Talk:Ismailism

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. [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ismailism-1 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)

: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)

:: I was going to say I prefer "Isma'ili", but all the major news sites I checked prefer "Ismaili". Google's [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ismaili%2CIsma%27ili&year_start=1800&year_end=2008 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)

:::Seems like Ismaili is the WP:COMMONNAME, and is what [https://the.ismaili/ 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)

::::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)

:::: 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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

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)

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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isma%27ili_sect_(Isma%27iliyyah)&redirect=no 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 {{slink|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)

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)