Talk:Bahá'í Faith/YouTube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Youtube contributions
2 Youtube: I call a halt to the hostilities and a vote
3 RoddyYoung is trying to give us a guilt trip
4 Stop
5 Go
6 Break all this youtube stuff into a special archive.

[edit] Youtube contributions

"Baha'i content has made its way on to www.youtube.com website. With over 100 million video downloads each day and 20 million users per month on Youtube this website is a growing forum for Baha'i Holy Day commemorations and other Baha'i content in audio visual material. The earliest video upload was added September 25, 2005, "Baha'i wedding". The next oldest video upload was added October 20, 2005, "Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday". As of 21 August 2006 there is 113 video uploads that have the tags "Baha'i" that is picked up in a Youtube search. Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday has 158 views in 10 months and Baha'i wedding has 1,185 views."

Jeff3000 I am rtv this back in to the page because it is worth noting. RoddyYoung 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not, it is not encyclopedic content that is needed for the understanding of the Baha'i Faith. The point is not if it is true or verifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the content is definitely not suitable for a secription of the Baha'i Faith. Do you really consider the fact that there are YouTube entries on the Baha'i Faith important enough to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith to be on the main Baha'i Faith page? Do you see any other of the religion pages (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc, etc) have any content on YouTube on their pages, even though they will most probably have much more YouTube content? Do you see anyother general Wikipedia articles with a YouTube section? The answer to those questions is no, no and no. -- Jeff3000 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a new section, I don't see a problem with it. I'm not really sure why Jeff is. There are articles with "Further Reading" sections, they don't all have them, but it's not controversial. Why would Youtube sources be controversial? It seems like you two could come to some sort of compromise. Video sources to me, don't seem more controversial, than print sources, they are just other sources. I'm not seeing the need to exclude all video sources from wikipedia. Wjhonson 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a further reading section, which would just be a link to a Baha'i video on YouTube, but on Baha'i content on YouTube which is original research and non-notable in the understanding of the Baha'i Faith. I would argue that content such as Hands of the Cause, Apostles of Baha'u'llah, etc are more important to the Baha'i Faith, but as this is a summary style page, those are not even included. -- Jeff3000 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of getting into a revert war, how about trying to compromise by figuring out where an *appropriate* place would be to put this content, or some version of it ? Wjhonson 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And posting links to primary material is *not* WP:OR. Original research would be if a person creates those videos and then self-publishes them, and posts their own links. Just posting links to existing videos that happen to be on the net, is not original research. Not any more than posting links to existing books that are on the net is, which it isn't. Wjhonson 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jeff is saying that posting links is OR, it's that the section is OR, because it is a description about Baha'i content appearing on Youtube, which is a non-notable thing. I'd say I agree with Jeff, primarily on the basis of non-notability and non-encyclopedic sources. I WOULD however think that individual Youtube videos might make great references to topics discussed throughout the article. There's no section, for example, on how wikipedia has grown in its Baha'i content on this page (just to take a silly example), because it's not relevant. More to the point, Youtube is a collection site, like a big index. Talking about Baha'i content in a big index is a silly in some ways as talking about lots of Baha'i pages that can be reached through Google.

So, summary though - eliminate the section on YouTube specifically, but use links to specific on-topic video clips in references to highlight and illustrate the content of articles. That seems more encyclopedic, more wiki-esque, and a lot cleaner. --Christian Edward Gruber 00:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff and Christian. The links section became enormous and was recently cut down to just a few. Wikipedia should not be a linkfarm, and I don't see why YouTube is any more important than hundreds of other pages. Cuñado - Talk 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Youtube has 100 million downloads per day, this makes it notable and of public interest. Baha'i content on this format is 10 months old in a new 15 month phenomonon. Time will tell of growth trends for Baha'i tags. Statistics aound this is important as is the growth of an independant world religion. Regardless of the quality of the youtube content that is Baha'i it is important to note the first attemps to interact with the wider community. Youtube like it or not is a place where Baha'i content is emerging. Youtube has its own wikipedia page. Youtube will let the world see and hear of information, just like word information is passed on to the collective knowledge of wikipedia, and over time more people will use it for scholarly work. Roddy Young

