Talk:Bhutan

Metric or Standard

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)

Mon or Bön?

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 "Bön religion". I won't change it though until I know for sure. Shanoman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Bön (see here), but I think you might've bumped into a little WP:SYNTHESIS as far as the term "Lhomon" referring to any religion at all. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious bias  : Refugees

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)

Bhutanese refugees has its own article, linked within this one. The topic is also discussed here despite that it doesn't have its own section. There's 1) no reason to produce a WP:CFORK on this issue in particular; 2) no reason to have an entire section on the issue in a general article on the subject of Bhutan. A stand-alone refugee section here would be WP:UNDUE anyway; compare mention but no section of Burmese refugees in the 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)

Religion

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)