Talk:Bhutanese passport

Request to edit protected page

To remove the joke audio recording on the page --Pavithran (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

See below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this has become viral and we have random folks saying keep just because it's funny. I'm hoping for some admin common sense here really --Pavithran (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No fucking way

Removing this audio file only encourages racism. You don't like it because it does sound like your english dialect, English is a multicultural language, and wikimedia is a multicultural place, where all dialects can co-exist. If this is removed it would only aid in the destruction of wikipedia ideals. It would only be replaced with something that sounds more "white," but have no change in content. And now we are at the point where any change in content would only be added so that this file can be changed.

This is racism and I won't stand for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.200.71 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a professor who had a very thick accent similar to this. This is not racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.37.101 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is simply a poor quality sound file that provides an inaccurate, and at points hard to understand, reading of the article. In my opinion it is not up to the standards acceptable to be on a Wikipedia article. The sound file has become an internet meme and needs removing unless you wish to deal with the influx of edits by children and trolls who have discovered this meme. Removal of a bad sound file has nothing to do with racism or race and I think it is utterly bizarre how you would refuse to remove a poor quality item from a page because it was produced by somebody of a certain nationality, in this case Bhutanese. This is my first ever post or edit on any Wikipedia page and I'm here because I wan't to warn you of what other internet users might do as this audio file becomes more viral and that it should be removed or replaced ASAP to prevent necessary edits or griefing by trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.131.216 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How about we have both the current audio file and one which is easier to understand? 98.192.15.85 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has hit on the real truth in this discussion: the audio file sounds the way it does because it was edited to lengthen the vowels and mask the staccato nature of the Bhutan accent. Luan Hanratty (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for temporary protection

I hereby request the article to be protected to due constant vandalism and edit war.

84.18.241.214 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The place to make that request is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Audio file

um nice reading 50.12.160.247 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sound file is ridiculous. For this reason, it has become a meme, albeit a minor one, and the source of much humour. The sound file should be removed until a more appropriate one could be sourced. Mm2000mm (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol that was so funny, I actual loled so fing hard ha.--150.216.254.204 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing this audio file only encourages racism. You don't like it because it does sound like your english dialect, English is a multicultural language, and wikimedia is a multicultural place, where all dialects can co-exist. If this is removed it would only aid in the destruction of wikipedia ideals. It would only be replaced with something that sounds more "white," but have no change in content. And now we are at the point where any change in content would only be added so that this file can be changed.

This is racism and I won't stand for it.

104.219.10.194 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of edit warring due to the above Mm2000mm (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this rfc is about whether or not the audio file should be removed from the article. Haminoon (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The sound file should be kept. The reader claims to be native Bhutanese, which explains the accent. The sound quality IS pretty bad, but if you want another file to be on this page, find someone to read the updated article. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 00:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not being an expert in the Bhutanese language I don't know if this is a typical presentation of English with Bhutan accent or not. For that reason I agree with Mr. Gerbear that it should be kept pending availability of a new sound file at which time we could replace it. It sounds like there's a slowdown effect occurring with the current recording, or it's out of sync. The reader may be affecting a somewhat dramatic styling. BlueSalix (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete It How can anyone seriously think this is real audio? The auto-tuning is so obvious in it (assuming you have decent speakers). The only people able to confirm the origin are anonymous. I thought this place was about and proof that the data is real? Instead this is making this page a joke and therefore insulting to Bhutan. This isn't a "Meme" - this is someone having a joke at the expense of Wikipedia.

If this is a page about a passport, why would it need audio on it? And if you are going to have Bhutanese audio, shouldn't it be an example of Dzongkha and not English? Why does he not pronounce the Dzongkha at the end of the article?

For reference, I came here via a link from the satirical website B3ta.com. They only include the link in the Newsletter as you are looking stupid and racist here. 86.10.167.123 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the audio not an accurate reading of the article? Just because you personally have an issue with the way this individual speaks is your problem, and no one elses. 65.191.8.82 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is the English wikipedia, not the Dzongkha wikipedia. Haminoon (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The sound file should be kept. The content corresponds to what was written back then in the article, so it is, as far as content goes, correct. There is a note about the speaker having an accent, whether it is a bhutanese accent or not is up to debate, but in my opinion not relevant. The same goes for the assumption of it being humorous. Obviously throwing around words like "stupid" and "racist" are not helpful for a civilized, pragmatic discussion. And wikipedia should be, after all, fact and not opinion based. Therefore I agree with the other people who say keep: if there is a better file, feel free to replace the current one. Until then I am against removing valid content just based on assumptions or personal views. Wikifoxy (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I can't hear any problem with it. Sounds fine to me. Haminoon (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The principle of having a sound file is fine, but possible a clearer sound file should be inserted. I don't like the idea of removing valid content just because it's humorous to people being linked here from external websites. If someone with a clearer accent recited the article as it was written when the sound file was originally added, that would be preferable to the status quo. I don't think "it's being spoken by a native Dzongkha speaker" is an adequate excuse for keeping a low quality sound file that some readers may find difficult to understand. If there is an issue with Dzongkha words being difficult to pronounce, these words should be isolated from the original file and added as short sound clips next to those specific words. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep purely for the historical value of the audio and this talk page. This will eventually get its own mention in the troll article. Much lulz. Ours18

