Talk:Gross National Happiness/Archive 1

How is GNH (Gross National Happiness) measured?
How is GNH (Gross National Happiness) measured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.26.2.2 (talk • contribs) 22:05, October 16, 2005 (UTC)

Most organisations that try to measure GNH or regional well-being try to do so by measuring the factors that are believed to lead to it. For example, the non-profit group GPI (Genuine Progress Index) Atlantic [] measures the value of volunteer work, living forests, etc. Michael Robson 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think more needs to be included on the actual measurement, otherwise this just sounds like a joke... Bonzai273 —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bonzai273: Check out the paper I just added a link to http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/69/5/851/. While the link is not free (unless you have access to a university's IP address), the paper itself should be available in your local library. It discusses the development and validation of a GNH index known as "subjective well-being." Admdikramr (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Admdikramr and Bonzai273: Subjective well-being and GNH are NOT the same, so Admdikramr's paper is somewhat irrelevant here. GNH is holistic and includes both subjective and objective indicators of well-being, but it gives more weighing to the objective indicators more for the purpose of measurement in the GNH Index. --TheQw 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

GNH is measured through the GNH Index, which is calculated from a national survey conducted by the Centre for Bhutan Studies. I think there should be a separate page on the GNH index to discuss its history, construction, and the survey results from 2010 and 2015 (I'm going to add a new discussion section on that below). --TheQw 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)

I want to know more about GNH
Who is monitoring the GNH in BHutan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.154.178.132 (talk • contribs) 19:10, December 1, 2005 (UTC)

The article says "While this would reduce Bhutan's wealth by most traditional measures such as GDP, the Bhutan government claims it has not reduced Bhutan's GNH."

If GNH tries to measure "total" happiness and if there is no negative happiness, than it is absolutely certain that removing anyone from the country will reduce the GNH. There was no source given concerning what the government of Bhutan claims, but I suspect that it was referring to a measure of happiness per capita and not total happiness. In the case of GDP, GDP per capita could increase, decrease or remain the same depending on who was kicked out; in the case of the Nepali, I suspect that they were poorer than ethnic Bhutanese so kicking them out decreased GDP but increased GDP per capita. --76.67.156.10 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not necessarily true. If a person that is reducing other people's happiness is removed from the country, the net change in happiness might actually be positive. This would result in an increase in GNH.70.97.181.96 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard of living
This sounds like standard of living to me. Mathiastck (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge difference. Standard's of living refers only to material factors like healthcare, education, income, etc. whereas GNH refers to a holistic notion of human well-being. GNH is multi-dimensional and INCLUDES standards of living, as well as subjective well-being and (in the Bhutanese context) cultural heritage and environmental preservation. --TheQw 20:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)

Orange computing
This term, apparently derived from work in Bhutan, appears in an article in the Communications of the ACM, April 2012, Vol. 55, No. 4 (not freely available) called "Information Technology and Gross National Happiness: Connecting digital technologies and happiness," by Richard Heeks. The idea behind the term is that IT can be used to monitor measures of happiness and promote happiness. This may be worth a section in this page, and even a page of its own.

See Also changes
I removed "Happy Planet Index" from See Also section. HPI measures environmental sustainability, not happiness as an emotion. It's misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.220.147 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Video
The video is not objective. It's a patronizing mouthpiece proposing this alternative political value system. And regardless of bias, it employs poor quality language like "economical growth" - really? Economical? It is a frivolous and sophomoric addition to the project of knowledge-pursuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.161 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Recapitalizing
The photo, video and all external links all use caps-it is clearly meant to be capitalized as the proper name of a program.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206230434/http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html to http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-GNH measures
There is lengthy text (about half the article) covering non-GNH measures in the article that appears to be off-topic. If these variants are notable, then they should have their own article, but do not belong here except possibly as a "See also" link. This article is about GNH.

Getting rid of that material would go a long way to addressing the needed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Discussions of similar topics, in which the source itself does not discuss this article's subject, is a form of WP:OR and should be removed from the page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This is not OR. this is properly cited. I think it should not be deleted. AnimaNova (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — AnimaNova (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. appears to be 91.90.13.192 having signed up

Toddst1 - Please do not remove entire sections or entries that are cited and valid. I can understand that you may want to clean the article in good faith, but good faith works in both directions. Quickly deleting entire sections that were seen and accepted for years by other contributors/editors, and without reading the cited sources is not helpful. Also making edits based on select reading of one sentence without a context and ignoring other sentences in source article can be seen as bias.

The article is about GNH, its origin and later developments. The entries you removed, cite articles that clearly state they are different versions, but based on the same GNH. If you took the time to read the source articles (not just the entries on wikipedia, which can be incomplete), you will discover GNW states it is a second generation GNH. Whoever wrote the disambiguation he or she probably meant about the versions. The source article state that GNW = GNH 2.0 It is global secular GNH vs. Bhutan GNH Index is local and spiritual. Both cite the King's GNH philosophy. Today, you have Thailand GNH, American GNH and Bhutan GNH, Indian GNH initiatives and others. They all are later developments of the same GNH. Again: They have GNH in their name and cite the King's GNH as the origin or for their initiative. So you cannot say they are unrelated.

