Jump to content

Talk:Gross National Happiness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge, rename or leave?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge Gross National Happiness and Gross National Well-being, as they are related but distinct topics. Klbrain (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Gross National Happiness (here), and Gross National Well-being.

There are two concepts Gross National Happiness/Gross National Wellness index which is international, and Gross National Happiness index which is local to Bhutan.

Should these article be:

  1. Merged into one with information on, and differences between, both concepts covered.
  2. Renamed - for example 'Gross National Happiness' and 'Gross National Happiness' (Bhutan), with hatnotes saying 'not to be confused with ...'.
  3. Leave - the articles are fine.
  4. Something else.

Any suggestions? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjwilmsi:@Volunteer Marek: I see you have recently edited this article, so therefore may have some input for the merge discussion. Regards Jonpatterns (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to leave it because each article (Bhutan GNH Index & GNW / GNH Index) is distinct topic and can grow in content. For example, I just added survey components section to GNW and critisim section. I also plan to add 33 indicators and criticism section to Bhutan GHH Index page. Gross National Happiness is general philosophy, but the indicators can be different but related topics, just like Economic Development has different philosphies and different implementations or indices. Merging them can make the gross national happiness philosophy article very long and difficult to read, edit and manage. But again, you can combine them and when content grows, you can separate them, but that can be complicated too Cali-santa-monica (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'Gross National Happiness' should be renamed to reflect it is local to Bhutan.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To limit GNH to Bhutan is a disservice to what GNH has become. Of course the philosophy should be credited to the King of Bhutan, which is clearly shown in the page. But Bhutan GNH Index is only the local initiative and there are other GNH initiatives inspired by the same philosophy. For example, GDP. started by an American scientist and implemented by the US government, but after 8 decades, most world countries use it. GNH is a philosophy that inspired similar intiatives outside Bhutan, such as Thailand, USA, and others. I could list several other similar initiatives such as GPI, SPI, they started by certain countries but become international. I think GNH should be written as a philosophy then show how it started and it evolved inside and outside Bhutan. This gives credit to the king and his impact on the world. Please note, I'm not Bhutanese and not connected to the king in anyway, I jut like the GNH concept and happiness philosophy and believe we could use more GNH like Initiatives Cali-santa-monica (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One question is how to let readers differentiate between GNH as a philosophy/philosophies and how it is implemented in different countries. Also, is there any difference between 'Gross National Happiness' and 'Gross National Well Being', or just different terms for the same thing? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave article as is, just provide a link from GNH page to GNW they are related concepts but not the same, other concepts such as happiness index is also inspired GNW which was originally inspired by the king of Bhutan, yet they provide different approaches to the same economic issue ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.146.226 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jonpatterns: Strong keep as-is. The concepts are related, but not closely enough to be merged. There's a difference between a philosophy and an index, just like the difference between the jobs of a scientist and an engineer. As a basis for a Wikibook, however, I think they go together well, but would need other topics and a broader theme to be enough for a book.
About the GNH title & Bhutan: Strong keep as-is. I have heard periodically about Gross National Happiness as a concept, not an index, since I was a child in the 1970s, and until today I didn't know the origin of the quote. The quote has become globalized in perception in each instance I've come across over time. Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Separate page for GNH Index?

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia community! I was recently updating the Gross National Happiness (GNH) page, and feel that there should be a separate page on the GNH Index. While GNH is a development philosophy emphasizing holistic development beyond GDP, the GNH Index is a separate analytical tool meant to inform public policy in Bhutan (and, in turn, help achieve GNH goals). Although linked - and in a sense, of course, the index is an aspect of GNH - I feel that the index should spawn a separate page that goes into details such as the history of the index, how it is constructed and calculated, and each have a section explaining of the 2010 and 2015 survey results. What do you guys think? --TheQw 20:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)