Comment The file is archived here and the talk page will be kept, so I don't think historical value is a good reason to keep it on the page. I do not believe we are being trolled. Haminoon (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (If audio can be verified) If he is truly a native speaker and it is the accent of Bhutan, it should be kept - regardless of how such an accent sounds to Westerners (which I assume most people here are.) The mere fact that an article is being listed on satirical websites is not a good enough reason to change the article. Cacra (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What if the accent is verified as Bhutan, but the speaker is putting on a humorous affect? Imagine a hypothetical british guy narrating a WW2-related article by trying to talk like an over-the-top parody of old news real? In such a hypothetical case, the accent would be legitimately British, but the overall voice would be a silly put-on. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• The sound file is a Bhutanese national treasure and we will not have you committing this erasure of their culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.145.133 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment The file is archived here. Removing it from the page will not be erasing a part of Bhutanese culture. Haminoon (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• a definite Keep in this case --2601:C:5F00:8FC:8C4D:7B21:BB64:6E3F (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. He sounds like the dude on The Hangover when he talks. I can totally picture him ... toodaloo! lol

I'll ask my pen pal from Bhutan to listen and tell me if that is really a person from Bhutan reading the article (I am not joking - I really have a friend there). Either way, what's the point of having a Bhutanese read an article in English? Do we have German articles read by native Portuguese? It's total nonsense.

ICE77 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see why not - many Bhutanese speak English. If we allow New Zealanders to read articles then surely Bhutanese should be allowed to. I expect there are very few non-Bhutanese Wikpedians who would be able to pronounce the Dzongkha words with ease. The creator of the sound file has made some significant and worthwhile contributions to Bhutan-related articles on Wikipedia. Haminoon (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Many Bhutanese speak English. That sounds like a fair statement but if the audio file is meant to set the standard I'm sure that is not acceptable to the majority of English-speaking people. I am sure many Bhutanese can read much better than that. Asking a New Zealander to read an article in English is, obviously, a piece of cake. Dzongkha is not even close to English. Clearly, a New Zealander reading an article written in English is more appropriate because his native language is English and the text is in English. The creator of the sound file might have made some significant and worthwhile contributions to Bhutan-related articles but this doesn't mean he is infallible. This is the English wikipedia, not the Dzongkha wikipedia. The article should be read by a native English speaker or by a person that can read English fluently.

ICE77 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on the superiority of spoken English from native speakers - it is more important that the speaker is using international English. Most NZers only use one vowel - thats why we outsource our call centres to non-native speakers, and frequently employ non-native speakers in communications roles. Haminoon (talk)

• Comment After a difficult 40 seconds on youtube I was able to find an example of a man and woman from Bhutan speaking English with what must be a 'Bhutan accent' and here it is. At least now we can make a determination as to whether or not the accent is real or someone faking Engrish. Ryan shell (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Delete (unless verified) The accent in the file sounds nothing like the accent in this video. The file, to me, sounds a) like extremely poor quality and/or intentional use of effects, and b) like someone mocking asian accents. If this is legitimately the way this person sounds, then keep it regardless of how it sounds to other people (and I will feel awful for having said all this), but until that is verified this seems extremely fishy and possibly racist to me, especially compared to that youtube video. --dan (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete (Unless it's verified) This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such, we should verify such questionable content as this.--Odiseo79 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment What is questionable about it? Haminoon (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Wether the comic nature that some of us perceive is intentional or unintenional. --Odiseo79 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's justified to keep garbled audio files on wikipedia just because the editor concerned is more familiar with the issues of the article. Whilst there's nothing "questionable" about the audio and it's unlikely to be ethnic mockery, I don't think allowing audio files with unclear accents is an appropriate precedent to set. If I didn't have the article in front of me as it played, I would find this audio file difficult to follow. Maybe it would be worth inviting the user to re-record the audio? That's probably the most sympathetic way to do it.Maswimelleu (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Reason? Common sense. Wikipedia should and must comply with certain standards. Richardgbp (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep Wee-ooo wee-ooo here comes the fun police
• Replace Conditionally The majority of the argument seems to be that someone is faking an accent and therefore this is racist. I therefore support replacing/deleting it, on the condition that whomever replaces it speaks equally slowly and also uses auto-tune. Since the concern seems to be about the accent, and not the fact this is an obvious troll, that is clearly the only logical method to use. If, however, the concern is the fact that it is an obvious troll in speed and pitch - and not simply attacking this person because they happen to have an accent - then I would support deleting it on those grounds. Nickjbor (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Having a look at the contributor's page tends to lead to the conclusion that he isn't a troll. I think it'd be better to ask the contributor to re-record it - that way we can make the argument that the speed of the file and the poor quality is the issue. The accent itself wouldn't be as amusing as a meme if it was spoken more consistently. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Come on, you should realize this is way too modified, the speed is way too slow, pitch is not something normal, and pronunciation is way too weird, not even Japanese pronounce like this. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Current state-of-things I'be always thought these have helped with on-going discussions, so lets see what we have here:

1. Consensus seems to be that the audio file isn't very good: it's garbled and autotuned and may or may not be a joke.
2. The page has been protected because of vandalism. Obviously this article has attention of other sites.
3. The audio file has been nominated for deletion, but
4. no one has done a replacement (so far?), nor has anyone invited the original uploader -who doesn't actually seem to be a troll (WP:AGF)- to submit another file
5. The question of 'should Wikipedia allow audio files in the accented English of the people most closely associated with an article?' was brought up with... no real consensus. But that is probably a discussion worth having elsewhere anyway because of it's scope.

cheers! Ryan shell (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Ryan shell (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the last question is outside of the scope of this page and comment on it should be ignored. The uploading guidelines imply that South Asian accents are fine. Haminoon (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to record a replacement myself, but only if this racist "he has an accent therefore delete it" crap is stopped. Nickjbor (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for the whole discussion of course, but my original worry was that the accent was faked as part of a joke of some sort (even though i don't think that's the case now). At any rate I would love to hear this article read another way, so if you really are willing then go for it!Ryan shell (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I am partially responsible for introducing the last question mentioned, I agree it's out of scope. The key issue at hand is that the audio file is garbled. If we are provided with an audio file that is not garbled, autotuned or with extremes in pitch alongside sudden changes in reading speed, we can viably replace it. It's "funny" because it sounds autotuned and is a peculiar reading, not so much because of the accent. If we're unsatisfied with further audio contributions, I'm willing to do one myself. Deletion talk should be ongoing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bhutanese_Passport-1.ogg but few contributions there appear to anything more than attempts at humour. Maswimelleu (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

try this one: [1] Ryan shell (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sate-of-things: Day 3 The deletion discussion here seems to be a miniature example of this rfc: 'is it a joke?' 'what about the quality in general?' etc. There no consensus there, and the thought has been raised that this discussion should be more involved with the deletion discussion. Meanwhile, 2 users have volunteered to record replacement files which, if done, would probably swing the deletion discussion into consensus...not sure if it will do the same here though. Once again, cheers! Ryan shell (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• State-of-things 4' aka the 'am-I-the-only-one-who-still-cares-edition.

1. The deletion discussion is now swinging rapidly in favor of Delete with many of the keep votes wanting a replacement.
2. Would it be possible to use google-translate audio to create a replacement? A quick search tells me that... no one knows.
3. The two offers to record replacement files have been all that I've come to expect after 7 years on this site, namely that nothing has been done.
4. I reached out to the original uploader of the file, highlighting the debate on both sides and the need for a replacement file. Maybe we can get lucky and the only Bhutanese on English-wiki will do the replacement too?