Using the same argument, Baha'i content on Google should also be included, because well a lot of Baha'i content can be found on it, and Google has a wikipedia article. Not to mention BBC, and other media who have mentioned the Baha'i Faith. This article is about the Baha'i Faith, not media about the Baha'i Faith. Also, do you really think that YouTube content on the Baha'i Faith is really more important to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith than things like Baha'i Faith and international language, Bahá'í Faith and gender equality, etc, etc. This is a Wikipedia:Summary Style article, and not everything is included, especially something that is so non-notable to the Baha'i Faith. -- 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference with media articles and Youtube content. Youtube content is audio visual material that in part looks at birth, deaths and marriages. Birth of The Bab, Birth of Baha'u'llah, passing of The Bab and passing of Baha'u'llah. These dates are Holy Days and open to the public to attend. Youtube content around Holy days lets a wider audience interact with Baha'i and see and hear international language in evolution, gender equality expressed in practice. Picture of Baha'i Temples are also contained in Youtube content, for example the Chile Temple design, 1662 views of this posting after 6 months on Youtube. Youtube is about individual investigation for the truth for ones self. Both in posting and in viewing. As the number of uploads and viewings increase as more people investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah a report on the measures and indicators will become encyclopedic in content. I support Youtube statistics being included as part of a wider monitoring and indicating of the growth of internet interactions. Demographic data is valid and notable in encyclopedia. Youtube is just another form of demographic reporting of Baha'i Faith coming out of obscurity. RoddyYoung 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Youtube content around Holy days lets a wider audience interact with Baha'i and see and hear international language in evolution, gender equality expressed in practice. " -- That is original research
"Picture of Baha'i Temples are also contained in Youtube content" -- Pictures of Baha'i temples are contained in a whole bunch of other places as well.
"Youtube is about individual investigation for the truth for ones self. Both in posting and in viewing", not only original research, but true of many different forms of media
"As the number of uploads and viewings increase as more people investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah a report on the measures and indicators will become encyclopedic in content. " note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
"Demographic data is valid and notable in encyclopedia." - And we already have that with a whole bunch of reliable sources, both (summarized in this article, and in detail in the Baha'i statistics page.) Taking YouTube downloads to mean something about demographics is original work.
" Youtube is just another form of demographic reporting of Baha'i Faith coming out of obscurity." -- Once again original work. -- Jeff3000 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and a Ronaldinho video [1] has 472,789 views, but you don't see that talked about on the Ronaldinho page. -- Jeff3000 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Ronaldinho link and added another viewing click. I think the link to the Chile Temple enlightens the reader of Baha'i wikipedia on Baha'i Temples. Youtube is a new kind of TV on demand, decentralized from state broadcasters. Ronaldinho is a TV sports star that sells advertising. State broadcasters and multinational broadcasters make money from advertising. This is a centralized profit driven forum. Baha'i content would get less then 1/1000 air time on broadcast media.(6 million Baha'is to 6.4 billion people). However Youtube lets peer to peer communication, firesides, happen at a global level free of charge. My point is that radio as been aound since 1922 and TV since 1940-50s and print for 5,000 years, however Youtube quick on demand audio visual has been around 18 months. In the past 18 months Baha'i content has been on it for over 66% of that time. In twenty years that will increase to 99.9 percent of that time. What we are discussing is what will be notable in future. Science and religion must agree other wise religion is wrong and a superstition. I hold to that. The science of Youtube is challenging the religion of wikipedia editors. Good. Consultation is about the clash of differing opinions where the spark of truth may came. What that truth is for others to decide. I am just learning the rules of wikipedia and the culture as we go. Baha'i page needs some contempory facts and figures on what is really happening in the world. Wikipedia is a real time encyclopedia and the means Youtube Baha'i video clips has a place on the page. What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) .

