Talk:Nepal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nepal article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Former featured article Nepal 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 September 28, 2006.
Nepal 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).
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Reorganizing Nepal Page : Experimenting table use --Sudip Regmi (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups
Ethnic Percentage in Population
Brahman-Hill 12.5%
Magar 7%
Tharu 6.6%
Tamang 5.5%
Newar 5.4%
Kami 3.9%
Yadav 3.9%
Other 32.7%
Nepali National Languages
Language Percentage of Speakers
Nepali 47.8%
Maithili 12.1%
Bhojpuri 7.4%
Tharu (Dagaura/Rana) 5.8%
Tamang 5.1%
Nepal Bhasa 3.5%
Magar 3.3%
Awadhi 2.4%
Other 10%
Unspecified 2.5%

[edit] gupha

GUPHA is for girls only, not boys. Boys have BRATABANDHA. GUPHA means 'cave'. The prepubescent girl is placed in a room away from sunlight for 12 days. She is prepared for a 'marriage' with the SUN-god...

-Gyami

[edit] Strikes, killing, municipal elections, maoists' accepting even monarchy

A lot is going on right now. Just see the news story by ABC at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1589541 and interview with the Maoist leader Prachanda at http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?nid=64876 -- Let's wait for tomorrow and add something to the article then.

[edit] Inner-Terai

Nepal's inner-terai valleys including Dang-Deukhuri and Chitwan deserve mention. These large valleys, mostly situated between the Siwalak and Mahabharat ranges are a significant part of the country's physical geography and have culturally-significant inhabitants, especially Tharus.

The inner-terai also has great economic importance. In addition to the exploitation of timber by Indian loggers, they have become agriculturally important, first through absentee landlords during the Rana period. Then when endemic malaria was controlled during the 1960s they became the focus of immigration by land-hungry families from the middle hills.

Im a poo.

[edit] May 18 proclamation

Look here for starters, [1]. I can see some editing has already been done but we need a unified approach to bring all Nepalese articles up to date, perhaps leaving the ones on the exact power of the King until a final decision is reached. I will start on the army pages. Horses In The Sky talk contributions

After the May 18 act shouldn't the opening be changed, Nepal is no longer an "official" Hindu kingdom - 2006 democracy movement in Nepal? TallAlex

[edit] Wrong bank note!!!

The bank note of 'one Nepalese rupee' is outdated! Doesn't someone have a recent one with King Gyanendra on it?

[edit] National symbols of Nepal

Bird - Lophophorus (Danphe) Animal - Cow Flower - Rhododendron (Lali Gurans) Color - Crimson Red (Simrik)

[edit] Neutrality under Recent Events?

This is a direct quote under the recent events section: "The seven parliamentary parties (SPA), with support from the Maoists, arranged a mass uprising against the reign of King Gyanendra. The royal government used various means to quell the uprising. Frustrated by lack of security, jobs and good governance, thousands of people took to the streets to demand that the king renounce power outright, but the royal government turned even more ferocious and continued its atrocities including daytime curfews amid a Maoist blockade. Food shortages hit people so that they prepared to march into the city centre and encircle the royal palace. The security forces turned brutal and the king seemed to think nothing had happened so far. Thousands were injured and 21 people died in the uprising, which was meant to be peaceful but turned violent due to the actions of the government and its vigilantes." I don't see this paragraph as neutral. While the paragraphs surrounding it are fine, I take issue with "turned even more ferocious and continued its atrocities," "turned brutal," "the king seemed to think nothing had happened so far," the comment that the people were frustrated not "over government decisions," but instead over "lack of good governance," and the comment that the uprising (note the word choice, an "uprising") was meant to be peaceful but became "violent due to the actions of the government and its vigilantes." All of these comments kind of red-flag the neutrality for me. On a seperate note, the diction does not seem to be up to academic standards in this paragraph. For example, the use of the word "turned" instead of "became" sounds immature, and in any case the word is used redundantly. Sentences through the paragraph could stand restructuring, as some of them sound somewhat disjointed and not all of them flow fluidly from one to the next.

A section regarding the royal massacre mentions that the official documents told us that then Crown Prince Dipendra wiped out the royal family but then goes on to add that some people believe Gyanendra's son did this. If we are to include gossip in this article then, we might as well add masked men, wrath of the gods and things like that to list of reasons for the massacre.