I am unconvinced that a separate article is warranted. This article is only 16 kB; just write about the index in a section here? If it becomes too long and merits a split, it can be split cleanly at that time. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gross National Happiness. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gross National Happiness. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gross National Happiness. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section, February 2018

[edit]

Two different IP users (User:83.244.167.68 and User:5.148.42.186) have added what appears to be copyrighted material to this article that is not properly cited. The following content, which features at the end of the fourth paragraph added, is improperly cited to The Economist but appears to be sourced from the conclusion of an article titled Gross National Happiness of Bhutan and its False Promises by David Luechauer, published on Global South Development Magazine:

The headlines of the nations’ leading papers continue to document increasing levels of political corruption, the rapid spread of diseases such as aids and tuberculosis, gang violence, abuses against women and ethnic minorities, shortages in food/medicine, and economic woes that make Bhutan barely discernible from any other nation. Given the size of its population, Bhutan is actually in much worse shape than most of the GDP measuring nations that GNH advocates like to condemn.

It should be noted that the GSDM content, along with the legitimate quote from The Economist that precedes it, is featured here, where both are erroneously cited to The Economist. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the entire contribution because, apart from the copyrighted material from GSDM that was improperly cited to The Economist, its overall quality was poor and it wasn't clear to me that you checked it carefully. For instance, the fourth and sixth paragraphs of the addition are virtually identical apart from a small change in their first sentences.
Moreover, this is not a case where I can simply "fix" an attribution error. It appears that you've copied and pasted content directly from this link, without quoting it or indicating its correct source. I'm willing to assume good faith here and assume that you came across the text on the Journalism Watch site and that you didn't realize that the GSDM content was improperly attributed there. At the very least, this content needs to be rewritten in your own words and not simply copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'm willing to work together with you to fix it, but please acknowledge the error and take responsibility for your contributions. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dragfyre, thank you for your detailed explanation this time, now I understand you were also editing in good faith, I hope you can understand it is distressing for someone to delete your entire contribution instead of fixing or removing problematic areas. I do take responsibility and I will fix it. Can you please work with me to fix this? First time, you suggested, missing quotations, I fixed it. I did write the statements, then I provided supporting links. I will paraphrase, maybe you can also help. I'm also not so good with formatting, your help will be appreciated. Thanks 5.148.42.186 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • User:Dragfyre, despite warning, you keep deleting criticism of GNH contribution under pretext of copyright, but no copyright issue. Multiple sources and quotations marks used for supporting statements. Wikipedia is not PR pages for any country, neutral and equal space is given to all views.

Please specify which part you consider a copyright violation and why? Please be specific. Quotation marks are used and multiple sources are provided.

The problematic section is noted in my initial message on this talk page, and I've explained the problem further in my reply above. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dragfyre, I made some additional changes, can you please help approve or suggest further improvement? 5.148.42.186 (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Full text of 5.148.42.186's addition

GNH has been described by critics as a propaganda tool used by the Bhutanese government to distract from ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses it has committed.[1][2]

According to the critics, the original GNH philosophy tenets were not compatible with modern, open and democratic societies. Two of the four main tenants, specifically, good governance and cultural preservation were linked to the suffering and unhappiness of many of Kingdom population. They claim that government propaganda has resulted in the corruption of historical truth about the original meaning of GNH and resulting government policies. For three decades since the coining of the phrase GNH, the kingdom was ruled as a monarchy and authoritarian rule. Bhutan became a democracy only after 2008. Before that time the country saw one of the largest ethno-religious cleansing against its non-Buddhist population of ethnic Nepalese of Hindu faith as a result of the GNH cultural preservation. The government denied ethnic cleansing charges but international organizations documented the events. According to Human Rights Watch, “Over 100,000 or 1/6 of the population of Bhutan of Nepalese origin and Hindu faith were expelled from the country because they would not integrate with Bhutan’s Buddhist culture.” [3] Refugee Council of Australia called it "Gross National Hypocrisy". Referring to the government GNH propaganda, the council state that “It is extraordinary and shocking that a nation can get away with expelling one sixth of its people and somehow keep its international reputation largely intact. The Government of Bhutan should be known not for Gross National Happiness but for Gross National Hypocrisy." [4]

This criticism has been countered by Bhutanese and some western promoters of Bhutan GNH philosophy, stating that GNH is a process of development and learning, rather than an objective norm or absolute end point. Bhutan aspires to enhance the happiness of its people and GNH serves as a measurement tool for realizing that aspiration. [5].

