be constructive but you are already fixed in your view that all the ethnic nepalese people in the camps are from bhutan. FYI, if they’re not from Nepal, it could be they are from india also, ie, not necessarily from Bhutan. being 'stateless' is not such a big thing in this region for which someone HAS to be blamed. you can count the number of poor nepalese without any documents who are finding their way to india every day. if ever there was a census to be done between nepal and india, you will find millions ‘stateless’ by your definition, definitely in the hundreds of thousands. is bhutan responsible for that? is it inconceivable to you that some of them might have made their way to bhutan? You conclude that it is 'entirely a Bhutanese issue' and nothing could be further from the truth. If nepal wasn't quite the economic basketcase it has become, maybe the rest of us in the region wouldn't have to deal with such an outflow of emigrants from your country.
About:
- "You say you have not read the garbage from the nepalese press but that you have done a lot of research on the internet."
Please do not comment about Nepalese press in a nation where it has played a major part in bringing a revolution from a nation where there is virtually no press. The press here is not garbage. However, I did not care about the Bhutanese refugee case until I found that it was missing here and thought of writing about it.
About:
- "You say you have not read the garbage from the nepalese press but that you have done a lot of research on the internet. isn't that where all that garbage is available?"
Wikipedia is available in net. Do you call it garbage? I have cited the information from sites of globally accepted bodies and not from the sites hosted by some pro- or anti- groups or some blog pages
About:
you say you want to be constructive but you are already fixed in your view that all the ethnic nepalese people in the camps are from bhutan. FYI, if they’re not from Nepal, it could be they are from india also, ie, not necessarily from Bhutan. being 'stateless' is not such a big thing in this region for which someone HAS to be blamed.
I do not have a point of view. I agree that I have made some points which were offensive to some, but it was not intentional and were derived from the data. There was a speculation which was corrected later. I just posted what were there in websites of UNHCR and other global organizations which is something that is done in wikipedia. I have told you that people of Nepalese origin are found throughout the world. Many might be stateless. However, the reports of UNHCR shows otherwise in case of Bhutanese refugees. If you can change their view, please do. Otherwise stop editing with whatever you wish to write or in your own words, stop garbaging wikipedia.
- About "being 'stateless' is not such a big thing in this region for which someone HAS to be blamed." Well, there is nothing which can top this sort of irresponsible comment.
you can count the number of poor nepalese without any documents who are finding their way to india every day. if ever there was a census to be done between nepal and india, you will find millions ‘stateless’ by your definition, definitely in the hundreds of thousands. is bhutan responsible for that? is it inconceivable to you that some of them might have made their way to bhutan? You conclude that it is 'entirely a Bhutanese issue' and nothing could be further from the truth. If nepal wasn't quite the economic basketcase it has become, maybe the rest of us in the region wouldn't have to deal with such an outflow of emigrants from your country.
- Nepal and India share an open border, so people from both sides move around. Btw, I never defined "stateless". So, spare me the omniscient attitude. I have never doubted that people from Nepal could have made it to Bhutan when people of Nepal have made it to as far as Caribbean. However, I do not write what I feel or doubt. I write what is stated by globally accepeted organizations. I do not know about this "poor Nepalese" attitude that you harbour but Nepalese have a history of moving out and exploring. If I were to talk with an attitude of yours, I can definitely say that Buddha moved from what is now Nepal to India (Shakya clans still live in Nepal), Bhrikuti was married to Shronchong Gompo which aided a lot to the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet and she was accompanied by many Nepalese religious and artistic people, Arniko exported Nepalese architecture to as far as court of Kublai Khan and city of Peking, Balbhadra Kunwar made it to Lahore and joined British Army to form British Gurkha. So, its not always poverty that drive Nepalese outside. Besides, one does not blame British for the racist policy that the Zimbabwe Government is implementing. You can extrapolate any issue to any extent. But talk about state of Nepal or Nepalese only if you find any illegal immigrant with ample proof of being Nepalese citizen. Do not relate Nepalese clans as they are spread everywhere not merely because of their poverty but because of their skills, loyality, influence etc amongst others.
- Please do not try to convince me about UNHCR as I am not their representative. If you do not believe in them, thats your problem not mine. The world has more faith in their report than a forum in Bhutantimes.
- About the Joint commission verification, the verification has been criticized by many. The so called "voluntary migrants" is still controversial.