Ryan shell (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the original traffic seemed to be from meme-hosting websites, rather than from editors specifically interested in keeping up discussion. I don't have a microphone readily available to record anything. I don't see this issue as so pressing that we need to replace the file tomorrow, given that the file persisted without issue for a year and a half. I'm going to watch the discussion in the other talk page before I offer anything else. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Even if you recorded a proper version, you can't add it because the page is protected. --Pavithran (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bhutanese Passport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.251.66.197 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• State-of-things Day 5 Summarising votes from users with article editing histories: 6 keeps, 1 delete unless we find out "whether the comic nature that some of us perceive is intentional or unintentional", and 1 replace conditionally. I haven't counted ICE77 because they didn't vote and mainly commented on accent. Since we don't have anything to replace it with yet I think this is a consensus for Keep. Haminoon (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The deletion debate seems to be going in another direction: 10 delete (not counting the nominator) 5 keep, as of this edit. Users associated with this discussion should probably vote there so that the rfc will reflect the discussion and vice versa. Much of the voting here (especially below) are directly related to the fact that many users find the file funny to listen to. I suspect other votes are made in jest but i guess we should AGF for now. Many in the Keep-party would like there to be a replacement which of course has not happened. Ryan shell (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, low quality narration, it's not up to Wikipedia standards, it's adds little value to the article. Possible troll attempt. HumanCapacitator (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I am blind. I have learned a lot about Bhutanese Passport today. Thank you. 2.29.103.205 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep unless another native speaker would like to record new audio. Dinoland (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Native English speaker? This is the English language Wikipedia afterall. --Pavithran (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Nobody cared for many months and now that it brightens the day of a ton of people it should be removed? Atilla000 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not nobody cared, nobody *noticed*. When people notice, they care. This is got to go.--Pavithran (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a joke. Audio could be useful for accessibility, but not of this kind. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, for the humoristic value. The content is not offending and as a matter of fact, since nobody recorded a new version of the spoken page, it adds content to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemond (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete "Accent"? I know real Bhutanese people, and they don't speak like Aliens, stop trolling.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a comedy site. Humoristic value means nothing here. The audio feature is designed to be a genuine aid for people with disabilities and is sometimes also included in Wikipedia derivative works and having some guy scream BHUTANESE PASPOooooooort doesn't serve the purpose and may detract from it and even damage the credibility of Wikipedia. --Pavithran (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't sound like a troll to me, and if it's not a troll, there's absolutely no reason to delete a helpful file. -ryand 16:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Hi everyone. Given that there's a lot of press coverage cropping up around this article - especially in the past few hours - I have temporarily removed the sound file just in case. It can go back in a few days but I really don't want Wikipedia ending up in the press with a poorly written newspaper article that fairly or unfairly criticises the sound file. That would be embarrassing for the project and for the uploader. I know I'm editing through a protection template, but I think in this case it's necessary in order to safeguard the reputation of the project... I hope you understand and that my inevitable public castration is swift and relatively painless :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What are some examples of the press coverage about this article? I've only been able to find one fleeting reference on a small German website [2]. Some have also said this is "going viral" but I can't really find any examples of that, either. I am still of the opinion the uploader may have had legitimate reason to apply voice modulation due to issues related to Bhutan's Nepali minority. We should undoubtedly source an un-modulated version for the site, ultimately, but I maintain my Weak Keep !vote that a decision should be deferred pending such a new version being available. I'm not a native speaker of English so maybe there's some hidden inference in the dialog that I missed. BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it on Reddit, and a few journalists (Vice magazine, that sort of thing) that I'm friends with on Facebook have messaged me about it asking if it's serious. In addition, the stats page at http://stats.grok.se/en/201501/Bhutanese%20passport shows that apparoximately 20 people a day viewed the article in December 2014 - yesterday it was more than 60,000 in a single day! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 11:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So journalists you're friends with PM'ed you on FB and that = "a lot of press coverage?" In any case, it sounds like you were able to diffuse these situations acceptably without invoking your state of emergency powers. BlueSalix (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That is preposterous. There has not been any significant press coverage, nor would there be. Removing something you have no evidence is incorrect purely because it would embarrass you is the worst form of censorship. You should be ashamed and you should be removed from any and all positions of leadership. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 18:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your call to action, however, it is a worrying precedent if a blog post disparaging WP is the threshold for declaring a state of emergency and suspending the normal process of consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision but can't support your call either. This isn't censorship, let alone "the worst form of censorship". Dial it down a bit. Haminoon (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided On the one hand, the recording brightened my day and the days of countless others. On the other, this is Wikipedia and not Comedy Central. If the decision is to delete then I suggest replacing it. I remade one and the audio can be found here: New Recording -- WilliamVoice (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It works, which for the blind and partially sited means it works. The comedy value is irrelevant.--Mongreilf (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• It's social media coverage not media coverage, look at the statistics [3].--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the reason given for declaring a state of emergency was "press coverage," which implies it's being headlined by CNN as opposed to some people posting it to their Facebook timelines. As for the statistics, I don't find 60,000 people on a planet of 6 billion to be highly scandalous, however, I suppose we all have different levels of tolerance. BlueSalix (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it has been on Fusion [4]. Gamaliel (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it is "funny" (that's a WP:ILIKEIT vote in its purest form, and given that most of the keep !voters have gone that way, consensus looks pretty obvious) or even how a Bhutanese speaker actually sounds; what matters is this file, and its individual qualities. And this file has clearly been recorded with a voice changer by a troll (which I believe is what is actually going on, rather than a simple bad quality), and is utterly inappropriate for inclusion in this article. If I was a blind person, and I came to this article as a serious listener, it would be of absolutely no use to me whatsoever, because that is simply not something you can listen to and take seriously. It is so inappropriate, in fact, that even if an alternative one had not been recorded (and surely there is a Bhutanese Wikiproject where a legitimate person could be asked to record it themselves) that it shouldn't be in an article. And, yes, I'm inclined to agree that this level of trolling has at least a minor racist undertone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Luke please have some respect and keep it wp:civil. The uploader isn't a troll. It's someone who has contributed many worthwhile articles regarding Bhutan to both the English and Dzongkha wikipedias. Adding audio effects to boring speeches is common for many South Asian audio productions - to me it sounds similar to a typical accountancy ad on the local Indian radio station. I don't understand the supposed racist undertones, but I'm guessing that the file has superficial similarities to a particularly ugly strain of American comedy. Since we're not all in the western world would you care to spell it out for us? Haminoon (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, and with this file, I don't see how I can. Also, don't make bogus accusations about being incivil. The uploader may not normally be a troll, but there is no way this is even remotely an appropriate file; the autotune is painfully obvious to anyone who actually listens to it (that isn't poor sound quality), and it doesn't matter one jot if it is common to add sounds to South Asian audio productions; this is Wikipedia, which purports to be an encyclopedia, not a comedy show. The racist undertones are very obvious; it sounds like a bad parody of an Asian accent, and the over-extenuated words and obvious autotune only add to that effect. Any spoken versions of Wikipedia articles should be read in a clear, mature voice, or otherwise they are useless. If I went and recorded an article in a ridiculously autotuned voice, I would still be trolling even with all of my good contributions, so... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of RfC