"I think the link to the Chile Temple enlightens the reader of Baha'i wikipedia on Baha'i Temples" So put in an external link in Baha'i House of Worship in the external links section.
"Youtube is a new kind of TV on demand, decentralized from state broadcasters." - What does this have to do with the Baha'i Faith, it should be in the YouTube article.
"However Youtube lets peer to peer communication, firesides, happen at a global level free of charge." - This is a characteristic of YouTube, and in an encyclopedia would be filled under YouTube, not the Baha'i Faith.
"My point is that radio as been aound since 1922 and TV since 1940-50s and print for 5,000 years, however Youtube quick on demand audio visual has been around 18 months. In the past 18 months Baha'i content has been on it for over 66% of that time." - Again it's a characteristic of YouTube, not the Baha'i Faith.
"In twenty years that will increase to 99.9 percent of that time. What we are discussing is what will be notable in future." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see above
"Science and religion must agree other wise religion is wrong and a superstition. I hold to that. The science of Youtube is challenging the religion of wikipedia editors." This argument has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia, and I would once again point you to all the Wikipedia policies that the content you want to add is not encyclopedic.
"Baha'i page needs some contempory facts and figures on what is really happening in the world.", I would say there are much more important recent events in the Baha'i Faith, including the four core activites. and they are included in a summary style way (including links to appropriate daughter articles. Also note the careful aspects regarding Wikipedia:Recentism in Wikipedia.
"Wikipedia is a real time encyclopedia and the means Youtube Baha'i video clips has a place on the page." -- Maybe as an external link in an appropriate subpage (see WP:EL), but not a section describing YouTube Baha'i content, which is not encyclopedic. -- Jeff3000 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact the word 'Baha'i' is used in the tag line of Youtube makes it related to the Baha'i page in Wikipedia. Roddy Young

If that's what you think then you don't know enough about Wikipedia. Please read more about Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jeff is right here on all the points. This page, more than any other Baha'i page, needs information that is consise and relevant. YouTube is not relevant, at all. Cuñado

- Talk 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

YouTube is as relevant as adding a link to a yahoo search on baha'i. If youtube gets added I WILL be adding that. and google. and altavista and ask jeeves. Zazaban 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ths reminded me of wikiadvertising. adding references to sites such as youtube on major articles quiet enough for it not to be reverted instantly. if you want to add this to the baha'i article why not Islam or christianity or buddhism? Zazaban 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps youtube contributions could be referenced as part of the history and development of the use of means of communication and media by the individuals and institutions of the Baha'i Faith. We go back to the Greatest Holy Leaf using the telegraph, through the first computers at the World Center, the radio stations, on to individuals at university using early internet forms and individuals and institutions using BBSes... I could easily see YouTube as an extension of that series. There is more than one article on such a history but perhaps none have gone much newer than 1992-ish times.--Smkolins 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous. People, seriously.

Youtube content might be great, so link such content in. However, Youtube is not relevant to the majority of Baha'is that live in the third-world and have no access to the internet. It might have lots of Baha'i content, but so do a lot of other places, and it would, at most, be suitable for an external link.
Roddy seems to be treating Wikipedia as if it were a "teaching tool" in Baha'i parlance. It may be a means by which people can find out about Baha'i topics, but it cannot be used by Baha'is to "promote" the Baha'i faith, as it is not a Baha'i owned/controlled web-site. We Baha'is have to be sensitive about that. The goals of wikipedia are not to promote certain points of view, but to present as many points of view in a neutral and encyclopedic way. This is not an on-line fireside and trying to treat it as one will certainly piss off those who are not Baha'is in very short order.