[edit] FACTUAL ERRORS AND WRONG DATES!

I have tried to correct some grave factual errors in this article. Somebody reinserts them again.

(I altso fixed up missing and wrong links to nepalese parties. Interestingly enough, nobody has reverted this and reinstated the broken and missing links!)

Okay. If this is supposed to be wrong (in such a generally praised article) well, then it is supposed to be wrong.

Ill just repeat here that:

  • To state that "the democratic experiment was dissolved in 1959" IS WRONG!

On the contrary, the ONLY free, parliamentary election before 1991 was JUST in the spring of 1959! The result was a majority for the DC, BP Koirala (the legendary big brother of the present PM) was elected prime minister, and his government started (rather timid) reforms.

Not the END, rather the HIGHLIGHT of "the democratic experiment" was in 1959!

  • King Mahendras coup d.etat, dissolving parliament and forbidding parties, was NOT in 1959 but on the 15th of december 1960!
  • The "partyless Panchayat system" was formally created by the proclamation of a new constitution on the 16th of december 1962!
  • There was NO "Jana Andolan" in 1989! The Jana Andolan (now sometimes called Jana Andolan I, to avoid confusion with the Jana Andolan II of april 2006) started and finished in the spring of 1990!
  • The king had to accept multiparty democracy as a result of the Jana Andolan in the spring of 1990.

"The Monarchy" dindt, as the article here says, "establish a multiparty parliament in May 1991". This parliament was a result of a free election (the second in Nepals history, after the first one in 1959) called by the coalition government formed in the spring of 1990, after the Jana Andolan, by Nepali Congress, the alliance of moderate communist parties, and a couple of kings representatives. The parties had a majority in this government, and this was not "etablished by the monarchy" at all.

The person writing this has not been doing his/her homework. THE "FACTS" ARE WRONG! Check any real source, US official documents about the history of Nepal if that is the only things you trust.

THE DATES AND HISTORICAL FACTS I PUT IN ARE THE CORRECT ONES! So WHY does this article HAVE to contain WRONG dates etc???

Then the following stuff about the year of 2005 is nonsense:

In September 2005, the Maoists declared a three-month unilateral ceasefire which was not reciprocated by the royal government; the latter vowed to defeat the rebels by force. A few weeks later, the government stated that parliamentary elections would be held by 2007 even after the failed municipal elections.

  • Point one: The ceasefire was prolonged, it was about 4 months long. I put that in, for some reason it is cut out again.
  • Point two: "A few weeks later, the govt stated that parl. elections would be held by 2007 EVEN AFTER THE FAILED MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS."
  • A: "The municipal elections" werent held until february 2006! So HOW could the government comment on the parliamentary elections "even after the failed municipal elections" - a few weeks after september 2005? For the record: Between the start of the ceasefire and the municipal election there was more than 20 weeks!
  • B: How can the poor reader of this rubbish understand what "the failed municipal elections" here refer to? I put in the generally aknowledged facts about this:

+ It was in february 2006

+ It didnt take part in most of the country, only in a few big cities

+ Only small pro-royalist parties took part, none of the parties elected to the last parliament in 1999 (and none of the parties that took part in the last municipal elections in 1997 either)

+ According to press reports (among other things, quoted by US diplomats) only about 20% of the people who could vote, did vote. (In fact, people from the 7-party alliance claimed that the turnout was far below that).

Okay so I put in this, to make the whole thing understandable and factually correct.

Cut out and the old absurd text put in again.

WHY?

WHAT IS THE POINT HERE? IS IT A PRINCIPLE THAT THINGS HAVE TO BE WRONG?

Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia and writer of over 100 articles about Nepal there 2006-09-29


Here is one more:
"Thus India sponsored Tribhuvan as Nepal's new king in 1951, and a new government, mostly comprising the Nepali Congress Party. After years of power wrangling between the king and the government, the democratic experiment was dissolved in 1959, and a "partyless" panchayat system was made to govern Nepal."
The unsuspecting reader will read this as stating that king Tribhuvan dissolved "the democratic experiment" in 1959, and put the Panchayat system in place instead. However, Tribhuvan died in 1955. It was his son Mahendra who did these things. And this didnt happen in 1959 either, but in 1960 and 1962.
(Sigh)
Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia 2006-09-29

objections sustained!

jan of leipzig 2006-10-12

[edit] Chalukyas?