I am going to request a neutral editor close the above RfC (as to whether the audio file should be removed) as failed for lack of consensus. The file should then be replaced into the article following the lifting of the State of Emergency that was declared earlier which precipitated the removal of the file mid-RfC. The RfC has been open for more than the normal 7 days and participation has fallen of significantly. At this time there are 10 !votes for Delete and 12 !votes for Keep (actually 15, but three appear to be joke !votes from IP editors). If anyone objects to my making this request at requests for closure, please post here before tomorrow. BlueSalix (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would strongly object to this file being readded; most keeps are weak, and they're often solely based on the lack of existence of another file, which isn't accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The place to object to the file being readded is in the RfC. This is not a Request for Comment on the file, but is a Request for Comment on a Request for Closure on the Request for Comment. Any comments should, therefore, be about the Request for Closure, and not about the Request for Comment. BlueSalix (talk)

• I already have voice my opinion there, but you're asserting that there is a consensus for keep when there blatantly isn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't asking for a consensus to insert a file that had been deleted, the RfC was asking for a consensus to remove a file that was already present. I understand that point got extremely confused/muddled once the State of Emergency was declared and the extant file was deleted mid-RfC. However, the fact remains, there is not even a simple majority of editors who support removing the file, let alone a wide-ranging consensus. We don't remove content because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. BlueSalix (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on deliberately misrepresenting the delete voters. Way to go! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to represent the delete "voters." I was only attempting to represent you. And this seems to be your position. In the lack of even simple majority support for removal you have simply declared, without any explanation, that consensus has been achieved for removal. I'm unclear how else we'd be expected to characterize such a position. Anyway, this is obviously a non-productive conversation so I'm going to request the close of the RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Update - the separate deletion discussion of the audio file has just been closed as No Consensus for deletion. I expect this RfC will probably be closed shortly, also, as No Consensus for removal. The file should be restored to the article and the State of Emergency lifted. BlueSalix (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LOL audio

What the heck is happened to the speaker?! LOL--93.148.0.91 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I suspect some drunkard reading this and upload this file, I do agree we should remove it.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. 67.242.173.237 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 January 2015

I would like to edit this article, there are a few factual errors which I can fix. 99.229.232.83 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific. BlueSalix (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 January 2015

Request to revise audio to redone recording found here: New Recording. It took me 10 minutes to record but hopefully it can put this hilarious matter to rest.

