"GYANENDRA" is written in all caps as if it were his family name. It isn't; as I understand it, it's his given name, and his family name is "Bir Bikram". -phma 06:06, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
- According to this site his full name is Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. It seems that "Gyanendra" could be his given name and "Bir Bikram" his family name, as you say. I understand that "Shah" is the name of the dynasty he belongs to. I'm not sure what "Dev" means, although it seems to be the male form of "Devi" -- perhaps an honorific title? DhDh 07:30, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
- "Dev" means "god" (at least in Hindi, which is closely related). Some of the kings on that page are named "Bikram" without "Bir", so I think we'll have to ask a Nepali to sort it out. -phma 07:42, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
i am a nepali. Gyanendra is his first name and shah his last name, and also the name of the dynasty. 'Bir Bikram' is just a middle name. The first king of Nepal, as a kingdom, was Prithvi Narayan Shah, Narayan being his middle name and Shah his last name. just to prove a point.
- The royal family probably replaced a more ordinary family name with 'Shah' at some point, just as the Ranas originally were the Kunwars. Apparently Shah is a Persian word that comes from the same root as 'Kshatriya', both meaning 'preserver'.
- Although contemporary accounts say Prithvi Narayan's forefathers were already 'Shah', that seems pretentious in Gorkha, which was not a big kingdom in its day. If I were a neighborhing king, I might have been tempted to attack just to put those pretentious people in their place! So is there more than a little creative fiction in the royals' family history? LADave 03:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
"Dev" means "deity". It may be tacked on because of the belief that the king is divine. This only applies to the current king. Dead kings have outlived divinity and crown princes don't have it yet. LADave 02:06, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
We're not really disputing the facts in the CIA World Factbook 2002 import, are we? B-) I've stripped the CIA factbook crap off this article -- it needed to be done -- and moved it to Talk:Nepal/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. --Evan 10:25, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
Hmm, I dont think I agree with moving the whole Volunteer in Nepal article into the Nepal article. It was never part of the Nepal page before. We have seperate travel issue articles for driving in different places, etc, so there is a precedent for detailed info. I'd include a graph or two about it on the Nepal page of course... but there is a difference between the travel info and the travel topic. Majnoona 23:32, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)
- It's short info for a specific country. If it was really long and had various subsections and detailed info, I'd agree... but why make an article for a few sentences? Doesn't make much sense IMO. It's not like Nepal is overflowing with written material either. I think a much better idea would be a general "volunteer work" article; many underdeveloped countries could stand from such help and several organizations exist that organize such projects. -- Nils 05:59, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)
- It's not a few sentence-- it's several graphs at this point and I hope it grows with added information. A general "volunteer" article may be ok, but it sounds too general too me-- like a "Driving" article. I would be happy to see travel topic pages on volunteering in all areas of the globe, but you have to start somewhere and I started with Volunteer in Nepal. Majnoona 19:04, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)
I'm all for the big warning at the top, but is there some way to deal with the crummy layout? There's about two pages of white space along the side-bar... I don't get wikimarkup enough to do anything about it, but maybe just moving the sidebar down or something? Help? Majnoona 10:56, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)
Not mention of the civil war?
The article fails to mention that about 60% of the country is under Maoist-rebel controll and that sporadic firefights occur near military bases. There should be quite an extensive section added to it. --126.96.36.199 20:11, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)
- There is a mention in the 'Stay safe' section, but if you feel that more needs to be added, please click the 'edit' button and write. However, please bear in mind that this is a guide not an encyclopedia, so the information should be more traveler based. WindHorse 14 Feb 06
The Parliament has been reinstated by the popular movement in April 2006 (the Jana Andolan-II) So the type of the government should be changed in the Infoox.188.8.131.52 04:30, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
- Please feel free to do so. -- Mark 05:00, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Regarding the latest addition, are you sure it's a punishable offense to carry the notes, or just unwise? My understanding was that, due to excessive counterfeiting, they were just pretty hard to get rid of... but this is the first I've heard of it being illegal... – cacahuate talk 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
there is nothing else to drink than alcoholic drinks?
