Talk:Bhutan/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I would like to hear the views of other contributors on what the criteria are for accepting external links for this article. Abercrombie for instance appears to feel that his selection is the last word as he continually reverts my editions. I've read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and related articles, and for the life of me I cannot see how my additions are not acceptable. Please enlighten me on this matter. :) Bomdeling 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is room for both (bhutan.bt and bhutan.com). About a week ago I stumbled on this article and noticed this petty edit war between Bramlet Abercrombie and other contributors. I thought placing both links in the article would resolve the dispute. Bramlet Abercrombie has been warned by an administrator to stop disrupting this article (and others). I have reverted his/her vandalism (yes, at this point the disruption is considered vandalism). If he or she tries to change it again, he/she will be blocked from making further edits. 24.205.227.69 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bramlet Abercrombie appears to have appointed himself as the 'remove bhutantimes.com link' police officer on wikipedia. so long as he continues with this obsession, I will continue to undo his undo's. :-) --Divinemadman (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Divinemadman - I've moved your comment below so it's easier to follow the thread. Feel free to revert if you want to. Kevin (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Stumbled across some nice Creative-Commons licensed photos on Flickr that we can use here: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/Bhutan/ Someone who knows these articles better might know the best place for them. — Catherine\^talk 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

I took this out of the ==Name== section: "Historians have suggested that it may have originated in variations of the

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

Greetings,

I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia

Thanx.--Zereshk 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• • • 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)

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

Should the spelling on the article be British style?

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)

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)

I would very much lremakeike to see a discussion of the effects of Bhutan's recent decision to permit TV after banning it for many years. The country is extraordinary isolated as it is, so much so that stalkers probably couldn't follow anyone there. But satellite TV overcomes such remoteness all too easily. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If the native population uses Druk Yul or whatever, who originally named Bhutan "Bhutan" (does it appear as such in some ancient Sanskrit texts for example)?

Who uses this name in the region today (is that the name of the country in Hindi for example?), and from what specific source did "Bhutan" enter English as the name of the country?

Also assuming there has been/is some non-English use of the name, we could use a second "native" IPA pronunciation (with aspirated B certainly).

I think the TV was not banned as such. It just took time like anyother technology to be adopted and introduced. We intorduced cellular communication in 2003 that doesn't mean we banned. I think this is a very misguided word 'banned' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.69.179.135 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what in the world is the point of this sentence: "Bhutan is the smallest non-Arab nation in mainland Asia."

What is the point!? It seems so trivial, that I really question why it's even in the article at all. If no one objects, I will delete it. Perakhantu 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was doing research on Bhutan and noticed that the CIA World Factbook has a very different population number than what was listed in the introduction to the article. Without deleting the previous figure, I have added the Factbook numbers. 208.178.18.185 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

. . .and only afterward did I notice the Demographics section. Sorry. I cut and pasted it there instead. 208.178.18.185 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

At the end of section 2.3 this article claims, "Jigme Singye Wangchuck ascended to the throne at the age of 16 after the death of his father, Dorji Wangchuck." However, at the beginning of the Jigme Singye Wangchuck article it says he ascended to the throne at the age of 17. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than myself could resolve this apparent contradiction. Jsaxton86

• 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)

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

I've changed the native name in the article - the reason being that the version given is, in fact, modern Tibetan, not Dzongkha. I changed it to Dzongkha (and I'm sure of it here, check out 'Dzongkha', by George van Driem), but also added a transliteration of the spelling in the Tibetan alphabet. BovineBeast 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

please give more details. I added what is given in the CIA website. Ybgursey 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

