Talk:Christianity in Nepal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The working week