Note:Roddy, I'm sorry to single you out, you're not the only one, just the most recent. We Baha'is can get very understandably excited about this great thing we've discovered (Baha'u'llah's revelation), but you have to be sensitive to your audience and your context. If there are any lessons of Abd'ul-Baha's teaching style, it's to try to be appropriate to your context.

I feel very strongly that lists of links and indecies of content, while they might be reasonably added into external-links sections in some limited circumstances, must not get their own section on a summary article. Youtube content can dramatically accent wikipedia articles through referencing, but to put a section about Youtube content gives undue weight to a very recent phenomenon that has little to do with the Baha'i faith. The content might be relevant, but the indexing mechanism is incidental. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let editors remind themselves what wikipedia says in the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the Bahai page "Bahá'ís number around six million in more than two hundred countries around the world.[1][2]

According to Bahá'í teachings, religious history is seen as an evolving educational process for mankind..." Numbers of Baha'is is mentioned (statistical)in this passage and number of countries (statistical)is mentioned. These are notable physical demographic data and geographical data. Then in 3rd sentence "religious history is seen as an evolving educational process" Wikipedia has close to one billion hits per day, from 375,000,000 users of the internet. The other 6 billion people on the planet, of which one in five of the children have not seen the inside of a class room, rely on books and oral histories. A person who can not read and write can watch a Youtube view of say Haifa 2265 views and understand what is being said and shown and with out reading wikipedia. All people can learn to read and write and time will see an international language evolve, taught in all schools, and agreed by all governments. As we approach this time Youtube is presenting 100,000,000 views per day to the 375,000,000 internet connections. As well more coverage of Youtube over TV broadcast carries breaking developments. Those that come lately to the internet will want to see the most popular forums on the internet and youtube will be one place for these new users to go, Bahai content will also be a search on Youtube and early content will be also of interest as well. Wikipedia needs to acknoledge these demographics and digital geographies in the Baha'i page to keep up with the "evolving educational process" of mankind. Shall I rvt the Youtube contribution back into the Baha'i document again to see if a change of head and heart have come from this consultation for the editors? Roddy Young

Sorry to be so frank, but if you put the YouTube content back in, I will swiftly revert. Every editor here has disagreed with its notability or importance to the Baha'i Faith. May I ask you to once again read WP:OR, WP:WWIN, WP:NN, and the other Wikipedia policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff3000 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Could I ask that you make a video of the Baha'i wikipedia page content, with the WP:OR, WP:WWIN, WP:NN concepts all intact, and upload it on to Youtube site with the tags wikipedia Bahai page as of such and such a date please. If Youtube can not come to wikipedia then let wikipedia come to Youtube editors. There is a gap between these two mediums and this discussion highlights that. I would be interested to see how editors would explain in Youtube your understanding of WP:OR, WP:WWIN, WP:NN. "May I ask you to once again" produce some audio visual content in the wikipedia style for upload into Youtube 'please'. RoddyYoung 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no gap, it's just that youtube doesn't belong on an article on a freaking religion. is that so hard to understand? Zazaban 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For all the vehemence, I still think it (use of means of communication by a religion) a worthy scholarly topic. To substantiate the point note "Computers in the Bahá'í Community Through Ridván 1992"[2] and [3] was actually published in The Bahá'í World, volume 20 (not sure of the page number.) Supplemental material not included can be garnered elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.146.174 (talk • contribs) .

Once again I note that this is a Wikipedia:Summary style article, and does not and should not include everything about the Baha'i Faith. Only the most important things to its understanding. For example, things like Bahá'í Faith and auxiliary language and Bahá'í Faith and gender equality are not even included. -- Jeff3000 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was unsigned, a few clicks before I was signed in and then poof suddenly I wasn't. I don't disagree it should be in it's own article. I'm just another voice here. I see truths to both sides of the "conversation". BTW, I found another place the article is referenced[4].--Smkolins 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just repeating myself, but since the discussion has carried on and on, I find the need to say it again. YouTube is not relevant and I will revert any additions to the main page from its content. You could make an argument to add it to the external links, but you would have to show why it is more important and relevant than ten thousand other sites, and I doubt that will happen. Cuñado