The word is identical in Dzongkha and Choké (the name Bhutanese give to classical Tibetan). The pronunciation varies slightly from district to district in Bhutan - but in Bhutan, it is inevitably written as "Druk" in Latin script. Thus you will find "HM the Fifth Druk Gyalpo" for the King of Bhutan, "Druk Air" for the National Airline, "DrukNet" and "DrukCom" - two ISPs in Bhutan, and so on. Don't take my word for it, please check out the websites of the national newespaper Kuensel, Bhutan Times, or The Bhutan Observer to see plenty of examples of usage. The "Official Dzongkha Romanization" developed by Dr. George van Driem, though an excellent system, is now rarely if ever used in Bhutan - even by Bhutanese Government Departments. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

the CIA information on bhutan is flawed in some areas such as the date on which bhutan supposedly became independent (1949) when in fact bhutan was never colonized. it also claims that bhutan's population is over 2 million when a much more accurate figure is given on the website of the bhutanese census office. in the absence of more accurate information or knowledge of better sources, the over dependence on the CIA website is causing more confusion than clarity.

The CIA website was correct in most parts. 1) It was officially became independence when the Tibetan and Mongol religious/military hierarchy was eradicted by the advancing force of the Chinese Communist Party. The old Tibetan/Mongol religious/military forces had been in power not only in Bhutan but also in eastern Nepal, Sikim, Qinghai, western Sichuan and pled their loyalties to the Chinese Emperors of Mongol Yuan, Han Ming and Manchu Qing, as well as the Presidents of Republic of China, both the Northern Military Presidents and Nationalist Presidents of South China. Various local chiefs with title of 'To Si' or local commander were rulers of simi-independent states throughout eastern and southern slopes of the Tibetan platteau and pled their loyalties to Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama, as well as the titled Mongol princes. 2) The figure of 2 million included those people from various Indian states during the British colonial period who moved to Bhutan. The figure in Bhutan government site counts only Bhutan of Tibetan and Buddhists by heritage.

Karolus 20080327

• 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)

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

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page has been subject to a lot of vandalism - I'm going to suggest that editing be limited to registered users.Sylvain1972 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the government be listed as "in transition, currently absolute monarchy"? Because Bhutan is having elections next year. QZXA2 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook page does not list English as an official language. What is the status of English in Bhutan? Wingedbeaver 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help render Bhutan Scout Tshogpa, and also "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Bhutanese script? Thanks! Chris 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What are those? The name of the contry in Dzongkha? It says in the article they call Bhutan by "Druk Yul", I'm a bit confused here. --Shandris^{the 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)

Hi, "The Bhutanese call their country འབྲུག་ཡུལ་" Maybe this article needs the "This page contains Indic text. Without rendering support you may see..." This page has a gizmo for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha Sorry, I dont know how to change it, too complicated for me. Johndoeemail (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I tried to fix the article using the sandbox for about an hour and I failed. I was right, it was too complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the wikipedia policy is on this, but shouldn't it say India and Tibet, or India and Tibet (China), or something that acknowledges Bhutan's physical proximity to Tibet given the rich shared history and culture of the two regions? --RegentsPark (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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 ....

I've qualified this ref, because I'm not yet sure that this is well enough accepted to allow for an unqualified statement. I'll have a look around for another source, I'm sure I read the same thing somewhere else. It doesn't seem to fit well in the lead either, maybe someone has some ideas on where it could be moved, if at all. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've qualified this ref, because I'm not yet sure that this is well enough accepted to allow for an unqualified statement. I'll have a look around for another source, I'm sure I read the same thing somewhere else. It doesn't seem to fit well in the lead either, maybe someone has some ideas on where it could be moved, if at all. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nepal has nothing to do with Bhutanese refugee issue prior to their temporary settlement in refugee camps in South Eastern Nepal. Nor has Nepal been involved in the pro-democratic movement of Bhutan or of the ethnic cleansing of the Hindu population of Bhutan. Ethnic Nepalese population, who form the Hindu population of Bhutan, are found all over

• So Nepal has nothing to do with the refugee issue...now there's a laugh when Girija Prasad Koirala and his brother were thickly involved in it! And wasn't it their moral support that gave so much encouragement to the refugee leaders to start a militant movement in Bhutan? and, what 'ethnic cleansing'? you may be mixing up your facts with what happened in Assam and Meghalaya. 1million refugees from bhutan? bhutan's population is just 700,000. Oh that's right, they must be from Nepal. I would highly recommend that you come to a bhutanese blogging site and try to expand your knowledge about the bhutanese refugee 'crisis' with those who know much more about it. try http://www.kuenselonline.com or https://www.bhutantimes.com. the latter does not censor any posts.

