Talk:ISI

Listings

Is it truly necessary to list every three word combination that starts ISI, or shouldn't this page be for the common meanings of the acronym ISI. While it is not uncommon for nations to use letters (USA, UK, USSR, DPROK, ROC, etc), for a claimed de facto nation that has no news sources using the phrase "Islamic State of Iraq." Find a legit source--using the initialism ISI--and then it should be on here. Same really goes for the rest of the listings. ND Conservative 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on CNN videos and listen to the report of the recent downing of the helicopter. At the very end he uses the phrase ISI for the Islamic State of Iraq. It exists and it's very important since they own large portions of Iraq and have their own separate government. They are the insurgency now. Other insurgency acronyms are mentioned on disambiguous pages like the RUF and MILF. It doesn't make sense that this is an exception when it's probably the most widely known insurgency group in the world. Richard Cane 03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion but I did not hear ISI or Islamic State of Iraq mentioned anywhere on the CNN videos still available for free. If "Islamic State of Iraq" is worthy of a wikipedia entry, it should be rather easy to find in news sources. Furthermore, even if the term exists, that does not mean ISI is a commonly used initialism. The two examples you mentioned are documented entities. So are the IRA, ETA, the PLO, and the KKK. The only source listed on the page is the SITE Institute, whose credibility is less than stellar. Small non-profits with an agenda are not entitled to create a terrorist entity. And yet, I say all this without concluding that the Islamic State of Iraq does not exist. It would not surprise me if a terrorist group in Iraq made such a claim. Based on the websites that are forwarding the claim, I would more likely conclude that it is a claim that is barely worth mentioning. My original complaint does not question the Islamic State of Iraq entry, but rather that ISI is a commonly used initialism for Islamic State of Iraq. I await legitimate proof. Best, ND Conservative 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the video by Michael Holmes titled "Insurgents: We downed chopper". At about 2:54 he refers to it as the ISI. Search on February 9th when it came out. Here's a transcript if you can't find it [1].

And that was what was suggested by General Peter Pace a little while ago on CNN. But if this indeed is a heat-seeking missile and, indeed, striking the CH-46 that went down on Wednesday, it's a disturbing new development in terms of the armory available to the ISI, the Islamic State of Iraq

Also, all the examples you provided are groups that go back decades. The Islamic State of Iraq was just formed a few months ago so of course it isn't yet common vernacular. Richard Cane 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all you had to do, provide proof. I'd still argue that this is not a commonly used term, and the initialism is used even less frequently. However, this counts as evidence of its use--although I'd recommend finding more than a passing comment in a brief news story--but as you said, this is a new development. ND Conservative 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

In response to the proposal to merge Isi into ISI, Merge as the current "Search" function, for me brought up just Isi and not ISI which contributed to confusion for me. rkmlai (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support merge Isi into ISI. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NAB which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Malformed again In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISI → Inter-Services Intelligence – I propose that the primary topic for ISI should be Inter-Services Intelligence (per WP:PTOPIC) and that a redirect should be put into place; the current ISI article can be moved to ISI (disambiguation). 119.160.103.209 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User talk:119.160.103.209

22:33, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+464)‎ . . Talk:SBP ‎

22:24, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan ‎ (→‎Numbers)

22:20, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Talk:NAB ‎ (→‎Requested move 10 July 2018)

22:19, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+492)‎ . . Talk:NAB ‎

22:17, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+139)‎ . . Talk:Pakistan Television Corporation ‎ (→‎Requested move 10 July 2018) (current)

22:16, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+507)‎ . . Talk:FBR ‎ (current)

22:15, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . Talk:Pakistan Television Corporation ‎ (→‎Requested move 10 July 2018)

22:09, 10 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+483)‎ . . Talk:ISI ‎ (current)

Hello and welcome to English Wikipedia. Could you please (1) register for an account rather than using different ISP addresses. And (2) please read WP:RM carefully before proposing any further multiple moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISI → ISI (disambiguation) – I propose that the primary topic for ISI should be Inter-Services Intelligence (per WP:PTOPIC) and that a redirect should be put into place; this current ISI article can be moved to ISI (disambiguation). This request is copied from similar accepted request made at Talk:DEA. Please see THIS to understand 119.160.102.250 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No indication that there is a primary topic for this term. I probably would have opposed the DEA proposal, had I noticed it at the time. bd2412 T 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Three-letter acronyms should have a very high bar for such a purpose. -- Netoholic @ 23:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No, no, no. No evidence here for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Again Three-letter acronyms should have a very high bar for such a purpose. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While Inter-Services Intelligence does come up first in Google per above there are lots of uses. Views for a sample [[2]] do show that Inter-Services Intelligence gets significantly more views than the sampled but considering how generic it is I think we're best with a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: no evidence of primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Crouch, Swale and all Internet searches this acronym has a high bar. How much more evidence is required? Clearly there’s no article in DAB page as notable as this one so there’s no point of opposing.

In ictu oculi WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT says “This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it).” And this is happening here. Isn’t it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.96.12 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here compare the page views between the requested primary topic and primary topic DEA. See THIS.-119.160.96.12 (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Probably the primary topic in Pakistan, but not necessarily elsewhere. Far too many on the list for one to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.