Talk:Isma'ilism

message: There is a very large lack of citable factual information presented. I believe any information that cannot be cited should be removed. Otherwise, it is difficult to trust what is presented - especially if it sounds biased.
69.165.248.173 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations or References for Information Presented (July, 2012) 

message: A section of the article should give an overview of the geography of Ismailism--Kimdime (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Ismaili communities located ? 

message: Previous copy indicated that the Amman Message included Ismailis, but did not source this claim and only pointed to refences that refer to them as a subset of Jafaris.  Although a similar statement is made within the Amman Message by Aga Khan, the actual message only includes Zaydis and Jafaris explicitly.  Furthermore, the statements of HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad appear to maintain the distinction between these groups, even though he goes on to say they claim loyalty to the Jafari group.  Given his role in organizing the edict his definitions should take priority unless someone can source anything within the documents or those using it demonstrating that Ismailis are included to clarify this ambiguity.
MrOakes (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Amman Message

message: Shia Islam does not consider ismailism as their part, then why have this  placed in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.123.60 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ismailism is not a part of Shia Islam

message: Is the calligraphic lion really an Ismaili religious symbol? If yes, can someone please provide a reference for it? --کاشف عقیل (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ismaili Lion? 

message: As the article rightly says at the end, "While on one view there is a historical nexus between the Druze and Ismāʿīlīs, any such links are purely historical and do not entail any modern similarities". (Isma'ilis pray in mosques, for a starter, as any other Muslim does, Druze do not). So I think Druze beliefs should definitely not be mentioned in this article as if they were just a part of Ismailism, which they are definitely not. They should be mentioned as a historical offspring with an own article, but a section about Reincarnation citing Druze beliefs makes absolutely no sense here, UNLESS it can be said that other Ismaili groups also belief in reincarnation, for which I have no source. I hope somebody can arrange this, or I might try myself in a few days. Any opinions welcome. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Druze are not Ismaili

message: As an Ismaili and a religious scholar, in my entire 41 years of life I have never once heard a human being utter the pronunciation originally given in this article. In fact, the a and the i belong to different syllables and in no language spoken by Ismailis does this get reduced to /eɪ/ (as does happen with actual Arabic diphthongs in languages like Persian). It's the same with the name Aisha, which literally nowhere is said "eysha". Seriously. In 41 years of life. Here's the Oxford Dictionary pronunciation. Ogress 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the Oxford printed pronunciation "ˌismāˈilē", and the audio pronunciation indicate a long (American English) "a" in the second syllable, which is shown differently in IPA, by "e" which equates to the vowel in "Spanish fe; French clé" (the IPA "ɪ" being the equivalent of the "i" in "sit", i.e. very brief and short). Thus the former IPA pronunciation seems closer to the pronunciation in your source. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds strange and wrong. I am literally a native English-speaker and an Isma'ili and 41 years of age and a student of religion and I literally have never ever heard this pronunciation in my entire life, I do not understand this. Imagine if you were Jewish and the pronunciation guide on Wikipedia said Zheewish. That's what it sounds like to me. It's bizarre and wrong. I am not a Zheew. People say ɪsma'ili or, more often, ɪsmaɪli. If they are Arabicising I hear ɪsmæːʔiːli or even ɪsmæːʕiːli. Ogress 02:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose I'm just Zheewish now, wtf Ogress 23:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The old pronunciation at the article seems more in line, as detailed in my previous post, and per my edit summary, with the spellings and audio files at both sources being used (only keeping the Dictionary.com one for now, as they both seem to give virtually identical pronunciations). I'm restoring per BRD, etc. If you're hearing it differently, and it's not just a misunderstanding regarding the phonetic spellings, then you should be able to come up with a source that supports a variant pronunciation. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ismaili pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Isma'ilism. 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/20111106113929/http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan to http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428055134/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/shia/qarma.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/shia/qarma.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106113929/http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan to http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010306094659/http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.98/features.htm to http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.98/features.htm
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) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since this edit there has been the error message "error: : text has italic markup (help)", in place of , which apparently wasn't changed during that edit, the relevant text reading "; Esmāʿiliyān" before and after. I tried substituting Îsmaîlîtî, the title of the equivalent article at Kurdish Wikipedia, to no avail. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italic markup error from lang-ku template in lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isma'ilism. 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/20110303042803/http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/badakshan-ismaili/ to http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/badakshan-ismaili/
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) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of this and related articles