These are not reliable sources under the definition of

(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

I appreciate your desire to keep the Bhutan article as accurate as possible, and I respect your desire to make certian that there are no inaccurate references in the article. Yet, the article referenced is a work of journalism and was published in National Geographic Adventure magazine. It is defniitely not a personal travelogue as you stated. NGA has a readership of over half a million, all articles are fact checked for accuracy, and Kira Salak is an award winning author (Penn award , Associated Writing Program Award, etc ). A published article is a legitimate reference as far as I know in Wiki. You can see the NG version of the article at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/adventure-travel/asia/bhutan-kira-salak.html , I linked to Salak’s website because the format is easier to read, all the photos that were in the original article are included, and there are no advertisements. Salak’s article is the only reference that exists on the snowman trail in the Wiki article, and so by deleting it you remove the reference for that section. If you still feel that the link does not belong, then we will have to get an arbitrator on this because I do not agree with your assessment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeSturm (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what a

reliable source is meant to be. The author must be an authority on the subject. If you are using a source to validate a claim that Bhutan has avoided rampant destruction of the environment (which I don't doubt, BTW!) then the source must be from a person that is an authority on that subject. In general, the mere fact that someone has traveled to Bhutan and written about their travels in National Geographic (and even won awards for their writing) does not make them an authority on the comparative destruction of the environment in Bhutan versus in other places. The Kira Salak article, while interesting, can hardly be considered authoritative. Simply put, you need to explain why she is reliable in her judgements about the destruction or not of environments. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks

) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

I am quite confused by your refusal to include this link. I thought the entire idea was to make certain that all content was referenced. In the section that you linked me to it clearly states: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications." As the above person mentioned, National Geographic is a reputable mainstream publication, so, by the criteria of the very article you referenced, you should allow the link. I am new to adding entries so I would be interested in knowing your reason for not accepting a link to a reputable publication. I will also watch to see if this person puts it into arbitration to see what the admins comments are on this is, as it still seems to me the link should be there. Thanks! Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSpitzera (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We usually use mainstream publications for news related referencing. If you see the caveats listed for mainstream publications, you'll see that two of those apply here: the piece in the National Geographic is obviously an opinion piece, it is neither news nor scholarly work; and for academic topics (such as the non-destruction of the environment which is entirely empirical in nature), scholarly sources are preferred. An additional reason for being wary about including this particular reference is that the points being supported are not the focus of the article which is essentially a travelogue. It seems to be an indirect way of including an external link that would be deleted under

WP:ELNO. (That may or may not be the case here but it is a possibility.) --Regents Park (sink with my stocks

) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I prefer that this be discussed on the talk page of the article and moved your comments here. Also, if anyone is interested in gathering wider opinions, see dispute resolution.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the opinions expressed above, and while Nat Geo Adventure may be respected and well-researched, it's target audience (travellers presumably) makes it unsuitable as a source for controversial environmental claims. I note the argument re using non-academic sources, however this is highly dependent on the subject matter. In this case a more academic source would be more appropriate. Kevin (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a compromise about the National Geographic Article

Kevin,

I respect your dedication to this Wiki entry, but I am asking you to please compromise here. By the rules of Wiki a National Geographic Adventure reference is acceptable. It is a reputable mainstream publication, thoroughly fact-checked. I have left out the reference from “Gross National Happiness” and the environment and only linked the NGA article to the Snowman Trail reference. The NGA article is a well written and rigorously researched article about Bhutan, and it is the only reference on the Snowman Trail, the ancient Buddhist pilgrimage route from Bhutan to Lhasa. The article also includes pictures and discussions of some of the remote indigenous people of Bhutan found along the way(i.e.-- the Thanza people). This is the type of informaton that should be accessible to the Wiki readers. Hopefully we can agree on this compromise.

