Talk:Islam in South Asia/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in South Asia. 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/20060622220846/http://jaihoon.com/watan/indarbmappilacommunity.htm to http://www.jaihoon.com/watan/indarbmappilacommunity.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060706220818/http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=4&ArticleId=49332 to http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=4&ArticleId=49332

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) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple IPs: 101.160.151.111 & 110.148.117.137 (Removing references)
These IP addresses are removing good references without good explanation. Told to discuss it on the talk page but started edit warring. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I am the same user . I should not be edit warring but you need to provide sources. You can't add unsourced information to an article and hope everything is okay. I have already told you this, provide sources then your edits will not be reverted. It's not that hard. (121.219.127.104 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC))
 * i started discussions on multiple pages yet you have responded with edit warring and removing perfectly fine sources. I explained to you that I calculated those number using total population numbers and percentages from CIA factbook yet you reverted my perfectly fine edits. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not how things work, provide a source that actually confirms your results. No we do not use information based on people's calculations. It needs to be a primary source. To claim your information is directly from CIA is incorrect because it's not. You just confirmed to me that it's not because you're calculating it. You clearly do not know how the rules of Wikipedia, read this No original research before making any more edits. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Please read this policy No original research and About Valid Routine Calculations. Now please revert your changes by yourself so i don't have to edit war with you. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with you on No original research and About Valid Routine Calculations but your calculations are not valid. You are taking percentages from 2012 and using the total population of Sri Lanka in 2017. If you want to work out the number and add it to the page you will have to find the 2017 percentage of the Muslim population of Sri Lanka. Calculating the total number by using 2012 statistics and 2017 statistics is inaccurate. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * You can also quit with this nonsense because I have already told you that my IP address changes but I am still the same user. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * On the reference page CIA Factbook for Sri Lanka you will find this total population of Sri Lanka which is 22,409,381 (July 2017 est.) and percentage of Muslims which is 9.7%. So if you multiply 22409381 with 0.097 you will get 2173709.957 so then I rounded the number to 2173710. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 9.7% in 2012 not 2017. You're combining statistics from 2012 and 2017 that is not correct. I know how to work it out, I am pointing out why you are wrong. Find the percentage from 2017 not 2012. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * This does not go against any Wikipedia policy. Show me the policy. These are most up to date numbers we have. Your source is from 2011 which is 6 years old. 9.7% number doesn't change much as growth pattern for different population in Sri Lanka stay pretty much the same over the years. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you not get? How can you combining numbers from 2012 with 2017 provide a number that you attribute to 2017? How is that accurate? Can you answer that? If you can't comprehend this then I'm going to go to the Admin noticeboard because this is actually getting ridiculous. Also, why are you talking about rules? I am not saying you are going against any rules, I agreed with what you said. It is the way that you are using information that is incorrect, there is no way you can get a number for the year 2017 by using statistics from 2012. Do you understand? Where is your source that 9.7% is the same number in 2017? Don't state information without any sources. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * No, it doesn't matter if it's six years old because the 2011 statistic is the only accurate one that we currently have. We don't have anything for 2017, stop making things up. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * If you are willing to make a compromise as we are both right partly so I will keep your number if you are willing to keep the heading for infobox as Desi Muslims. Then we should be done with this argument. As your number is not far off from my number so I'll be happy with your number. If you are happy with my infobox heading of Desi Muslims. Thank you very much 65.95.136.96 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your compromise. We can keep your heading and we can keep my 2011 statistic. Thanks for cooperating, I appreciate it. (121.219.22.188 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Done. Again thank you very much 65.95.136.96 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect revert
Why do you think that there is "potential content here"? The article was always a redirect until a sock turned it into an article and abused multiple accounts to expand it. Not even first several sentences of the article are supported by sources. Capitals00 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For one, there are several reliable sources and books covering the Islamic history of South Asia. And the Muslim population in the region (est. 500 million) is very large, so in my view this merits notability. Just because a sock changed it doesn't mean the subject isn't encyclopaedic.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is content that can be written for the topic. But I don't see any overriding need, since there are articles on Islam in individual countries, and I don't see anybody bursting with enthusiasm for writing this article. There is no point having an empty shell of an article without any content. I am happy to give it a month to see if anything happens. If not, it is best to make it a redirect again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have changed my mind. Even to wait for a month, I would need to see evidence of content for this article that cannot be covered in the individual country articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to add more references. As an example here are articles for Hinduism in Indonesia and Hinduism in Malaysia then there is an article for Hinduism in Southeast Asia. Another example here are articles for Christianity in Saudi Arabia and Christianity in Iraq then there is an article for Christianity in the Middle East. I think each of these example have common content. There are not more than 20 million Hindus in Southeast Asia and not more than 20 million Christians in the Middle east. 174.95.4.13 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Eulalefty sock.
 * Other stuff exists is never a good argument in deletion discussions. My question is not yet answered. What content needs to go here, which cannot go in individual country articles? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the original redirect because no one, but Eulalefty wants to write the article. Mar4d, if you want to have the article, then consider opening an RFC now. Turning a nearly 10 years old redirect into article by restoring sock version is not going to do much. Lorstaking (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Requests for comment
Should we restore this page? Seems like a notable topic. Islam is the second largest religion in South Asia. There are approximately 600 million South Asian Muslims, informally known as Desi Muslims, forming 31.4% of South Asia's population. 45.116.232.22 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No - The old page was no good. What does Islam in South Asia need to cover, which is not already covered in the country-specific pages? (Islam in India, Islam in Pakistan, Islam in Bangladesh). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No for now – I'm open to the idea of reinstating this page in spirit, but as it stands there's no clear picture of what content would be better situated there. Currently, even the Islam in Asia article that this article redirects to is threadbare. I'd suggest adding content about South Asia to a section of Islam in Asia for now, and if it becomes large and well-cited enough, we can consider splitting it into its own article. signed,Rosguill talk 17:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Like Rosguill says, if the content is important, then consider adding it to the Islam in Asia article, and we'll see what happens after that. MBlaze Lightning  13:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)