Scholars who defend Bhutan GNH history are seen as Bhutan apologetics and are criticized for presenting only a rosy picture of the GNH while failing to condemn or even mention the impact of the negative historical GNH policies of the Kingdom. According to the Economist Magazine, “the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is not in fact an idyll in a fairy tale. It is home to perhaps 900,000 people most of whom live in grinding poverty.” The headlines of the nations’ leading papers continue to document increasing levels of political corruption, the rapid spread of diseases such as aids and tuberculosis, gang violence, abuses against women and ethnic minorities, shortages in food/medicine, and economic woes that make Bhutan barely discernible from any other nation. Given the size of its population, Bhutan is actually in much worse shape than most of the GDP measuring nations that GNH advocates like to condemn. [6]

The government linked Centre for Bhutan Studies that is credited with the creation of Bhutan's local GNH Index and assumed the lead role as the international promoter of Bhutan GNH history in western academic and political circles, failed to mention the earlier GNH policy mistakes and how western scholarly contributions and democratic values influenced and changed GNH policies to fit modern democratic governance values. Some western historical researchers state that Bhutan's GNH philosophy “has evolved over the last decade through the contribution of western and local scholars to a version that is more democratic and open. Therefore, probably, the more accurate historical reference is to mention the coining of the GNH phrase as a key event, but not the Bhutan GNH philosophy, because the philosophy as understood by western scholars is different from the philosophy used by the King at the time.” [7]

Scholars who defend Bhutan GNH history are seen as Bhutan apologetics and are criticized for not reporting on the negative impact of historical GNH policies of the Kingdom. According to the Economist Magazine, “The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is not in fact an idyll in a fairy tale. It is home to perhaps 900,000 people most of whom live in grinding poverty. The headlines of the nations’ leading papers continue to document increasing levels of political corruption, the rapid spread of diseases such as aids and tuberculosis, gang violence, abuses against women and ethnic minorities, shortages in food/medicine, and economic woes that make Bhutan barely discernible from any other nation. Given the size of its population, Bhutan is actually in much worse shape than most of the GDP measuring nations that GNH advocates like to condemn”. [8] 5.148.42.186 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thapa, Saurav Jung (July 2011). "Bhutan's Hoax: of Gross National Happiness". Wave Magazine. Archived from the original on July 13, 2011.
  2. ^ Arora, Vishal (April 25, 2014). "Bhutan's Human Rights Record Defies 'Happiness' Claim". The Diplomat.
  3. ^ Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/02/01/bhutans-ethnic-cleansing
  4. ^ The Australian Refugee Council https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/media/time-to-challenge-bhutans-gross-national-hypocrisy/
  5. ^ Sander G. Tideman (2016), Gross National Happiness: Lessons for Sustainability Leadership South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 190 – 213
  6. ^ The Economist Magazine http://www.economist.com/node/3445119
  7. ^ The History of Gross National Happiness https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317151566_The_History_of_Gross_National_Happiness
  8. ^ The Economist Magazine http://www.economist.com/node/3445119

Questions on the article

[edit]

Hi! so I just finished reading this article and I was wondering in the section, Spread of GNH Outside of Bhutan, when or if there will be an update of the Charter of Happiness? In this article the last update was in May of 2018. Also another question that I have is if there are any other new places where GNH is spread? Thank you — Myafukazawa (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gross_National_Happiness&oldid=1205968752"