Thank you.

Jake

I don't see any real problem referencing the trek using the NGA article, as it seems that the author is well versed on trekking. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the trek can be referenced using the Kira Salak website. The article describes one person's journey and is in no way a reliable source for anything. At best, they could be added to an article on the snowman trek in wikitravel but including a personal self promotion site, complete with a 'buy my book here' link at the bottom, doesn't seem appropriate to me.--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I did mean to say earlier that the link should go to the Nat Geo site, not the Kira Silak website. Kevin (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have come across a number of website that claim there is severe persecution of Christianity in Bhutan, including arrests, disenfranchisement, exile, job discrimination, etc. However, I just read though the brand new Constitution of Bhutan in which the King pledges to protect religious freedom, freedom of thought, and peaceful assembly. Does this mark a radical change in policy? Does anybody have reliable information on this? FusionKnight (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I second FusionKnight's request for information on the subject. Perhaps a link to the U.S. State Department annual report on religious freedom would be appropriate. The 2008 copy does not detail any major abuses, but it refers to some significant issues in the past, particularly concerning the ethnic Nepalese minority.Trinite (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: there's already a link to the 2007 State Department report. The 2008 report contains the same language, which has been quoted verbatim in the article text. Should this link be updated to the latest report?Trinite (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the intro after where it says, "The Bhutanese call their country..." all I see are boxes. It displays properly in the infobox at right. I don't know how to correct it. 68.230.71.24 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no ongoing discussion regarding the neutrality of the history section, I will be removing the neutrality tag. If there are any neutrality issues that have yet to be addressed, please list them here and revert my edit so that we can resolve them together. --

Chorten ( Stupa in Sanskrit)

In the Himalayan world( Specially in Bhuatn) it symbolizes Buddha's mind and is sacred. As an sign of repect and to gain merits, a chorten should be circumambulated in a clockwise direction. There are eight kinds of chorten. All chortens contain religious relices and they are consecrated.

Lhakhang (Temple)

Temples or Lhakhang are fairly small builldings, usually a single building with a caretaker. Sometimes a monastry or goemba has a lhakhang as a central tower. They have red band painted on the upper part of thier walls and an oranament of giled copper on the roof.

Goempa ( Monastery)

In Dzongkha, a monastery is called Goempa. Goempas' are usually located far away from busy toen life so that the monks find peace and less disturbances for thier studies and meditation. Goempa's are fairly large buildings either in clustured form of fortress form with colourful prayers flags surrounding them. Thses places usually host monks ans nuns for Buddhist education, and they have places dedicated to hostings statuas ans religious texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choeying (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is English really an official language of Bhutan? There is no mention of it being as such in the CIA World Factbook, and a source hasn't been provided in the article, either. Can someone at least please back this up with a source or something? 82.45.234.136 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i've changed the name of this section to "ethnic cleansing in southern bhutan" a couple of times, but some dude keeps changing it back. wtf? it's pretty much a known fact that ethnic cleansing is what occurred in the early 1990's in southern bhutan. there are like 600 refugees living down the street from me here in the US, and yeah, rapes, murders, torture and getting their houses burned down because they are of nepalese decent and are hindu instead of buddhist - that'd be called ethnic cleansing. heck, just google it. if anyone *really* thinks we need to cite some source for this, fine, but otherwise let's just call it what it is. the guy who keep calling them "problems" probably works for the bhatan government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.201.25 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Section is poorly worded and is in need of sources; could be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.190.185 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, I know basically nothing about Bhutan, and am not the best of writers. I will however list some issues here that need to be addressed:

When the government attempted to remove the illegal settlers, there was a violent backlash. Many government officials, buildings, offices, schools and hospital were attacked.