- Talk 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has narrowed the contribution from Youtube to an external link reference *Baha'i Youtube contributions and this still gets rvt. I ask that the material on Youtube, Baha'i World Centre, Haifa, Israil, travel information, have the same standard of wikipedia applied to it and stay in. I note that consultation has minimised the content on the summary page to just the last word on the page. However inlight of opinions' editors' make I feel that rvting the one line remaining at this stage is over the top. It brings in to question the over edit question by one person having the say to eliminate all content, rather than enhancement of the fine product with skill and insight. I am happy for the discussion to support a concensus that the one line stays in at this stage. I agree to leaving the one line in external links. Points made to date are valid as well as those that support 'means of communication of a religion' are valid. For example the call to prayer in Islam is just as notable for the past 1400 years, and is a major part of culture, as recent development on the internet with wikipedia and youtube. I would contend that Youtube contributer's call to look and hear about Holy Days around the world is also notable and has just as much a place in wikipedia as an older fact. Wikipedia has been around 5 years and is a welcome innovation to the internet, as it is for Youtube with Baha'i content. Bahai content on youtube happens to be around for 10 months and 6 months from the starting of Youtube. To refute the comment that 'ten thousand other sites' make the grade for external link inclusion in the Baha'i page miss the point that Youtube gets 100 million downloads per day, one tenth the hits of Google, 110 times more than wikipedia (912,000 hits per day), Google been around 1998, Wikipedia 2001 and Youtube 2005. Any search on Google will bring up about 2,280,000 hits for 'bahai', with www.bahai.org, www.bahai.com, and then en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith being the top three sites in order. About 13,500 Google hits for 'bahai' and 'youtube' with [youtube.com/watch?v=w5EYAzlGxKA Chile Temble] being top of that list. This is the Chile House of Worship, a proposed design animated to music, and showing future developments of the Baha'i Faith. Youtube is 18 months old, wikipedia 60 months old. Let this matter mature for a few years and look back at the progress and discussion then. Leave the youtube link as part of external links for the time being and see how things change over time. RoddyYoung 09:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Two words, WP:Consensus and WP:EL. -- Jeff3000 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to Jeff3000 and Cuñado --Mipago 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the above with information from the New Zealand Herald, Monday August 21, 2006, A9. It now reads "To refute the comment that 'ten thousand other sites' make the grade for external link inclusion in the Baha'i page miss the point that Youtube gets 100 million downloads per day, one tenth the hits of Google, 110 times more than wikipedia, Google been around 1998, Wikipedia 2001 and Youtube 2005." As you can see Youtube gets 110 times more hits per day than wikipedia and google (A billion search requests a day) gets 10 times more than does youtube. So the vast numbers are in youtube's favor by 110 times. Below is the concensus I find for keeping the youtube external link in. If you think that 110 times more hits to youtube after 18 months is greater than wikipedia 60 months then I rest my case. Please stop reverting the youtube link. I have given you the most cut down version that you asked for and reduced it to the most insignificant place on the page. So some humility and give it a year or so. One line will not break you. RoddyYoung 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For all the vehemence, I still think it (use of means of communication by a religion) a worthy scholarly topic. To substantiate the point note "Computers in the Bahá'í Community Through Ridván 1992"[5] and [6] was actually published in The Bahá'í World, volume 20 (not sure of the page number.) Supplemental material not included can be garnered elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.146.174 (talk • contribs) .