WilliamVoice (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh, unfree media?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just updated with the correct link. The audio clip was created by me but can be used, edited, downloaded, and modified to what ever capacity. I take no ownership and relinquish all rights. Is there a more formal process that I must go through to assign the track under creative commons? WilliamVoice (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note I see no problems with this recording. Could you upload it to Commons and reactivate the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you relinquish it under CC, thanks! :D Just upload it to commons.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Updated edit request as well. Cheers :) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bhutanese_Passport.ogg -- WilliamVoice (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What's with the movie announcer inflection? You have a great voice, but I'm not sure this is an appropriate narration for WP. BlueSalix (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still better than that "drunk Alien" voice.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As per Haminoon's advise elsewhere, please keep it CIVIL and AGF. The uploader has a substantial contribution history of positive edits. BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 January 2015

Updated edit request to replace current audio with that found on the following Wikimedia page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bhutanese_Passport.ogg -- WilliamVoice (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) WilliamVoice (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It doesn't look like there is a consensus for this change - see the discussion below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2015

Change the audio file back to the old version, as the new version uses the wrong tones in the Dzongkha words. Haminoon (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also believe removing the original file goes against the consensus on the rfc, which from editors with editing histories has 8 keeps and only 6 deletes. Haminoon (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

to be fair, the deletion discussion is going in the other direction with a lot of outcry for a replacement file. Unless we can actually find another Bhutanese person to speak Bhutanese accented English for the replacement, I'm more or less content with this file Ryan shell (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The deletion discussion has a limited scope - deletion of the file. While I appreciate the effort to record a new one, I completely disagree using the dramatic "movie announcer" inflection and such a decision should not be simply decreed under the stipulations of the current State of Emergency a functionary has declared on this page. Haminoon also raises a valid point about the Dzongkha words. BlueSalix (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't need to be Bhutanese - they just need to be able to pronounce the Dzongkha words correctly. I don't care what accent they have or how dramatic they sound. As it stands the original file is the most accurate. Haminoon (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't go against consensus when most of those voters are solely saying "Keep: It's funny!"... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Did any editors with editing histories say anything like that? Please don't misrepresent what people have said. Haminoon (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this change, especially when you look at the deletion discussion. And I believe it would be wise to tread carefully here due to the extra media attention that this page is getting. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of Audio File

MSGJ - based on your closure of the RfC it appears the file should remain pending the upload of a better file (you said several people (including those who voted keep) said that if a superior version was uploaded, it would be preferable to use that one. So I suggest that this be pursued)). Mid-point during the RfC a State of Emergency was declared by Chase, the file removed, and the article fully protected. As no editors are currently permitted to edit this article until February 11 to bring it into compliance with the RfC decision, can you un-protect it so the file can be restored pending choice of a better file? BlueSalix (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not say "the file should remain pending the upload of a better file". I have removed the audio file. If there is consensus to use a new file, then I am happy to add it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• MSGJ, you said you agreed that "if a superior version was uploaded, it would be preferable to use that one," noting that several 'Keep' !votes had suggested that (myself included; in fact, I believe I was the first editor to proffer that). Since your ruling was there was no consensus for the RfC (which was, should the file be removed?), we'll need the file restored (once the unilaterally imposed State of Emergency is lifted). If I am mistaken and your ruling was that the RfC had achieved consensus to remove the file, please clarify. (What I am absolutely certain about, however, is that none of the Keep !votes said "remove the file pending a new version" but, rather, "restore the file pending a new version." The role of a RfC closer is to evaluate consensus or lack thereof, not to unilaterally impose a new option that had never been discussed in the RfC in question.) BlueSalix (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• May I also add that this entire affair has been, without a doubt, one of the most brazen and astonishing exhibitions of admin ownership of, not a single article, but the entire WP project that I have ever seen. One can dress this up, slap make-up on it, and call it "discretionary latitude" if one wants, but that doesn't change reality. And, quite frankly, had the unilateral State of Emergency not been imposed on this page I'm sure the consensus might very well have gone to delete. The umbrage of editors at learning they are simply thick-skulled morons whose irrationality and hysteria are carefully kept in check by the shimmering majesty of the wise grey-beards of the life-termed Admin conservatorship, who can unilaterally and without consultation invoke (apparently unlimited) reserve power, probably resulted in at least a few "keep" !votes. The democratic nature of the project has suffered more today as a result of this than it ever did from the file itself. I think I'm now inclined to agree with Geofferic's earlier comment. BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so passionate about including this audio file into the article? There is no way any administrator could have found consensus to leave it in from the discussion above. I suggest you work on creating a better recording rather than whinging. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The RfC was if the file should be removed not included. There was not consensus to remove it. 12 serious !votes to keep (as you rightly pointed out, 3 were frivolous) and 10 !votes to delete, with every point and counter-point being competently answered, is nowhere in the vicinity of a consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A few points while I have a minute on break:

1. This isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopaedia.
2. I'm pretty sure I don't 'own' Wikipedia, and neither does MSGJ. I think you would do well to lay the hyperbole on a little less thickly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, you interfered in the RfC because your friends were sending you Facebook messages you didn't like about the article [5]. If invoking your powers to trump a RfC due to a desire to keep your Facebook timeline clear of unwelcome PMs isn't an indicator of ownership, I'm not sure what is. But, okay, since you don't own the article, you should have no objection in unprotecting it so editors other than you have the opportunity to collaborate, right? Or are you going to keep the "No Trespassing" sign up? BlueSalix (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I totally support what Chase me ladies did. It improved the encyclopedia. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The sound file is, no doubt, submitted in good faith, but it invites ridicule on the user who recorded it, and on Wikipedia generally. It needs to be gone. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia file

Assuming that a better audio recording isn't uploaded, should the Bhutanese Passport-1.ogg file be returned to the page? Haminoon (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It would be useful if commenters read the guidelines on these pages: WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, Reading Guidelines, Recording guidelines. I have started this RFC because the previous RFC had many editors requesting a new reading as a preference but as yet no-one has uploaded a suitable file. Haminoon (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I am concerned the file was removed from the page because people from certain countries had difficulty understanding the accent. This sets a dangerous precedent regarding Spoken Wikipedia volunteers from outside the majority English-speaking countries, and contributes to Wikipedia's systemic bias. One comment said the article "should be read by a native English speaker". I am also concerned it was removed for the post-production effects (which are common in many South Asian audio effects) when the guidelines haven't been updated to prohibit this, and also that it was removed for bearing a superficial resemblance to an ugly racist strain of American comedy used to mock English speakers whose first language is tonal. I don't hear anything wrong with the file, and I don't consider the spoken wikipedia project is improved by removing files for spurious reasons. Haminoon (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Don't add this file. It's not a "different accent". It's a bad joke that doesn't belong here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amir, do you have any evidence it is a joke? The editor has a pretty solid history on Bhutan-related articles. I'm assuming any perceived humour is unintentional. Haminoon (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the rationale provided by Haminoon. I don't see why we should not have it. Delibzr (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Don't add the file. Evidently a joke. The great variation in syllable length, pitch, and volume, for example, are hard to explain as a foreign accent. For comparison, here is a video featuring what are apparently authentic Bhutanese accents. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Granger, the file has post-production which accounts for most of the issues you brought up. The accent used sounds like a Bhutanese accent to me (I live in a place with many refugees from Bhutan). The accents in English do vary a fair bit and the uploader has lived for some time in Myanmar (another place with a tonal language). Articles on Bhutan need a lot of work, and I fear we have scared off a valuable editor by not assuming good faith. Haminoon (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep because "I think it's a joke" is no reason to remove the file. The editor who uploaded it seems entirely sincere, and we have no reason to disbelieve him. Just because certain people from the West feel that the file sounds too strange to be legitimate, does not represent proof that it is a joke. See Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith for more information on Wikipedia's policy.Zaixionito (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think the sound distortion is out of place, but the accent seems to be authentic and rare. I also do assume good faith. Furthermore everybody is allowed to contribute to the spoken Wikipedia, independent of it's abilities. It's in the nature of the project, that recordings, other the written texts, can't be "corrected", so there should and could be no judgement about the quality. Spoken articles are just a little bonus without a very prominent placement inside the article pages, so it might hardly disturb anybody. --LordOider (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Don't add I don't think the file is a joke, I think it is a good faith effort. But even edits done in good faith can be removed from Wikipedia if they don't fit, and the effects added on this file make it detract from the quality of the page, not add to it.  DiscantX 01:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I've been keeping an eye on this article and I am dismayed that what appeared to be a consensus on the issue was ignored. I don't believe the audio file is intended to be a joke, rather I think some over-zealous community members have ignored the consensus with the vague justification of 'policy.' As I said before, until a new, superior, audio-file is uploaded the old one should be put back in the article. Bad audio quality and a strong accent is not justification for taking down a legitimate resource. Cacra (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• 'Delete'. It sounds like someone with a Scouse accent having a joke. Even if it's not, the argument that it's representative of the Bhutanese is a non-sequitur; the audio files aren't there to demonstrate accents, they're there to read out the article in clear, coherent English. Imagine showing this article to investors; you'd tell them not to click on the audio file, and on a pragmatic level that's why it doesn't have a place here. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a non-sequiter - the argument was against people saying its a hoax or a racist parody. Its hard for me to imagine talking to investors. I think editors need to be remind themselves what the spoken wikipedia project is actually for.-- haminoon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Judging submissions based on an accent is a slippery slope. Many English dialects sound unusual to other English speakers, and there is not a clear line where we can define a submission as "clear enough." Runk1395 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately I think the argument has become "someone on the internet thought this was funny so we must delete it." Wikipedia uses public domain materials and media generously donated by Wikipedia editors. Refusing content because it doesn't sound the way we expect it to is no reason to delete the content. Et0048 (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep How absurd, because of a regional dialect difference a valuable spoken article for the visibly impaired or for those who wish to know certain native pronunciations should be deleted? What next? Should there be an addendum to Wikipedia's policy that only certain regionally accented contributors may create audio files for articles? Perhaps we should have all Wikipedia articles spoken in an American accent, despite the fact the actual Bhutanese individual who created the file is perfectly pronouncing the native language. What an absolute preposterous, baseless argument. A very dangerous precedent, where will it end? Will certain people from certain OECD educationally ranked countries be blocked from editing articles because they don't meet some arbitrary educational requirement? What an absolute disgrace the amount of time and user energy being dedicated to this, that could have been channeled into improving the site elsewhere. Congratulations everyone on inflating this issue, it seems the uploader who has made some valuable contributions to the social and political make-up of Bhutan - of which there is precious little information - seems to have abstained from any more contributions. This whole situation is a complete and utter disgrace.109.148.116.24 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Omit. Invites ridicule on the person who recorded it, which is a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Kingdom of Buhutan. Caldzaang (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Add dzongkha script for dzeng (ཛེང). 90.231.228.254 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- haminoon (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is there an article about Bhutanese passports anyway?