What exactly were the actions taken to "remove the illegal settlers"? Was there some particular action that prompted the "violent backlash"? To what extent were "government offcials, buildings, offices, schools and hospitals" attacked? How many is "many"? Was there any criticism of the Bhutanese government for their handling of the situation and their attempts to deport the immigrants?

the government was forced to recruit many young men and able-bodied civil servants into a militia force

"forced"? I doubt that.

the violent activities and racial riots instigated by the illegal immigrants

Were they instigated by the immigrants? A few sentences earlier it said this was the result of the government's actions. Are there different points of view on this?

The UNHCR's primary failing in this matter

I'm not entirely sure it's NPOV to describe this as a "failing" on the part of the UNHCR. Were there good reasons they were unable to accomplish certain things?

Many of the people living in these camps are in-fact economic opportunists living off of the aid provided by the UNHCR

Source?

From my uninformed perspective, the section appears to be an unsourced attack on immigrants in Bhutan. It needs to be shortened/rewritten in

summary style, sources added, and if there are multiple notable points of view, they need to be presented as such. --superioridad ^(discusión

) 07:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: this section contained many unsubstantiated statements which seemed subjective at best and rather racist at worst. Given this, I have proceeded to remove as many statements as I could find that did not have any references (including those discussed above). In doing so, I have added additional data with corresponding references. Please note that this is a work in progress and I realise that some may disagree with the wording: but that's why we have the discussion page and the article can be modified as seen fit by those of us discussing the topic here. I have yet to work on the separate refugee article. Given the astonishing attack on ethnic minorities in this article, that one should be interesting to read.

--Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is biased and has been used to cover up the wrong things the Bhutanese government did during the ethnic cleansing it carried out. The refugees currently living in camps in Nepal have also been slandered as economic opportunists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.242 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comments concerning the neutrality of this section are legitimate; yet, they have still not been addressed. Thus, I am adding a "POV-section" template to the "Illegal Immigrants" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.252.125.40 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This section reads directly from the Bhutanese Ministry of Propaganda. It is completely one-sided and obviously false based upon my work with some of the refugees who have now been resettled in St. Louis, Missouri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.224.170 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to include a file that works on the concept of Bhutan and its relationship to the world. In particular it deals with the concept of supranationalism. This file is included for editors should they ever needed and also to receive any suggestion on the correct writing of the name. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the following section is incorrect:

Single tourists are not allowed in the country. Even Indians and Bangladeshis are discouraged to travel alone, unless you know someone personally or have relatives in Bhutan.

The tour companies I know of require single tourists to pay a $40 surcharge per day, but, single tourists are most definitely allowed in. See the following link for a tour company pricing breakdown:

http://www.jachungtravel.com/pricinginfo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.96.51 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right and I've removed those two sentences. Thanks for noticing it (and you can always edit the article yourself). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=tobacco+bhutan&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Shouldn't there be some mention of tobacco prohibition in Bhutan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says that there's a $200 fee to visit, but that actually includes more than just the visit. http://www.tourism.gov.bt/travelers-information/travel-requirements

The minimum price includes:
    * All internal taxes and charges (including the royalty)
    * Accommodation
    * All Meals
    * All travel with a licensed Bhutanese Tour Guide
    * All Internal Transport
    * Camping Equipment and Haulage for Trekking Tours

So, it may not be quite as high as it seems. 205.154.237.150 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) No single traveler not allowed in Bhutan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.197 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Judged against the entire history of the country and its people, this issue seems fairly irrelevant. I have removed the section per

dude - this is bs. 150,000 people get forcibly displaced from a country, and this is "fairly irrelevant" ?? seriously, what are you thinking? do you work for the government of bhutan or something? Prefetch (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a bigger map that shows it in relation to its surrounding countries. Most other countries have this kind of map right at the top. Bhutan's location is definitely not common knowledge. NMP Dice (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever did it. NMP Dice (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough for good article? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

