Talk:Martyrdom video

"Martyrdom"
I think some method of disclaimer to the notion that one is "preparing to be a martyr" should be added. These videos refer to suicide bombers and others who prey on innocent people. The notion that one deserves any high praise, such as martyr for killing defenseless and innocent people is appaling.71.110.159.170 18:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent deletions
From my talk page:

Thanks for reviewing the Martyrdom video page. However, I disagree with your recent deletion of the section concerning the motives behind martyrdom videos. Yes, martyrdom operations and suicide bombing is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, but it is critical to the argument concerning the creation of such videos. Hence, I made a small section giving the justification for martyrdom operations. Without justification, there would be no propaganda. I've cross referenced the Ishithhad page, as well as a few others, to allow researchers to delve more deeply into the topic. Still, the justification of suicide bombing is critical to the movies that display them. Secondly, you are correct concerning the "reactions" section. I believe it is important to see how such measures are viewed, and my initial intent was to have positives and negatives. I will be adding more reactions and insight (perhaps sociological and psychological) in the next view days. Thank you for refining the page and please continue to edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorin922 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the subject and expanding a small article into a much better coverage. However it seems that you are not exactly familiar wisth some ways (policies and traditions) wikipedia articles are created. Let me explain in more detail the reasons why I deleted big pieces of the text.

First of all, please remember that article content is duscussed in article talk pages, rathre than in user talk pages: in this way more people can join discussion and add more arguments. Therefore I moved your comment here. Now, to article content. Below I will cite some wikipedia policies. I don't want to retell them; please read them carefully when I mention them and then read what I wrote next.

In many articles about events and political subjects it is very difficult to draw the line against what is called "original research", which is not allowed in wikipedia: only information found in cited publications may be entered into wikipedia (of course, presented in different words). There is a wikipedia policy "no original research" to this end. In this respect a very common error is what is called "synthesis" (read this link and then read my text further). This ("synthesis") is the largest problem with the current article, in particular, the sections I removed, "Religuous justification" and "Reactions". BOth of them have references, but these references are to some other facts, from which the wikipedia article draws consusions: there is no references given which directly discuss any connections of "videos" (article sujbect) with "religious justification". Of course, "justification" may be viewed simply as a background information. But again, the whole "islam" subject and its history is a background. Please remember that wikipedia is not a paper book; all information is just one mouse click away, and the whole section about "justification" may be condensed to a single sentence basically saying that such thing exists, with link to proper detail. This is how wikipedia is structured. Otherwise wikipedia will be full of repetitions difficult to read and, what is more important, difficult to keep in common agreement (updates, corrections, etc.).

The second problem is "reactions" section. This is an example of "synthesis" problem. It is very easy to collect a bunch of examples from all over the world: obviously there are numerous comments about these videos. Wikipedia is not a place to publish opinions or random people. What is more, a wikipedian is disallowed to judge themselves which opinions are representative (it would be wikipedian's "original research"). There is also a yet another danger of undue weight placed on these opinions. Therefore the section "reactions" must contain only (a) scholarly texts which analyze these reactions (because this is what wikipedia for) and (b) reactions of governments, important organizations (because there are important facts for wikipedia themselves, unlike opinions of 1-2 arbitrary people from street or even of relatives of martyrs).

Please keep in mind that what I wrote above are fundamental wikipedia policies which are not negotiable. Please replace the "justification" section with 1-2 brief summary sentences and don't restore "Reactions" section, which is completely inadmissible in the state it is now. Thank you.Staszek Lem (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

reply to Staszek Lem
I appreciate your review and corrections. I reviewed the Wikipedia policies and, though I am much more of a rookie than yourself, I feel as though the "religious justification" section meets all guidelines and policies. The introductory paragraph leads into the section as it mentions the cause for most martyrdom videos is to establish legal and religious justification for their actions. I was able to locate sources linking videos to justification instead of just the religious justification of suicide bombing. I also reworded a few sentences to keep the focus on martyrdom videos and not on religious justification. I hope you find them up to Wikipedia's standard. Also, this section is not a "synthesis" problem as there are direct references to using martyrdom videos to display religious justification and examples of martyrs themselves seeking religious justification through their videos. It would be inappropriate to shorten this section as the page on istishhad does not cover the media means to presenting religious justification for what Westerners believe to be atrocious acts, hence one of the purposes of creating such videos. Perhaps this section could be moved to define religious justification as one of the goals of martyrdom videos. That may be the solution to both of our quandaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorin922 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)