It says in the history section that Nepal was influenced by the Chalukya Empire. I find it hard to believe that the Chalukyas (originally from Karnataka and ruling over Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh) could have had any influence on Nepal. I would like to verify this statement.

[edit] Airlines in Nepal

Please make a site of all the airlines in Nepal and its passenger travel through that airlines in every year & mostly applied for travelling in related airlines. Hope u wont make disagree with my view. Sorry, If I have said something srong.

mailing address: saroj_shrees@hotmail.com

Hey, but I don't think Nepal has ever had civil war. The maoist problem was an insurgency problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.4.169.10 (talk) 01:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

== Why is Newari, or so called "Nepal Bhasa" being so much highlighted? This language is used by only a minority of people in Nepal. Maithili is the second most spoken language in Nepal. The section on Newari needs to be replaced by Maithili. Also, the official calender of Nepal uses Bikram Sambat. Why is the antiquity of Nepal Sambat being mentioned and Bikram Sambat left out?

[edit] Why has somebody removed Nepal Bhasa terms while naming Nepal and Kathmandu?

It seems as if somebody has removed Nepal and Kahtmandu written in Nepal Bhasa. May I ask why they have been removed? Kathmandu is called as Yen in Nepal Bhasa and that is how the native people of Kathmandu call it.

I think it might be an act of Vandalism or it might be an act of some new type of racists in Wikipedia.

Kathmandu2007 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1.Can any one give the reference that shows the first time when word "Nepal Bhasha" is mentioned in scripts ? 2.Is "Bhasha" a newari word? 3.Is "Newari" a deragotory word? if yes why in international language code (ISO code) , its code is NEW. I am a french. We know this language only by "Newari" . Is there any thing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anju273 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Anju 273, Although you state that you are French, you seem to have contributed to many articles related to Nepal. So, I assume that you have great interest in Nepal ! With regards to your questions, information on wikipedia about Nepal Bhasa answers all your questions, please read Nepal Bhasa.

Kathmandu2007 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can any one point out to the reference that support, 1.Nepal presented Newari alphabet in UN ? 2.does any country need to present alphabet of language in UN?

It would be academically correct only if we use facts supported by any documents. Other wise no serious person will use Wiki Nepal section for information regarding Nepal. Rumors and false statement should not be put in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.213.11 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currency abbreviation

Should the currency abbreviation be NPR or NRs? According to the ISO wikilink, it is NPR but the text in infobox says it is NRs. Could we use NPR instead of NRs? If we need to include NRs in the article, could we add a footnote saying what NRs is?

Regards,

Kushalt 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No response? Kushalt 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will change it to NPR for consistency. Please revert, if needed. Kushalt 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NPR is ISO abbreviation, NRs is lokal abbreviation. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religon

About this edit, what wiki policy are you referring to? Just because you are able to cite something that someone said about a particular topic, does not mean necessarily mean that it is relevant. The person in question is not a scholar but an extremist who was linked to Mahatma Gandhi's killing, including his ideas are the same as adding fringe theories. Pahari Sahib 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNN Reports: Maoists developing republic.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/nepal.ap/index.html

I will edit in the government as: Developing Republic. :-) -- OtherAJ (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nation?

can anyone explain why in the opening sentence Nepal is referred to as "nation" and not "country"? VZakharov (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official?

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=490000&lng=1#

w_tanoto (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Nepal

We now need a separate article on the past Kingdom of Nepal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh this article should be created. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. but I am confused of what should be included? w_tanoto (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
1768-2008 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the creation of an article with that title, the present republic is a direct continuation of the kingdom. However, we could have an article called History of monarchy in Nepal. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

even minor state changes have different articles: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia --> Serbia and Montenegro.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the change from the old federal republic into Serbia and Montenegro involve a change in borders? - Making it more than just a name change? Whereas Nepal remains intact, just changing its style of government. Pahari Sahib 15:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
no border changes there, too. See, same map --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, I stand corrected :-) Pahari Sahib 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue here discussion on the new article. Similar: German Empire -> Weimar Republic -> Nazi Germany. Just changes in government, like here. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Kingdom of England to Commonwealth of England back to Kingdom of England w_tanoto (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Nepal