External link articles

There are two externally linked websites under Military and Foreign affairs. Are they allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, or should be referenced in "See also" or Reference section? --Mistakefinder (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who would like to hear the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese music both traditional and modernized, you can now hear a streaming broadcast of Kuzoo FM, Bhutan's youth radio station. Go to http://www.kuzoo.net and click the Listen Now button. They currently stream live during during their day (GMT/UTC + 06:00 hour), and stream pre-recorded shows at night. While Kuzoo FM broadcasts both Dzongkha and English programming in parallel over the air, currently only the Dzongpha side is being streamed over the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.59.49 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This came up a while back on the Talk:Gangkhar Puensum page. While discussing the issue of the location of Gangkhar Puensum (whether or not it was actually in Tibet or Bhutan), it was noted that the northern border of Bhutan was different depending on the map being used:

These were the two maps, top left and right, that were once in the Gangkhar Puensum article. Apparently it was decided to use only the green one on the right for reasons I can only assume had something to do with a belief that it was the more accurate of the two.

Now this article uses the pink/brown one on the left and the topographical map below right in which the border resembles the upper left pink/brown map:

The last and final map in the Bhutan page is the more detailed district map, lower left, which has a border very similar—identical?—to the upper right green map from the GP article.

Is there a border dispute between China and Bhutan, or is this more to do with inaccurate and conflicting surveying sources? ...or just bad maps? Anyone have an explanation for this? Racerx11 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they have been discussing borders for awhile [6]. I'm not sure if that makes up for that large a discrepancy though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The "pink/brown" map you referred to on the upper left is an older version of the

WP:Commons until today. The new map appears to the left of this comment. It shows the northern area you referred as well as a smaller area in the west as "Bhutan/China claim lines". I have replaced the older image in those Wikipedia article that used it. -- Zyxw (talk

) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When I get a moment, I'll try to add exact info and cite, but as I recall, the northern border issue went like this: Bhutan includes the northern region (the "rhino horn"), however some government map or publication omitted the extremely sparsely populated area decades ago. It became a "no man's land" for a while. As of 2011, the NA is still in talks with China over it, and the dispute has grown over time with military and civilian activity in the area. Bhutan's domestic Demarcation Commission (for elections) does not include the zone for electoral rolls as of 2011; the zone would be part of Gasa District (Laya Gewog, Lunana Gewog). JFHJr (㊟) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, the map and the fixes. I posted a comment and this new map at the Gangkhar Puensum talk page.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Marriage of current king

Have added info on marriage of the current king to Jetsun Pema, on Oct. 13, 2011. Myles Callum 05:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myles Callum (talk • contribs)

I found the following sentence in the Geography section "Within the 150 mi (240 km) between the southern and northern borders, Bhutan's elevation rises from 150 m (490 ft) to more than 7,550 m (24,770 ft)." The first measurement cited the standard distance first and then the metric. The second to measurments cite metric first and then have the standard in parentheses. Should there be a standard order for these kind of things? Cite everything in metric and then have the standard measurement in parentheses behind it? Just a thought.Stryc9 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've checked country pages, mountain pages, etc. Metric system is first. make sense since the "United States customary units" (aka Standard system ) is only standard in the states. Everywhere else in the world is metric and wiki seems to reflect that. I'll fix it Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was already correctedMighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This article

(second section (History), second sentence, 1st parenthetical clause: "Historians have theorized that the state of Lhomon (literally, "southern darkness", a reference to the indigenous Mon religion), or Monyul ("Dark Land", a reference to the Monpa, the aboriginal peoples of Bhutan) may have existed between 500 BC and AD 600. The names Lhomon Tsendenjong (Sandalwood Country), and Lhomon Khashi, or Southern Mon (country of four approaches), have been found in ancient Bhutanese and Tibetan chronicles.[17])

mentions something about the Bhutanese indigenous "Mon religion", of which I can find nothing more about anywhere, so I strongly suspect that it should be "

Good eye! The claim of a religious reference doesn't actually appear in the cite given, so I've removed the claim. "Mon religion" is an actual term, however (see here and here). It was likely the same as or similar to