Does this guy know the meaning of "consensus"? Danny Lilithborne 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the content. "consensus" is not about wiping out others contributions to extinction. Danny you a one person is a sea of 100 million hits per day for Youtube and 912,000 visits to wikipedia today. Thank you Danny I have just corrected my mistake above, the hits to Youtube are 110 time greater hits per day than visits to wikipedia. I want you to look at the material posted, (do you have broad band Danny because you will need it for youtube) and see if it compliments the Baha'i wikipedia site. It does Danny. So I suggest that the concensus of four agree to delete somewhere else on wikipedia and leave the Baha'i page alone. Your points have been taken and the material changed to suit. Your continued reverts boader on vandalism and is not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. Have some patience and let Youtube become as old as wikipedia before you consider rvt again if at all (18 months moving to 60 months in existance for Youtube).RoddyYoung 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Roddy? The number of visits is no argument at all. Please accept that we are writing an encyclopedia and not some kind of web portal. --Mipago 11:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Well said. Encyclopedia!! -- Jeff3000 13:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus within Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with how many hits a website gets. And considering my revert is my first edit to this page in quite some time, I'm going to dismiss your warnings as ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

YouTube has, as of this writing all of 113 entries on Baha'i. This is down from my earlier look at it. This - site - is - irrelevant. It's Baha'i content is negligible and linking to it here is borderline commercial promotion. This site is no "primary source" worthy of consideration. Editors need to demonstrate a little discrimination with respect to what provides informative information rather than noise. I can't believe this discussion has gone on this long. Roddy, you really need to recognize when you have no support for your position. There appear to be about six editors here who'll revert this on-sight. Re-stating your arguments endlessly is not consultation. MARussellPESE 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is about a collection of useful information. Online encyclopedia has opened this medium up to the world wide web of people who would never get to write for an encyclopedia. Technology changes have seen software predominate in importance, (Microsoft, youtube etc) in the past 15 years. The Baha'i site is not like other encyclopedia entries when it comes to the heart of this matter. What I mean is that the Baha'i site is reporting on social software if you like. This social software has impacts on human demographics. The subject pertains to births, deaths and migrations of human beings in religion which is the heart of religion and monitored and indicated with demographic studies. Demography provides future predictions of human population trends. I will give you an example. Israel has 1.9 births per women in a life time. Palistine has on average 7 births per women in a life time. 1.9 to 7.0 fertility rate when played out over 10 generations or 350 years can be illustrated in an example of 100 fertile couples. In the case of 1.9 births per women fertility rate, at the end of 10 generations, there remails 66 fertile couples. So in the case of 100 homes at the start, a maximum population of around 350 people (with grandparents and babies living in the same house as a fertile couple) would be the reality over ten generations. Sustainable. In the case of 7 births per women in a life time we see at the end of 10 generations the 100 fertile couples in the example have increased to 34,000,000 people trying to live in 100 homes. These demographics relate to two religions that live side by side with each other in the Middle East. To say that demographics have nothing to do with religion on the Baha'i page would be wrong. That would be ignorant of the facts. It is also not far from the truth to have internet useage with youtube statistics as a person can not live on bread alone. The Baha'i page is an encyclopedic page that opens itself up to the best and brightest minds of the planet. When a group of 6 people gang up and delete and rvt content added and say that the content in this talk page justifies the delete shows that these individuals have missed the point of what an encyclopedia is about. A repersentation of knowledge. Youtube comes second behind hits to google by a factor of 10, wikipedia come behind youtube by a factor of 100. Youtube content has shown 113 sites in the past 10 months with the tag Baha'i. Many other youtube contributions relates to Baha'i on youtube but under other tags. This growth is predicted to continue. This page is a demonstration that the topic of Baha'i content on Youtube has merit. What is underconsideration here is what is the best way to report the measures and indicators of the most popular audio visual site of the www with regards to Baha'i content at present time. rvt's and deletes are just a way of an ostrech puting ones head in the sand. Flat earth society, 9 planets society (name change to 8) are all examples in history where people have debated matters about reality and science. History shows truth eventually wins out after a bit of house arrest. Take the earth revolving around the sun, it is seen from earth that the sun moves around the earth. House arrest was the result of that debate for one Galeleo Galalee. At least in wikipedia forum the world gets access to read the debate realtime and make comment in a persons life time eventually. The world has real issues of importance to discuss. 