Talk:Isis (disambiguation)

ISIS programming language

ISIS = Irvine Symbolic Interpretive Subsystem. Jim 04:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also of note, there is a Mexican band by the name of Isis as well. Can't find any real information other than youtube videos. JorgonQ 0200 EST, 2 October 2008

If there's no article about them, there's no reason for them to be listed; that's not the purpose of a disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to add a page for the Isis electronic library publishing platform. E.g. http://www.ebrary.com/corp/librariesLicensed.jsp (In the interest of full disclosure, yes I do work for ebrary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.22.9 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bud's girlfriend from Married with Children

Should we add a disambiguation link to the article for the American television series Married... with Children? (Because of Isis, Bud Bundy's "girlfriend".)

72.82.174.200 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just go for it. I'd suggest putting it into the "Television" section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxford category

I suggest we should group together all the items that are related to Oxford, England. The names of the river, the bridge, the rowing team, the student magazine, the innovation company, and maybe others, would go in this group. The name "Isis" is widely associated with Oxford. Organizing this page to reflect this association would make sense. DOwenWilliams (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Talk:Isis

I didn't know about this or wouldn't have fooled with it, so just an FYI for others. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

The former (alternative title) Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is the expansion of the ambiguous term and should be used in this dab, and linked at the start of the entry, and listed highly as it has currently high usage. I'm trying to understand this [1] edit. It resulted in another editor removing the item, and other edits removing the link at the start. This is one of the most read articles currently. How is that useful for readers? We also keep the entry text short and matching the article. I left a comment in to guide editors to here. Before editing this entry, see the RFC above, and WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I had changed the entry to something like the new revision just a couple days ago, with a hidden message regarding linking to the redirec per MOSDAB: [2] (I removed the second wikilink...extremist...after realizing that MOSDAB prohibits that). I don't understand why the link was changed in this edit and the editor removing the hidden message that clearly explained the reason (and gave the MOS page) that the link to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is proper. I suggest that a hidden message is re-inserted. I also don't think "a group" is very descriptive and neither is "unrecognized" (by whom? It's recognized by like-minded organizations), while "jihadist" (spreading their faith/rule through militarism) better describes the organization. I don't understand Arabic, but there have been discussions on the article's talk page that it's name is officially the Islamic State. Here's an alternate for consideration:

• [[Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]],<!-- Per WP:DABREDIR (second bullet) linking to the redirect is helpful when 1) the redirect target contains the disambiguated term (ISIS, yes) and 2)the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article (yes), meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. (yes)--> former name of ''the Islamic State'', a Sunni jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq & Syria

Displays as:

• Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a Sunni jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq & Syria

Given the frequent changes made, if there's consensus for this (or any other version), then there should be a hidden message to this effect: "DO NOT CHANGE LINK/DESCRIPTION WITHOUT CONSENSUS ON TALK PAGE" (yes, in all caps). This could replace the hidden message in what I suggest above. AHeneen (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's almost spot on - the link and comment was good, the low placement due to the sort was bad. Those edits including the one you detail [3] which sorted alphabetically were not useful, as it moved that entry down, instead of being placed at the top, per high usage / AfC. We sort for usefulness, not necessarily alphabetically per MOSDAB.

I've restored your comment, as there's repeated breakage of that / bad local consensus (including [4]). User:Joseph A. Spadaro [5] and many others insist on not following MOSDAB on this, including User:Dougweller [6]. Please read this before edit warring this here or on the hatnote at Isis. I will ask for page protection. Widefox; talk 09:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read this first. I obviously misunderstood your ping and wish you had directed me here. The primary article talk discussion is dead in the water, in fact seems to have died several times. I've given up on trying to get any consensus there or indeed anywhere. So I'm not going to be editing this anymore in relation to any names about the Islamic State. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I had moved the listing down in my edit because I misread MOS:DABORDER. I missed the part of the first point: "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top". Instead I saw/focused on point 3 and so organized the section as terms with "Isis" in them then terms where "ISIS" is the acronym, both alphabetically.AHeneen (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Dougweller, the primarytopic discussion is tangential at this point, as the result of it will be enacted then (and also as you say, it appears there's no consensus or oppose). Until then we need to keep readers finding this popular article, and I concur with AHeneen. To me, it's a clearcut case with MOSDAB. I've pinged the dab project for more opinions and asked for full protection. OK, that's the link/placement.