WP:SYNTHESIS as far as the term "Lhomon" referring to any religion at all. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟

) 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even there? Bhutan's national language is Dzongkha, English is the medium of instruction. There are no newspapers or any kind of official or unofficial information published within Bhutan using the above script. I think we should remove it or to be fair include simplified Mandarin, if we want to make easier for the neighboring countries. --Druksoogs (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Lynch7 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I had previously replaced the Devanagari when removed because it is a native script (regardless of politics, most "Lhotshampa" were born in Bhutan) and a native name. Official languages don't matter much. Most other domestic languages use Tibetan script and have an identical or similar word for the nation. There are, however, no native speakers of Mandarin in Bhutan, so the analogy is inapposite. JFHJr (㊟) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing Devanagari has has nothing to do with making a statement of status or politics of Lhotsampas within Bhutan. I am not sure how it can be called a 'native script' either. As stated earlier, there is very little publication or use of Devanagari in Bhutan, and thats even amongst the Lhotsampas.--Druksoogs (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a specific part of the wiki about Bhutan' expulsion of some of it's southern citizen (hundreads of thousands over a population of 700k).UN mission concerning the refugees in Nepal and the massive expropriation and village burning is all under "language"... The UN has many reports on theses. I believe that problematic should have its own section to reflect this specific reality of the country (which still hasn't been resolved). All is not so well in Bhutan

Sources:
http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.7.pdf
http://www.unohrlls.org/en/orphan/66/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22668&Cr=Nepal&Cr1=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8310013.stm

Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

added POV bias on top of page until we can address the issueMighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Burma article. I've removed the POV tag. JFHJr (㊟

) 23:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And a sincere thank you for tagging references. There have been lots of hands, but perhaps not enough eyes, on them. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh appologies, the link slipped my all seeing eye ;)Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We need better sources concerning the religious composition of Bhutan. All the notes send back to a census which is nowhere to be found. Any way we could find a direct link to that census? Also since the numbers are approximate and unverified I believe that producing a graphic is uncalled for at the moment. Checking the cited source it would be pertinent to add part of the report information such as  : "The law provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government limited this right in practice by barring non-Buddhist missionaries from entering the country, limiting construction of non-Buddhist religious buildings, and restricting the celebration of some non-Buddhist religious festivals"

Source : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90227.htm Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You tagged a US government report as a primary source on religion in Bhutan. Why? I see. Just how the template "better source" works.

The 2005 census is here but it doesn't mention religion. Giving the source you tagged a careful read, I don't think it's citing the census for its approximate figures on religion. Was there something else that pointed to the census? My eye isn't all seeing either!

I think you're correct that the graphic should be removed since the actual numbers are apparently not actually cited to. Also think your suggestion on the addition is quite reasonable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised when i found that Bhutan is included in the Category:States and territories established in 1949. Bhutan was regocnized by India as an sovereign state in 1949, but it is uncertain for me who they might have been dependent of prior to that. --Orland (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the section called "Happiness Policy" needs correcting. I just returned from 2 weeks in Bhutan and found the tone of this article to be biased and incorrect. The Bhutanese are very serious about this policy and it has nothing to do with subjugation of anyone. Their happiness policy is well thought out and many of the 72 points under the 4 main pillars are measurable. Overall, much of the entries on Bhutan appear to me to be biased and don't reflect what I saw about Bhutan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.118.19 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The personal point of view or personal experience of contributors carries no weight on Wikipedia or in any other other encyclopaedia unless supported by independent, reliable, third party sources. Articles need to refer to reliable, written sources. If you know of reliable written sources that support your point of view, therefore, then amend the article accordingly, citing your sources in support.124.186.93.5 (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The article states in the led: "Its total area was reported as approximately 46,500 km2 (18,000 sq mi) in 1997 and 38,394 square kilometres (14,824 sq mi) in 2002" and gives three references to support the figures. My question is why/how did the government come to knock off 3,200 sq. miles of territory (a decrease of nearly 18%)? An explanation of such a large change in only 5 years seems necessary. I'm sure it's just because of better measurements of their mountainous terrain but I think it still needs to be addressed, if possible. Coinmanj (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Bhutan and China's territorial claims have conflicted in the past. See Talk:Bhutan/Archive_1#Northern_border for what is most likely the cause in discrepancy. IMHO. JFHJr (㊟) 01:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This etymology section is way too long and should be on another page but I don't know how to fix that since the etymology page already redirects to the Etymology section of this article. If someone knows how to fix this please just removed the redirect and migrate 90% of what's in the etymology sub-section over to the new page. No country page should have 4 paragraphs for etymology at the top of the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993 you are right, the third paragraph of etymology is just too big and not required. It depends on a single source which is now archived[7] and it was not even a reliable source. Also the 4th paragraph, which has not mentioned any page numbers or required details and again used the same unreliable source[8] Delibzr (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://amergeog.org/gr/oct06/zurick.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tourism.gov.bt/plan-your-trip/travel-requirements

