Talk:Isma'ilism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Isma'ilism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Islam: Shi'a Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Name of this and related articles

Currently across Wikipedia there are two forms in use: Ismailism (and Ismaili) and Isma'ilism (and Isma'ili). The former is definitely in use in the real world as a simple transliteration (e.g. the Institute of Ismaili Studies), and the latter conforms to the "basic transcription" in Wikipedia:MOSAR, which is closer to the scientific transliteration which is in wide usage in scholarship (e.g. articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Farhad Daftary, etc.), and is actually used by some high-calibre sources as well (e.g. Iranica). Normally we should follow the main article, but although it has been relatively stable since 2014 I don't see any discussion on it. For reasons of consistency, we should agree on a single form; at Category:Ismaili da'is for instance we have two different ways of transliteration in the same name. This will affect several articles (e.g. Nizari Ismaili state) as well as a large number of categories found under Category:Ismailism. Please give your opinion below. Personally I am in favour of the present form, i.e. "Isma'ilism", as a middle ground and because it makes the pronunciation clearer ("ai" is no diphthong). Constantine ✍ 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, Ismaili was definitely the common-use, but I've seen an incredibly sharp increase in the use of Isma'ili over the last decade or so. MOS Arabic would hold for Isma'ili according to "plain" romanization of Arabic, so that bit's fine at least. Ogress 19:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say I prefer "Isma'ili", but all the major news sites I checked prefer "Ismaili". Google's corpus also prefers "Ismaili" at least until 2008 (but I agree it's probably changing). But I wouldn't care too much about consistency: even "Shia" vs "Shi'a" is a bit inconsistent (the main article and most articles have the former, MOS:ISLAM has the latter). Tokenzero (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Ismaili is the WP:COMMONNAME, and is what the community itself uses. I think we should stick with the common usage even though it conflicts with WP:MOSAR and obfuscates the pronunciation. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be the consensus right now, or at least to tolerate both forms. No objection really from my side, but let's leave the discussion open for further views. Constantine ✍ 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is an old discussion, but I wanted to ask, is it necessary for EVERY instance of the word Ismaili in the article to be written Ismāʿīlī? I get that diacritics are useful in pronunciation and transcription of Arabic, but in English they are just cumbersome and, to be frank, pretty awful looking. They contribute to making the article more difficult to read, which seems to go against the point of wikipedia. I don't know if y'all came to a consensus about it or not, it just struck me as very odd to use the diacritics outside of a parenthetical transcription note. -Evansknight (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be best to use Ismāʿīlī only for the lead transliterations, with the more legible, macron-free Isma'ili for the body of the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking too, but I didn't want to go in and change it without running it by y'all first. There seem to be some people on English wikipedia who are obsessed with using diacritics on all Arabic words written in the Latin alphabet and it's very irritating, but I guess it's just a matter of watching out for it and fixing it when it crops up. Thanks! Evansknight (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About current Ismaelites redirection

Hello,

Currently Ismaelites redirects to Midian, but shouldn’t it rather redirection to Isma'ilism instead? 2A02:2788:228:2EE:A8D2:416E:389F:B1B1 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Ismalili Sect

What is this entry? There is no mention at all as to the origins of this sect. This sect was created by Hassan Sabah, from Babak Javedan. There is virtually no mention of this at all. The entry begins with an arabic pronunciation of the word. WHY? This is utterly an Iranian sect and yet this part has been omitted. This is an inaccurate account of history. Pandemoniumview (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Isma'ili sect (Isma'iliyyah)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Isma'ili sect (Isma'iliyyah) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15 § Isma'ili sect (Isma'iliyyah) until a consensus is reached. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Druze faith

Though it came out of Ismail'ism, followers no longer identify as Muslim. If so, should not it be classified in a new section as offshoot rather than putting in branch section? BlackRider90 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Isma'ilism be renamed and moved to Ismailism.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Isma'ilism → Ismailism – spelling per the OED and MW, as well as consensus from the only discussion of this on the talk page — kwami (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). C F A 15:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though the simpler version (Ismailism) is supported by various guidelines (MOS:AR, MOS:ISLAM, and WP:TSC), this exact move has been reverted before [1], so I believe a move discussion is required. The discussion on the talk page shows significant support for both versions and in my opinion is not enough to demonstrate consensus on this. Toadspike [Talk] 07:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami I am contesting this request, please press the "discuss" button in your request to open an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 07:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: where are you seeing "significant support for both versions"? The discussion seems to be (among those who offered an opinion) unanimous that it should be Ismailism, with rationales given, so naming policy appears to favour the move. I would be inclined to move this and then if someone objects they can always revert and demand a full discussion later. — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru I read the comments of Constantine, Ogress, and Iskandar323 as either partially or fully supporting the use of an apostrophe. Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not opposed to the move and you may perform it if you like. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The regular spelling is almost 10 times more popular on Google ngrams [2]. It makes sense to replace an unpopular variant of spelling that also goes against our guidelines with a traditional one. Викидим (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as it's similar to Ibadism, Zaydism etc. Common English spelling per the OED and MW. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]