The entry wording is tricky as the article wording changes, and the meaning is both the group and the unrecognised state:

Wording

Sorted most desirable (to me) to least:

1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of Islamic State, a jihadist group and an unrecognized state
2. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of Islamic State, a group and an unrecognized jihadist state
3. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a Sunni jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq & Syria
   • I don't see the need for italics (which aren't in the article), or longer description

Widefox; talk 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, please take part here to build consensus, rather than trying to repeatedly force your edit [7], [8]. "The name of the article is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the disambuigation page should point to the article name, not a redirect; if you want to change the name of the article, take it to article talk". Incorrect - WP:DABREDIR "linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:" - did you not see the article comment and above? Thanks. Stop edit warring, discuss here, and we need page protection pls. Widefox; talk 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We need page protection to protect it from you, because you seem to be the only one who wants the version you fight so hard to keep, and you're the one who is doing the edit-warring here. Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I agree completely with Widefox's assessment. There is nothing wrong with using a redirect on a dab page to match the term being disambiguated (as reflected in the title of the disambiguation page). This is standard operating procedure per WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 18:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I see it as just an attempt to bypass normal procedures. If Widefox doesn't like the name of the article he should suggest a page move on the talk page of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and get a consensus for the change there, not change the name on the DAB-page by pointing it to a redirect. Thomas.W ^talk 18:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W - you can see how you like, but the article name is a red herring. Despite that, if you have any evidence for me not liking the name of the article then detail it, else withdraw your assertion that I did.

Coming back to the point, a redirect is allowed. What justification do you have for removing it several times. You also cannot claim there is consensus for it, so please justify by any means. The contrary has been justified by 3 editors and detailed in the article comment, here and edit summaries. Widefox; talk 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I had changed the link to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (the redirect) and added the note quoting WP:DABREDIR on August 20, before Widefox began the recent cleanup (22nd)...so this isn't a push by one editor...it's following guidelines set forth by the MOS!! See the example on that page for James Carey vs Jim Carey! This is not an attempt to rename that article or suggest it should be renamed otherwise, it's simply that the link should match the term of the disambiguation page: ISIS.

I mentioned this in the above section, but I don't think just "group" is very descriptive...at the very least it should have an adjective, plus group could just be a collective name for a subset of peoples/things, whereas "organization" suggests an entity that has structure and works for a common goal...so I think "jihadist organization" is a better term ("Sunni" can be dropped if others think the description is too long). I also think "self-proclaimed caliphate" is a better term than "unrecognized state". Caliphate is a better/more descriptive term than state. Self-proclaimed just sounds somewhat better together with caliphate than "unrecognized caliphate", I don't think there's much difference in semantics and that choice is more personal preference. I'll concur with not italicizing. "in Iraq & Syria" is redundant since that's in their name. So here's another proposed alternative:

• Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate

AHeneen (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I cleaned up the dab in July and August, setting the ambiguous term as the link, and moving the entry to the top. This was looked at at the RfC (about primary topic) and others said current navigation was OK (it was more about the primary than the issue of using a redirect). Yes it's a redirect. Yes that's allowed as you say. It satisfies WP:DABREDIR. It's useful. As Bkonrad said standard procedure per MOSDAB

After asking each of the editors who've been removing the redirect, the responses seems to fall between these two:

• Even very experienced editors and an admin are conflating two completely separate issues:
  • 1. article naming
    • this is nothing to do with the article name, and
    • even if the article is renamed, this entry on this dab should remain completely unchanged!
    • They are completely tangential subjects
    • The RfC underway is thus irrelevant, but fuels this conflation
  • 2. use of the ambiguous term "ISIS" = (alternative article title) "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is preferred to the article title
    • standard practice for dabs WP:MOSDAB, specifically:
    • I.e. it satisfies conditions in WP:DABREDIR (also see WP:DABACRO, WP:NOTBROKEN, and the HP (disambiguation) example of a primary topic redirect WP:DABPRIMARY)
• No redirects: Others have a more gut feeling that redirects are not right on dabs in general. This correct general principle that dabs shouldn't hide the article title (no redirects in general, and no piping), is right, but wrong when DABREDIR is satisfied.
  

