Talk:Umma Islamic Party

notability

Google gives me 37,000 hits on Umma Islamic Party and 4000 on "Umma Islamic Party". For a party that has existed (apparently) for just 1 day, it's probably enough to suggest that it either will become notable for what it really is, and/or it will be notable as an internet viral meme. Boud (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this part is two days old. Given the nature of politics in Saudi Arabia no-one can really predict whether this party will still be in existence in a week or a month. At the moment this article is very close to WP:CRYSTAL (future possible notability) and WP:NOTNEWS (questionable long-term notability/sustained coverage). This party may well become a significant force in Saudi politics, or it may end up just being a failed attempt to form a party. Considering this it's probably a bit early for a page on this (more or less planned) party.

As for Google hits: Note that there are several other Umma parties in the Arab world, and if you go to Google search results beyond the first few pages many seem to be for other parties. Travelbird (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes i agree about the google hits, and i agree that this is close to CRYSTAL and NOTNEWS. On the other hand, if this really is a serious creation of a political party in Saudi Arabia, then that in itself could make it notable, e.g. as in political parties in North Korea (i presume there aren't any, but i haven't checked). i have the feeling that what is needed first are more sources that e.g. say who the named member is and argue that he's notable, and that the other 9 intellectuals etc are prominent intellectuals, and e.g. info on reactions to the party within Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the article is tiny enough that maybe it could be merged for the moment and split off later on if/when it becomes notable enough on its own. See a few lines below. Boud (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

arabic wikipedia?

If Arabic-speaking wikipedians are not convinced of the party's notability to make an article, then IMHO it would be a little suspicious. An English-speaking world rumour about a political party in Saudi Arabia would be a little weak regarding notability. Boud (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The arabic version ar:حزب_الأمة_الإسلامية exists now, has been extensively edited by one human and has one edit by a bot, and has a lot more information than the english version, so at least one Arabic-speaking wikipedian is convinced that the topic is notable. Boud (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

urban legend?

A Somali website gets its report about the Umma Islamic Party = UIP for this talk page from the US Huffington Post's reporter "signing" from Riyadh; a pro-Islamic-government website gets its report about the UIP from Associated Press, i.e. a US-based network. These are not very direct sources. But maybe that's just because English-language sources don't have any direct sources themselves. If Al Jazeera comes up with a report based on its own "fact-checking", then we might have something a little more reliable IMHO. Anyway, i'm just thinking out loud here. The next few days might give some hint as to the reality of the would-be party. And a merge while waiting probably wouldn't hurt - see proposal below. Boud (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It'll have to look into this. If it does turn out to be an urban legend possibly based on interviews done in the US it would actually be notable as a hoax given the amount of press coverage. It is surprising that even reliable sources such as Gulf News take their info from overseas sources such as AP. Who knows these days with even main stream media rushing out with stories without double checking them and every one so heavily focused on Egypt. Travelbird (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Press TV (Iran State televion) took the news from AFP.

AlJazeera doesn't seem to have anything on it at all - which is quite odd.

Khaleej quotes the New York Times.

Daily Star (Beirut) doesn't seem to cover it either.

The Gulf Times quotes AFP.

This is indeed very strange. I cannot seem to find any regional news outlets reporting on this party without quoting US or European news agencies. At this point I would suggest we get an Arabic speaker to check the Arab language sources to see if they can find any first hand reports. If we can't come up with any, we definitely have to merge the article and there may even be cause to delete it as not verifiable with reliable sources. Travelbird (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saudi Arabia Travelbird (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On a further note: Press TV has a "Sheikh Mohammed al-Qahtani" as main founder of the party. It could be a coincidence, but there is a Mohammed al-Qahtani which is currently being held at Guantanamo. The al-Qahtani family is very large so there may be more that one person with the same name, but it is strange nonetheless. Travelbird (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad al-Qahtani is a key person in the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA). It might be time for disambiguation for the three of them if we get sufficient info to distinguish them - my guess is that the ACPRA person and the Umma Islamic Party person might be the same person - but this is just speculation, aka WP:OR. Boud (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to be the same person: compare info in Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani to info we have here. Boud (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The arabic version [1] has two references: CNN + youm7 (a website that functions poorly in standard html with scripts turned off: i got cyrillic as the automatically chosen encoding and had to change to arabic by hand, and very little content), + http://www.islamicommaparty.com/Portals/default/. Maybe we should ask ar:مستخدم:عبقري_2009 on his/her talk page ar:نقاش_المستخدم:عبقري_2009 if s/he speaks English and could come over here and comment. Boud (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As we should also as t6hat user whether they simply translated the article because there is one on here. From the looks of the infobox that seems likely. 12:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

merge proposal

Does anyone object to merging this microscopic article, which is about a would-be party only 1 day old, i.e. is risky under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS, to the subsection: Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia#Politics.2C_political_parties_and_elections ? The article would become a redirect. If in the future the party becomes more notable, then it can be split off back to this article and the redirect undone. Boud (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Removing "informal" from subsection title and adding merge to tag. Let people discuss it see if it's WP:SNOW or if it needs 7 days for a proper discussion. Boud (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As per the merge to tag, please discuss this at: Talk:Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia#merge_Umma_Islamic_Party_to_a_subsection_here.3F. Boud (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

website?

Someone much more fluent in Arabic than me (easy) should see if http://www.islamicommaparty.com/Portals/default/ is the would-be party's website, or rather something more generic from people involved with Islam from wherever in the world. The Thomson Reuters article mentions a website without actually giving the URL, i.e. the article wouldn't pass a wikipedia quality test, due to the lack of an obviously needed external link. Boud (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate is pretty good. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ar&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islamicommaparty.com%2FPortals%2Fdefault%2F&act=url shows that this is indeed about Saudi Arabia. However since the website is registered in Jordan, it is unclear whether the website is actually run by members of the party, i.e. whether it an official site. Travelbird (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a domain name and DNS servers and web servers outside of Saudi Arabia would probably be reasonable security precautions, so that doesn't really argue either way. Having domain name and/or DNS servers and/or web server inside of Saudi Arabia probably would be a hint of authenticity, again because of the security risks, but you say that's not the case (i haven't checked). Boud (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since parties are officially banned, I would not expect that the website would be located inside Saudi Arabia. The problem for us is however that we really have no way of verifying it either way. Whois simply has "plex plux amman jordan" as site owner. Travelbird (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaders arrested

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021802641.html

The leaders of the Islamic Umma Party have been arrested by Saudi authorities. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• شعار حزب الأمة الإسلامي.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)