Talk:Party of Democratic Action

Fair use rationale for Image:SDAflag.gif
Image:SDAflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions
Recently, two users - a pro-PDA IP and an anti-PDA regular user turned the page into a POV-battlefield. I tried to re-edit the page so that all major POVs are reflected and no undue faith is given. Adding Muslim nationalism as the ideology and using a 1994 (!) newspaper for 'souring' this is ludicrous, just showing how deep someone's personal POV is.

User:Ethelh's revert
 * made the page format collapse at times: "Political Ideology 	Muslim Nationalist[1] international = none"
 * paid way too much weight to some American conservative newpaper's article, as if it were the only and definitive source (in fact, it only reflects the hearsay that there was Bin Laden in Bosnia, that Izetbegović had 'he served as a recruiter for the infamous SS Handzar Division', there were large contingents of jihadists in Bosnia etc.
 * some 20% of the text is made up of absolutely undue lifting of paragraphs from a NYT article which ciovers a certain Slavko Santic's opinions.

I really think my version is much better this time, I paid plenty of time to cleaning up the mess yesterday and I'm going to revert to my version now. Should any of the 'opposing forces' re-appear, I'd have to report it somewhere to gain sysop attention. Thank you. Miacek (t) 10:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've requested repeatedly, please stop deleting material from reliable sources, that is properly sourced in citations, as you have been doing. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine -- which serve as the source for the bulk of my edits that you have deleted -- are all appropriate sources, even if you dislike them personally or dislike what they have reported.--Ethelh (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the party ideology being "Muslim nationalist", that is the consensus in those sources, as you can quickly glean by looking at and.


 * A 1994 article from a reliable source is an appropriate source for an article that covers the period of 1990 on.


 * There is no "undue lifting" from a New York Times article, but rather a proper treatment of the language which is by no means copied word for word, with appropriate citation to the article.--Ethelh (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist party
Regarding recent edit-warriors, let's see how many sources one can find about this party having a (Muslim/Bosniak) nationalist platform:
 * "Nationalists win Bosnia's elections" (AFP, 13 October 2014)
 * "Nationalists with divided goals extend hold over Bosnia in vote" (Reuters, 13 October 2014 - this one is even accompanied by a picture of a guy celebrating SDA victory by waving SDA party flag in central Sarajevo)
 * "Nationalists likely winners in Bosnian election" (Associated Press, 13 October 2014)
 * "Divided nationalists win Bosnia elections" (Al Jazeera, 13 October 2014)
 * "Bosnian nationalists pull ahead as election results come in" (BBC, 13 October 2014 - this one is illustrated by a picture of SDA president Bakir Izetbegović)
 * "Nationalists Win Majority in Bosnia’s Elections" (Voice of America, 13 October 2014 - another portrait of SDA president accompanying the article)
 * "Bosnia elections: nationalists from rival ethnic groups claim victory" (The Guardian, 13 October 2014)
 * "Bosnia Election Results Seal Nationalists'  Triumph" (Balkan Insight, 28 October 2014)
 * "Victory for the nationalists in the presidential and general elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina" (Fondation Robert Schumann, 21 April 2002)

 Timbouctou ( talk ) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Islamism
What is your objection with the sources?

Marko Babić has a PhD in law and is a judge of the Croatian Constitutional Court. Brian R. Farmer has a PhD in political science from the Texas Tech University. Muhamed Filipović has a PhD in philosophy and is member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts. So they are not "politicians and journalists" as you said, User:The Destroyer Of Nyr. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe this are objective, non-biased sources (a Croat nationalist writer, and a pro-Yugoslav communist) then you don't seem to be capable of objective editing. Also, your writing style and word usage shows a strong subjective agenda, and looking at your other edits, your objectives seem quite clear. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And rest of the authors? Are they also communists? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

They present quite a form of POV. SDA's leadership, nor its members never espoused any Islamist agenda throughout history. If you think a party with religious members is the same as a religous party (one with religious political goals), you are mistaken. Perhaps phrasing it in the matter of its members and sympathizers being mostly religious and socially conservative would seem more in line? The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Seems you have no idea what Islamism is. It includes vast specter of ideologies. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your knowledge of Bosnian politics is pathetic. Either this, or you may be deliberately distorting content. Can you tell me when SDA ever espoused political Islamist goals and attempted to change the nature of the Bosnian state accordingly? And which were those famous Islamist goals and objectives? The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources say so. Any discussion outside a sourced frame would be original research, where I do not want to engage. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These are just a couple of cherry-picked sources, some of which clearly authored by fringe figures. The infobox should only list undisputed things. Of course, the article main text can mention one or two of your sources, as the Serb side frequently made such allegations, in a red herring fallacy manner. Phil. Phil070707 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Besides Bosniak nationalism, which ideology of the party remains undisputed? There's not one source that would suggest that the PDA is for the "Islamic demoracy" (another form of Islamism), or that it is "pro-Europeanist". Still, you have added those in the infobox. There is a history of this party being Islamist, even openly. They supported jihadist volunteers in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Army and they had and still have a strong Islamist faction in the party. President of the SDA in Tuzla and history professor at the University of Tuzla, as well as member of the parliament, wrote about PDA's goal to create a state based on Islam - --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Extremely biased and islamophobic
This article about the SDA party is extremely biased.

It's basically what OTHERS are saying about the party, and not what the party actually stands for in its program.

The article is full of half-truths, hearsay, and nonobjective perpectives, but since there are links to shady sources that were written by detractors and islamophobes, it's considered "credible".

If I link the party's program and translate the main points, will that be enough to remove the "islamist" label? There's absolutely NOTHING in their program that would justify to label them as so-called "islamists".

The-Bosniak (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)