We want to expand the initialism, so that ISIS and group name is recognised. If users navigation routes were by "ISIL" or "IS" or "Islamic state" we cater for those routes too in a similar fashion. (last time I checked, my cleanup of those dabs was holding, more so than here).

Current wording of the article is: "a jihadist group in the Middle East" We needn't include more, as the title already implies a territorial claim, and we keep short. If we must include more, the second paragraph reads "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate..." So my preferred wording would now be: Sorted most desirable (to me) to least:

1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group
2. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group in the Middle East
3. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a group and an unrecognized jihadist state
4. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group and self-proclaimed caliphate
5. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate
6. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group and an unrecognized state
7. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a Sunni jihadist organization and self-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq & Syria
8. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, former name of the Islamic State, ...
9. The Islamic State, ...

Thomas.W, does the above help? Now there's page protection, we can reach consensus here. The other editors I asked have dropped their concerns or passed on the issue, your objection is the only one I know. Widefox; talk 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As no objections yet, and I wanted to fix the "group" part (the protected version wasn't my first choice, but a restored version), so  Done 1. in the meantime. Widefox; talk 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group

I WP:BOLDly moved Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former name of the Islamic State, a jihadist group to the top, as it is the primary topic for ISIS. Per the HTML comment that was at the top of ==Organizations== I did NOT change the redirect of ISIS itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Update: Here's the diff. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if ISIS redirects to this disambiguation page, then by definition there is no primary topic for "ISIS". If the group were the primary topic, then ISIS would redirect to the article for the group, where a hatnote would direct readers to this disambiguation page for other uses. Now, that may need to be updated given recent events, but that is not how things are currently arranged. older ≠ wiser 15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Point taken. Even if ISIS points to Isis (disambiguation), if putting Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at the top is somehow "against the rules," then consider my previous edit (now reverted) a good-faith invocation of one of Wikipedia's most time-honored policies, WP:Ignore all rules on the assumption that the change would not be controversial. Obviously, since it's been reverted, I was mistaken in my assessment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State re-redirect

Should ISIS redirect to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article? Right now, it redirects here instead. (This issue is at WP:AN3.) – Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I interject? I wrote up an RfC here, at Talk:ISIS. Red Slash 03:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Gstree (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

iSIS - currency

Yet another one, "iSIS" - 'Integrated Secure Identification Systems', for use in coins (and banknotes) such as the proposed(?) new British £1 coin.[9]. 220 of ^Borg 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis

Can someone add Mysteries of Isis? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech:  Done. In the right place I hope.220 of ^Borg 03:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Can someone please merge the section "terrorist organization" with the section "organization". It looks weird to have them separate. 92.2.70.125 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done The terrorist organization is in the lead text. --Gstree (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Move back to ISIS?

There are some opinions (including mine) about moving this page back to ISIS on Talk:ISIS.  « Saper // @talk »  00:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Both terms are mostly used a lot, and most disambiguation pages that contains terms both completely capitalized and not, mostly use a completely capitalized name, such as SPA. Prodigy55 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep People page section

Do you guys think we should remove the People section as done by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=755164590&oldid=755146976

Reformulate

What do you think about how much the diversion will be canceled from ISIS (disambiguation) to Isis (disambiguation)? In many articles, the terrorist group is referred to as Capital Letters,"Isis" are used only for names. What do you think of the redrafting of the two pages with a reference in each of them to the other page. User:Egy_writer (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Inst. for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences has no WP page

ETANA references the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences at http://www.etana.org/node/8727 and the archive for their Journal for the Ancient Chronology Forum is at http://newchronology.org. This organization is no longer in operation but perhaps a Wikipedia page on this ISIS group would be helpful to readers for historical reasons. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)