We Should Move Nepal to Republic of Nepal since it's their offical name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the current offical full name of Nepal? Republic of Nepal ? Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal ? Federal Republic of Nepal ? or Nepal ? --1j1z2 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Its Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal Razv (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no need to move the article, rather the official name should redirect here, rather like Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany. Pahari Sahib 08:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. What it would be for Indonesia, Singapore, and other republic's title then? Unitary Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Singapore. It's simply too long, and not uniform with other articles. Nepal should stays as it is, with redirect link from Republic of Nepal and Federal Republic of Nepal. I think there's already redirect from republic of nepal. Also, we need to make Kingdom of Nepal article to reflect the country before becoming republic. Kingdom needs to be stressed here because it's the former form of government w_tanoto (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I had already redirected Federal Republic of Nepal to Nepal before the above post was made, the official name already redirected there too (which I only realised after posting). Pahari Sahib 12:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a Kingdom of Nepal article is practical at this point as 99.9% of the country's history, thus far, has been as a Kingdom. In other words, there's very little of the current article that wouldn't fit into a Kingdom of Nepal article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Isnt it a communistic/maoistic or socialist republic now then? 83.108.204.172 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Kingdom of Nepal only inclueds the history of Nepal betwwen 1768 and 2008. The rest includes the history of (? - 1768 & 2008- ?).--1j1z2 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why you use name Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal? According to interim constitution Nepal hasn't long name, and name "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" isn't used on any official Nepalese web-site. Title "federal, democratic republic" is type of government, not name (see at art. 159 and of interim constitution). Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on this edit the omission of the word Nepal was just a mistake. As for the source, Nepal monitor says "Nepal announces a Sanghiya Loktantrik Ganatantra" (Federal Democratic Republic)., the second source confirms the announcement of the " Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal". I just copied Sanghiya Loktantrik Ganatantra from the first source and forgot to append "Nepal". Otherwise I think the sources are fairly clear. Pahari Sahib 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your's sources aren't official. On Nepalese governmet web-sites is still used name Nepal. There aren't any information about bill, act, or constitutions amendment wicht introduce new long name of country. The sentensce "federal democratic republic" isn't name of country, this is only type of government. Maby, introducing new constitution give new long name for Nepal, but new name wasn't introduce up today. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.

I had recently tried copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and or spelling the article, and it looks like someone reverted my work. Either you want someone do go through the bother of checking it, or you do not. Decide please. --209.244.189.28 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long name is disputed

Nepalese name सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रीक गणतन्त्र नेपाल is propably OR (see: [2]), and English one is disputed - according to Nepalese government web-sites, UN web-site, US Department of State, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and meny other sites Nepal has only one name - "Nepal" and still hasn't any long form of name. In Wikipedia's only source for Nepelese name (Republic on Paper for Nepal - Nepal Monitor) stetes: The parties who agreed, by signing a 23-point accord, incorporated this in the Interim Constitution (IC) 2007 in the 3rd amendment: "Nepal announces a Sanghiya Loktantrik Ganatantra" (Federal Democratic Republic)., but in linked source to this article (23-point Agreement by the Seven-Party Alliance) ist steted: 1. The following amendments will be made in place of Subtitles and Sub-article (1), (2), (3a). (3b) of Article 159 of the [interim] Constitution: a) Nepal shall be a federal democratic republic. b) The republic will be implemented at the first meeting of the constituent assembly. Provided that, if the King poses a threat to holding the constituent assembly election, a two thirds majority of the interim legislature-parliament can implement the republic by voting for the proposal. The Council of Ministers shall make the decision to submit such a proposal and the Council of Ministers shall present the proposal to the interim legislature-parliament. c) The King shall not have any responsibility for handling any state affairs. d) The Prime Minister shall be responsible for handling all state affairs. e) Until the implementation of a republic, the Prime Minister shall conduct all the duties of the head of state. So, Nepal shall be a federal democratic republic doesn'n mind Nepal has name Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal but Nepal is federal democtratic republic. So, there aren't still any reliable sources for confirm long name of Nepal. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)