- Sure there's water. With most people doing their 'business' outdoors, it's practically guaranteed to make you sick, so it should always be boiled or chemically treated enough to kill resistant cysts and eggs as well as bacteria and protozoans. A great excuse for adding alcohol prophylactically, even if it doesn't really work. Tea is safer because it's made with boiling water and won't have you stumbling off the trail. LADave 16:47, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
The following comments were added to my Talk page by contributor David. WindHorse 01:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
The government's super-zones must have been set up for administrative convenience. They lack geographic, historical & cultural validity. Of course travelers might be better equipped to deal with the bureaucracy if they are somewhat familiar with the government's schema. So let's leave this scheme alone for bureaucratic purposes.
However for other travel purposes it made more sense to me to organize things by drainage basins: (1) Kosi in the east, (2) Bagmati (Kathmandu Valley), (3) most of the Gandaki basin, (4) (west) Rapti and Babai basins and stuff north of them (technically in the Gandaki and Karnali/Bheri basins) through the Dhaulagiri range and valleys behind, and (5) the remainder of the Karnali/Bheri basin and Mahakali up to the Indian border. Perhaps these could be called Kosi, Bagmati, Gandaki, Rapti-Dhaulagiri, and Karnali-Mahakali Regions.
For travel purposes it seemed really unnatural to divide Mid-West and Far-west at the Karnali River! Nepalis and trekkers quickly get across rivers via primitive ferryboats or bridges. Major drainage divides -- these tend to be high ridges -- make more sense than rivers as boundaries. Getting up to these ridges can be a serious hike! Nepalis are as practical as anyone else and try to avoid it, thus drainage divides are cultural divides too.
The way I did it has more historical validity too. Khas peoples speaking the progenitor of Nepali developed their core identity in the Mahakali and Karnali/Bheri basins. They detoured around the Babai/Rapti basins into the Gandaki basin to settle and grow rice. Prithvi Narayan appears there in the 1700s and heads east to conquer the Bagmati region (Kathmandu valley), then the Kosi region beyond. He or his heirs also consolidate the rest of the country -- the "Chaubisi" (24 principality confederation of the Gandaki basin) and the "Baisi" (22 principality confederation of the Karnali/Bheri basin).
Each river-oriented region can also be subdivided by elevation into Terai (Madesi and Tharu), Lower hills (Brahman-Chhetri), upper hills (Magar, Gurung, Tamang, etc.), then Bhote (Tibetan). It may be a little complicated, but travelers exposed to this stuff will be better prepared for "ground truth".
The new district designations are very practical and helpful, and as a frequent visitor to Nepal, your efforts are appreciated. It should be a final goal, however, to produce a totally new hierarchy to replace the government designated zones, and so we could keep the information on the front page short and succinct (like perhaps Bhutan or even India). Do think we could use your list as it stands? It needs to be kept to no more than nine places max (which it is). Under this hierarchy, where are the Solu Khumbu and Dolpo regions. Presumably they are classified under Himalaya? This article might be helpful: Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy#Regions. Maybe some of the more popular tourist areas could be mentioned in the blurb. What do you think? However, I replaced the dab for Pashupatinath and Dakshinkali as these are just temple complexes, not destinations with hotels like Boudhanath. Please see: Wikitravel:What is an article?. Anyway, thanks for all your input. Your practical knowledge is very helpful. So, at the moment, do you want to replace the original list with your new hierarchy? That is fine with me. We can tweak as we go along. WindHorse 01:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT) Moved detailed discussion of regions to ;Understand' section and put capsule summaries in 'Regions'. Also added topics under 'Understand' for future development. LADave 14:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Hi Dave, thanks for continuing to add your knowledge and insights to the Nepal page. It is looking good. However, Wikitravel has a policy that lists of places (cities, other destinations etc) should not exceed nine, and so I have removed 4 of the places you recently added to the list. Sorry about that. Anyway, please check to see if you agree with my choice of deletions. The cities that are listed should be chosen by their popularity with tourists, and is drawn up to give them easy access to info, like an index. It is not a promotion of places. Obviously, KTM, Pokhara, Patan, Bhaktapur and Namche Bazaar should be listed, but the others are open. Also, the info on the front page should be kept succinct (see India and Bhutan as examples), and more in depth info should be placed on the actual articles themselves. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or one of the regular contributors. Take it easy. WindHorse 21:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT) Ps. you might find the info on this page of use: Wikitravel: Manual of style
- Maybe the administrative districts should be tossed out. Development workers need to know them, but not travelers.