Also please consider Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As an editor, I ask you to help make more balanced edits. For example, keeping unrelated critical information about Bhutan in the GNH article is unbalanced editing. If someone does not like the King's policy or Bhutan for their ethnic cleansing, they can write it in separate article about Bhutan or the King. This article is about GNH as a development philosophy. Trying to remove GNH related information and keeping negative political information can be see as biased edits that are anti GNH or favor initiatives competing with GNH or simply anti Bhutan. The edits about ethnic cleansing should go into Bhutan page. GNH philosophy is not about ethnic policy. I hope you will consider the above suggestions, when you finalize your edits. - Thanks.

Also you cannot claim consensus, just because one person agrees with you on on previous edit. I suggest that you keep it open for discussion before you quickly do so. I also left message for FuriouslySerene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.13.192 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody else is speaking up in support of keeping this since January so I will remove it. It seems the majority supports removing it. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that it is not appropriate. 91.90.13.192, please stop re-adding it.  Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it should not be removed. In my opinion the arguments and citations shown by other contributors are compelling for inclusion. AnimaNova (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — AnimaNova (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. appears to be 91.90.13.192 having signed up

Dear Todd1, It took me few days to research the topic, other people’s contributions, and your edits. Your argument for deleting other people’s contributions is that it is “off topic”. I can see why you may consider some of the deleted text as off topic, but you were too quick to delete text that is relevant to the topic. Deleting some of the text while keeping other text related to the development of GNH concept around the world can also be seen as competitive bias against the deleted sources and advocacy for the non-deleted text. Anyway, I’d like to keep the discussion in good faith and focus on the facts not the motives behind edits or the style of communication.

Please find the following: 1.The suggested statement to add to the development section of GNH 2.The supporting evidence that it is related to the development of GNH and supporting the suggested statement.

The suggested statement to be added: “The GNH concept has evolved through the contribution of international and local researchers to become an initiative beyond the borders of Bhutan. In 2005, the International Institute of Management, an American think tank, inspired by the King’s GNH phrase, introduced the first GNH Survey and GNH framework index, also known as Gross National Well-being. The GNH Index metric value was designed as an index function of the total average per capita of subjective and objective measures of seven dimensions, including: Mental, Physical, Workplace, Economic, Environmental, Political, and Social. In 2006, the institute published a policy white paper calling for the implementation of GNH philosophy in the US.”

My argument for inclusion is that it is on topic of GNH development, because: 1. The name of the initiative is Gross National Happiness (GNH) 2. It references the King’s GNH Phrase 3. It is referenced by reputable independent newspapers, researchers, and government professionals in different countries.

Supporting Evidence 1: the original paper published has the GNH framework and Index in 2005

Please see the title of the page, it is GNH. Also, the paper, references the King’s GNH phrase.

https://www.iim-edu.org/grossnationalhappiness/ Supporting Evidence 2: Independent article by the UAE National Newspaper referencing its development in 2005 related to GNH concept. The paper writes:

“In the early 1970s, the King of Bhutan introduced the notion of gross national happiness (GNH) at an international conference. The GNH was described as being based on sustainable development, environmental protection, cultural values and good governance. Over several decades, the idea was developed in different private-sector and academic institutions. The International Institute of Management in 2005 proposed a gross national well-being index”

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/the-happiness-portfolio-is-no-laughing-matter

Supporting Evidence 3: Harvard University Researchers Report to US Congressman referenced the same 2006 Policy white paper of GNH (see page 91 online PDF or page 79 in print)

Again writes about the GNH concept of 2012 and second generation GNH Concept of 2006 (the policy white paper).

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67149/1241406/version/1/file/PAE+Beachy_Zorn_2012.pdf

Supporting Evidence 4: State of Goa in India Development Council Document: Vision and Strategy 2035 (See page 25) Referencing Bhutan GNH concept and the Institute GNH Index in 2006 Policy white paper

http://www.goachamber.org/html/joomdocs/GGJDC-2035-Final-AV.pdf

Supporting Evidence 5: Alastair Campbell, Strategy Director of former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Book (Page 30). Again mentioned Bhutan GNH and the first GNH framework of the institute. A specific quote: “The concept and issues at the heart of the Bhutanese approach are not dissimilar to the metric used by Med Jones”

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=OSy7Ubd-PX8C&pg=PA30&dq=Alastair+Campbell+Med+jones&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Alastair%20Campbell%20Med%20jones&f=false

To recap, the argument for inclusion as on topic (1) The institute GNH Index reference the King of Bhutan GNH phrase (2) other reputable researchers from Harvard and Independent Journalists and high-level government officials from different countries mention the same institute and the GNH framework as part of the development of GNH. I hope, in the light of the above facts, you will reconsider your deletion and add the suggested text and sources to the article. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree AnimaNova (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — AnimaNova (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. appears to be 91.90.13.192 having signed up  — AnimaNova (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  appears to be 91.90.13.192 having signed up
 * AnimaNova agreeing with him/herself is disregarded. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)