Talk:Christianity in Nepal

Additions

There has been substantial addition to the article. Some of it might not be accurately presented, but the over all information is helpful to know the state of Christianity in Nepal

The article is neither pro nor anti-Catholic, but rather an amature attempt to write on a very serious topic. It is hoped that over time, it will be better. Considering the condition of the nation, it is good to read something about the religious climate there.

This article is not only factually inaccurate, but shows a significant bias toward Christianity, especially the protestant sections. I obviously don't feel comfortable deleting an entire article, but I think its a shame that the site is being used by some to express their religious opinions. I would urge people to take a look at this page and judge for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan.something (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I think Nathan Something is also one of those Christian leaders who are using the innocent Christians in Nepal to earn their living. The moment someone raises the question about the corruption that is going on in the name of mission, they label that person as anti-Christian or something. Truth must be told no matter how bitter it may be, and the fact of the matter is that Christian leaders and missionaries in Nepal are earning millions of dollars in the name of missions. While it is possible to silence the questioners, the time might be coming for Nepali Christian leaders missionaries to live a cleaner life and be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannypeters2007 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article contains numerous unfounded statements of opinion (particularly in the section on Persecution under Maoists). It is poorly written and referenced and even contains editorial remarks! JediScougale (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity in Nepal. 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/20130205092427/http://www.library.yale.edu/div/Nepal/Nepal2.htm to http://www.library.yale.edu/div/Nepal/Nepal2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have entered this into the good article nominations. I completely rewrote the article in late 2017, and since then have kept it updated. I have aimed to make the article balanced, reasonably comprehensive, and extremely thoroughly sourced, as the subject is controversial and a focus of political debates. The article distills the results of research that is currently available (I have contributed to this research myself in other publications). --Iankgibson (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations

A couple of days ago the "excessive citations" template was added to this article, with the note, "Please don't use more than two-three citations numbers to support a position, especially in matters of opinion". In response to this, I have merged citations where there were multiple citations for a single sentence, and have ensured that all remaining citations are reliable, noteworthy, and benefit substantially the content and verifiability of the article.

It will be noticed that for some points in the article there are still a significant number of citations. The reason for this is that, prior to my comprehensive re-write of the article in September 2017 (when most of these citations were added), this article was subject to perennial edit-warring and vandalism, with accurate content frequently being removed due to insufficient verifying citation (and the controversial nature of the subject). Since I re-wrote this article and added the thorough citations, this edit-warring has stopped almost completely, and on the couple of occasions when unexplained deletions/inaccurate insertions have been attempted (see edits on 13 November 2017 and on 20 November 2018) this has been remedied quickly, precisely because the content unwarrantedly removed was extensively sourced. I believe, therefore, that the article's history justifies the use of multiple citations for the article's more likely-to-be-challenged assertions (which are verifiable and factual - based on a range of reliable academic and other research, as the citations demonstrate - and not just personal opinions).

Wikipedia's guidelines state that multiple citations may be used in order to "avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information". It is suggested that in such cases the citations can be merged into a single footnote to avoid clutter. I have followed these guidelines in this case. --Iankgibson (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Iankgibson, please, when you add to talk pages, place your new section at the bottom of the page, not the top, per Wikpedia guidelines. Or you could use the New Section tab link at the top of the page, which automatically puts your new text in a new section at the bottom of the page. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A photograph of a Nepali Christian woman praying.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Assumption Cathedral, Kathmandu, in 2011.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christianity in Nepal/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk · contribs) 13:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I will review this soon.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• There are too many images.
• The first image in the lead could be replaced with a better picture.
• Image caption names i.e. Ganga Prasad Pradhan should be wikilinked.
• Prayer at a Nepali church. -> Prayers
• Christianity is, according to the 2011 census, the fifth most practiced religion in Nepal -> Christianity is the fifth most practiced religion in Nepal according to the 2011 census?
• but proselytization and conversion were still legally prohibited. This needs clarification.
• Fix dashes per WP:MOS. See MOS:DASH. You can use User talk:GregU/dashes.js to assist you.
• They worked in each of the valley's three city-states. Which three city-states?
• the king of Bhaktapur, Ranajit Malla, who, one wrote. Is that meant to say who, once?
• It currently has a staff of around 300. Source says 400.
• Nepali Catholics have played leading roles in interreligious dialogue in recent decades. interreligious dialogue should be wikilinked.
• those who actually converted (that is, were baptized). -> converted (that is if they were baptized)?
• there would be imprisonment of one year -> imprisonment for a year?
• the Jhapa District -> Jhapa District.

I will have to fail this GA nomination because it contains copyright violations. According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it contains 96.3% with confidence.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tone of the article

The tone of the article is biased. Sources seem to have a conflict of interest, possibly politically motivated. Also by self-nominating "Good article nomination" is a bit strange. User:Nirmaljoshi - 13 June 2020‎

I agree with the comment above. The article is mostly built with missionary sources.--37.162.243.218 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked through most sections of the article, and I saw very few sections only citing missionary sources. Albeit they are still in the article, but if other supporting non-primary sources can be added, I disagree that this article is biased. Can any of you please provide specific examples of the alleged bias? Since it seems most statements cite Gibson, BBC, academic research, US government sources and many of these statements have multiple sources listed not just a single one.

ChaoticTexan (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The working week

The article doesn't seem to mention this at all. With the Nepalese working week being Sunday to Friday, how do Christians (particularly those who aren't 7DAs) generally manage? It would be good to find some information about this to add to the article. — Smjg (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)