- About:
If you can’t understand what I am saying, you could look at the parallel Nepal itself faces in the Terai with rampant settlement of Indians. I think you people have a bigger problem than Bhutan does. In the years to come, when these settlers completely dominate the economy (which they already do) and when their numbers allow them to dominate the politics as well, and when the ‘future’ of Nepal is that as seen by people from India, then perhaps you will be a bit more empathetic to the cause of Bhutan.
- I do feel and respect your concerns. But if in the future, if the Indians continue to stay here, they will be our citizens. Race, ethnic origin etc is never problem to us. We are a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation. Thats the beauty of Nepal. The founding father of modern Nepal has called Nepal as a common garden of all the groups that are present here. Besides, I am a Newar. There is no way that you can take away my Indian character or my Mongolian character or any such attributes which are formed from fusion of these factors that you are afraid of even keeping side by side. I am a Buddhist yet I visit temples. My language is the most Indianized Sino-Tibetan language and I am proud of it. If you fail to comprehend it, I just hope that you will understand some day that beneath that Bakkhu or Daura or Kurta or Dhoti or Shirt, behind that yellow, brown, black, white or red skin, lies just humans and we are all the same. Our ethnicity is humanity and other ethnicities are just for display and to play a harmonious role. We are no larger than a budding species on the face of earth. We have a long struggle ahead of us. We need to fight cancer, AIDS, poverty and other such phenomenon and the worst way to proceed on that path is by dividing ourself into these unnecessary divisions of ethnicity. I dont know if I will ever grow weary of this culture of melting pot that we have created which I agree has had some problems sometimes. But one thing is for sure, if you give ethnicity so much preference rather than creating a mixed society, Hitler would be proud of you.
By the way, if you need help here of any sort in Wikipedia, do feel free to contact me.--Eukesh 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
...so said Eukesh in 2006. Fastfoward to 2007-2008: The southern half of Nepal, dominated by the Madheshis of northern india are now demanding autonomy FROM kathmandu. Even the maoists are getting lynched when they try to impose themselves down south. "race is never a problem" - then what is this about? --Divinemadman (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)if the Indians continue to stay here, they will be our citizens. Race, ethnic origin etc is never problem to us. We are a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation. Thats the beauty of Nepal.
-
[edit] Bhutan Times link in Bhutan
Hi. I notice you've been trying to add a link to Bhutan Times in the Bhutan article. Please note that there is already a link to that website on the page. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- i think there is a mistake. there are two sites, bhutantimes.com and bhutantimes.bt. the latter seems to have been down for a while though. would appreciate it if both are kept. thanks --Divinemadman (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. You're right that the .bt link does not work. Let me see why the bhutantimes.com link keeps getting deleted.--RegentsPark (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It seems to me that the www.bhutantimes.com site is an aggregator site that collects rss feeds from other sites and doesn't contain original content. External links to these kinds of sites are not allowed (see Wikipedia:External links). Can you tell me whether www.bhutantimes.bt is the site of a newspaper or whether it is similar to bhutantimes.com? Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- the wikipedia rules doesn't say that aggregator sites are not allowed, just that they may 'normally be avoided'. besides, the bhutantimes.com does have some of its own news: https://www.bhutantimes.com/modules/news/archive.php as you can see from the past several years. in fact http://bhutan2008.blogspot.com/ is just a travel website which seems to be accepted by the likes of abercrombie, who incidentally is the person who keeps removing the bhutantimes links. i would also say that the dead government websites that everybody seems to accept should be the ones trimmed to keep the list short. just my thought.--Divinemadman (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- just a thought. I find it funny that while most people take what a government does with a pinch of salt, when it comes to websites and domains, projects like wikipedia and even the press (CNN, BBC included) prefer to include government links on their websites. in the case of bhutan, dead websites and almost dead websites like www.bhutan.gov.bt are broadcast but other much more meaningful websites are excluded. so when you google bhutan, all these dead websites show up in all their glory.
[edit] Bhutantimes.com
Thanks for your patient explanations. As far as I'm concerned, the link is notable enough and I won't bother you again (and will go on the record to support its inclusion). --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- thanks again!--Divinemadman (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- We've been talking about this on the talk page since you've been away, and the consensus there is that the blocking of bhutantimes.com should be noted in the Censorship in Bhutan article, and that the link should not appear in the Bhutan article. Kevin (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- okay...so what have you been talking about? i don't believe i was a part of any 'consensus'. --Divinemadman (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand. what was discussed? --Divinemadman (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did you want me to copy the whole discussion here? It's at Talk:Bhutan anyway. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BTlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BTlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:BTlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BTlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