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nab.gov.bt/downloadsact/Dzo74.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thimphutechpark.com/bitc-business-incubator

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Would be nice to have a section on education. Any colleges/universities? How about medical services? Hospitals/Medical schools?65.81.79.71 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A small amount of information can be found at Education in Bhutan. CMD (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Can we get a Roman transliteration added for Dzongkha "འབྲུག་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་" (English "Kingdom of Bhutan")? Also, Wiktionary lists the Romanization of Dzongkha "འབྲུག་ཡུལ" (English "Bhutan") as "'brug yul" and not "dru ü?" Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary provided a computer-automated Roman transliteration of "འབྲུག་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་" as "'brug rgyal khab." However, the Romanization of "འབྲུག་ཡུལ" still needs to be checked, per above. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bhutan uses GNH " Gross National Happiness", not GDP. It's GDP should be listed of coarse, however GNH should be listed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.204.168.254 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not include the percentage of the population for each of Bhutan's ethnic groups in the article? This would be helpful, and expected for any other Wikipedia article about a nation. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107202521/http://esa.un.org/unpp/ to http://esa.un.org/unpp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328065136/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1068.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1068.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814111649/http://tcb.cms.ebizity.net/attachments/tcb_062415_bhutan-tourism-monitor-2014.pdf to http://tcb.cms.ebizity.net/attachments/tcb_062415_bhutan-tourism-monitor-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305053444/http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13325 to http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702041330/http://www.bhutantrustfund.bt/parks-of-bhutan to http://www.bhutantrustfund.bt/parks-of-bhutan
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080044949&ch=3%2F25%2F2008%2012%3A28%3A00%20AM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1583871%2C000500020006.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210043029/http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?PageContentMode=1&tabid=30289 to http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?PageContentMode=1&tabid=30289
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568123/Bhutan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801085158/http://www.worldinstituteforasianstudies.org/buthan.html to http://www.worldinstituteforasianstudies.org/buthan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714145336/http://www.iucn.org/about/union/members/resources/newsletters/jan_2012_en.cfm to http://www.iucn.org/about/union/members/resources/newsletters/jan_2012_en.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asianews.network/content/international-tourists-bemoan-bad-road-conditions-bhutan-18438

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Environmental stewardship needs increased coverage; I would suggest since the term "

I have just modified one external link on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622213816/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=76001 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=76001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131337/http://www.ttgmice.com/magazine/?term_id&issues&ID=23596 to http://www.ttgmice.com/magazine/?term_id&issues&ID=23596
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829213752/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/bhutan.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/bhutan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This map is absolutely non-neutral. The

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ภูฏาน. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"These customs roll over to a woman's public life and can cause them to be timid and not confident in making their voice heard."

I read the article referred to (no. 65), and found that nowhere does it say anything like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanDHarris (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This is also a way of phrasing that presents information in a "it is natural for women to stay out of politics" frame instead of "prevailing culture keeps women out of politics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:4F4:8200:D933:80FC:DE5B:35EC (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)