This isn't notable. There's nothing in particular about Bhutanese passports that distinguishes them from other passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.2.28 (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that all of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Passports_by_country -- exist. -- 74.84.200.2 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article has no reliable independent sources and fails to establish anything beyond what is obvious from the title. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly but we do have articles on passports from other countries, such as Australian passport, Canadian passport, United States passport and all of the other ones listed at Category:Passports by country. This article could probably be expanded to include similar material to some of those articles, but I don't see why it shouldn't stay.  DiscantX 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Keep this page!

I came here before my trip to Bhutan to learn a little more about Bhutanese culture. Why would something like this be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68B4:8E0:C037:7881:676F:1A71 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Because it's an article that says nothing beyond what the title implies. A Bhutanese passport is a passport issued to Bhutan nationals, and... er... that's it. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • How about the passport colours, the history of the passport, what makes dedicated pages for passports by countries more legitimate than others. Should we delete the Australian Passport page, or German Passport page? A United States passport is a passport issued to United States nationals, and... er... that's it. Flawless logic. 109.148.116.24 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Page is being reverted because RfC is open

JzG is reverting any attempts to put the audio back on the page because the RfC is still open. But looking above, there's been no updates to the RFC since late January. The request to delete the audio from wikimedia was no consensus, and nothing else seems to have been said about removing the audio from the article page. So what's happening? Where's the continued discussion about the audio being removed from the article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyf (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion going on a couple of sections above this titled Spoken Wikipedia file.  DiscantX 01:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguably its not open - the RFC bot removed the template and delisted it. And I don't see how this is a reason to remove the file - the default position would be to leave the file there. Would an uninvolved editor like to formally close the rfc? -- haminoon (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

new file

There have been numerous editors going against consensus to remove an audio file (including one admin), most (if not all) of whom have not been involved in the Spoken Wikipedia project. Here's a tip: if you don't like the file why don't you make a new one? There's a clear consensus above that it should be replaced with a suitable file; but there is no consensus for it to be removed.

And since the numerous bad-faith comments above seem to have hounded one of the few editors to contribute to Bhutan articles out of here, then how about some of you work on Bhutan-related articles? Its a woefully inadequate corner of Wikipedia. The prime minister's page is four short paragraphs and says nothing about his politics (whilst being the first PM to win an election over an incumbent). The refugee article is out-of-date and biased. Some of the ethnic groups don't have articles and those that do are confusing and badly written. There's even Bhutanese languages without articles. -- haminoon (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the file because I didn't know there had been discussion on this page. Now I do. Nevertheless, I don't believe there is a consensus for keeping the file. If there is, I apologize. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will accept Haminoon's challenge to work on Bhutan articles for the next week. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)