So now we have kind of a matrix: south to north and west to east. I think we need to explain both. The south to north is obviously important in understanding the geography. West to east explains the flow of history, as well as certain aspects of geography.
Most treks are along the north-south axis, along rivers and streams. Going east or west means going against the grain with a lot more up and down. Exceptions might be Trisuli(Nuwakot)-Gorkha-Pokhara, Baglung-Dhorpatan(-Jumla), and the Terai or Inner-Terai. This seems to argue for a structure like this:
* Mahakali, Karnali-Bheri, (west) Rapti region o Terai, Siwaliks and Inner Terai o Mahabharat Range and Hills o Himalaya o transHimalaya * Gandaki o (repeat elevation structure) * Bagmati o Kathmandu Valley * Kosi o (repeat elevation structure without transhimalaya)
Probably the text about regions can be boiled down some. However after looking at the India article, I don't think the Nepal article has gotten too long. Bhutan is far simpler.
- Hi Dave - Personally, I am fine with replacing the regional list based on administrative zones with a more traveler-based hierarchy. However, irrespective on how we divide up the Cities and Other destinations, they still should not exceed nine. That is the same for a small place like Bhutan or huge countries like China or India, so I'm afraid I have had to revert that edit. Apologies for that. Think of the front page as merely an index in a book. People don't want to be overwhelmed with info at this stage of their search. They just want easy access to the places they seek. Take a look at Wikitravel: Manual of style and Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy. I think you'll find them useful. Anyway, thanks again for your contributions. They are really helping improve the quality of the Nepal article. Incidentally, any further discussions regarding Nepal should be conducted here so thatother contributors may add their opinions. WindHorse 21:26, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, Let's collapse Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur into a single entry. Something like "Kathmandu (the capital) and its satellite cities Patan and Bhaktapur. Also we can delete Biratnagar, Birganj and Nepalganj in that top-level city list because they are transportation hubs, not tourist destinations. Transportation hubs can be dealt with regionally and in conjunction with itineraries.
For the western half of the country, I would add Tansen, Gorkha (possibly combined with Pokhara) and maybe Jumla. This leaves slots open for tourist destinations in eastern Nepal besides Namche. I hardly know eastern Nepal at all, so let others advocate for their faves.
BTW, -gunj endings (Birgunj, Nepalgunj) break with conventions for transliterating devanagari into roman and should be changed to 'ganj'. 'U' in a transliterated word should always rhyme with 'moo', but the sound we call a 'short u' gets transliterated as 'a', which must be where the confusion arose. 184.108.40.206 05:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
- Hi Dave. Combining cities to form one entry has been discussed many times before and rejected. The 'Cities' and 'Other destinations' lists should not exceed 9, and that's the absolute max. Sorry about that (though it was it good suggestion). In addition, if we can draw up a list of nine popular cities for huge countries like India, China and the US, then Nepal should be no problem. So, I suggest Kathmandu, Patan, Bhaktapur, Pokhara and Namche Bazaar. Gorkha is another possible option. As for the others, I'll leave it up to you. However, in making your decision, don't forget that the list of nine cities is to supply info based on majority usage. It is not a promotion. So, if, for example, thousands of people pass through a transportation hub, it is not for me or Wikitravel contributors to deny them easy access to information about that place just because we do not think the town is beautiful or interesting to travelers. If the hard facts state that more people visit, say, Biratnagar than Tansen, then information for Biratnagar should be given priority because more people will be searching for it. It is about offering convenience for popular articles. However, I am not saying that the transportation hubs do receive more visitors than the other towns you mentioned, but am just pointing out the philosophy behind the system. As for changing the names of towns ending in 'gunj' to 'ganj, Wikitravel policy states that the most popular English name has preference, not the official or best transliteration. (Please see: Wikitravel:Article naming conventions), and according to Google hits, Birgunj and Nepalgunj are more popular than Birganj and Nepalganj by a two to one margin. So, based on that, we should leave the names as they are (even though I personally agree with you that 'ganj' is a better transliteration). If you have any questions, please feel free to raise them here. Thanks again for your input. Take it easy. WindHorse 10:46, 10 June 2007 (EDT)