1844 the world population was 1,000 million people, 1969 it was 3,000 million people, today in 2006 it is 6,500 million people and in 44 years it will be 9.1 billion people by 2050. That is a 9.1 fold increase in 200 years. 10 percent of all people who ever lived are living today. 100 million hits on youtube per day represent an important part of human communication evolution for a site that is only 18 months in the making. Wikipedia has 6 people delete work that relates to youtube and are not taking the long term view on the importance of human communication and Baha'i when it comes to youtube. As I said before, take your wikipedia site and use text to voice software and creat an MP3 audio track of the Baha'i page, then place the MP3 into Microsoft moviemaker free programme and find images that match the words using google search. save the audio visual into 10 minute long segments and upload it to youtube. I would be interested to watch and listen to the wikipedia Baha'i page. I promose I will not delete that work, infact I will even link it back to this Baha'i page in wikipedia. Best wishes. RoddyYoung 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"The world has real issues of importance to discuss." How right you are, Roddy :) --Mipago 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Baha'i page on Youtube Well it is official, the Baha'i page is now on Youtube! Pictures of the text can be made out and some of the larger text is fully readable. So wikipedia finally went to youtube and now youtube has a place on the Baha'i encyclopedic page for that reason. If for nothing more than to note the power of the radical transmutation of the elements, a sign of the coming of age of the human race. So to all those that deleted or more politly rvt the youtube link, what I want to say to you is that you can now cut off your noses to spite your faces for a while by trying the rvt game. You will see at the end of the youtube video that the link to the youtube wikipedia page was screen saved before rvt and placed into the video while Jeff3000 was deleting. All Jeff3000 took out was a link and the words to www.youtube.com. This was due to the need to upload the video to youtube first with the wikipedia reference first before returning to the wikipedai page to add the address assigned by youtube to the video. So well done Jeff3000 I have shown you that regardless of your deletes the video on Youtube has the wikipedia page with a link to youtube on the Baha'i page. You can rvt with your 5 mates all you like and you have now been checkmated with that little move. What I was trying to express to you all along was the need to have more patience in this matter. So if you want to impress me then compete in the youtube environment. Wikipedia is just a warm up, granduate to the university, the postgraduate studies of on line encyclopedic content, come and bring your skills from your wikipedia undergraduate time and show your skill in full blossim in Youtube. Professor pioneer. RoddyYoung 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So you made a video. so? that doesn't mean anything. Does that mean I could make a video of lets say... Qibla compass and then it would warrent mention of YouTube on the article? hardy har-har. Please accept that nobody wants youtube on this article but you. we good editors have the right to be as harsh as we want about it as long as it gets through your thick skull. got it? Zazaban 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube: I call a halt to the hostilities and a vote

Ok, the consensus seems to be going against Roddy, who persistently continues to push his notions. While I personally agree with the general view that Youtube pages are not appropriate source materials, but I do feel that occasional Youtube (or other) videos might be useful as illustration of a point. There are subtleties here.

That said, the tone and tenor is getting increasingly frustrated and harsh, and while people have the "right" to be as "harsh as they want", it's hardly necessary or productive. So I call a vote. Please put your id under the appropriate heading and a single summary sentence or two of your feelings on the matter, if the heading doesn't fully express your view. Any other thoughts can go into the "other comments" section. Once we've tallied this up, if there's no clear winner, we can run-off, but after this, I'd like us all to take a short break from this. Obviously this is only a suggestion, but I feel a lot of noise has been generated, with little real value for the article. Let's wrap this up, at least for a timeout.

[edit] Include Youtube index links as "external links"

[edit] Include specific Youtube videos as references only

I think video is helpful to illustrate, but only specific video should be used to illustrate specific points, and Youtube in general isn't an appropriate source. Same applies to Google video or any other multimedia source. Preference should be given to uploading video to the Commons. Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above... preference to uploading video to Commons, which should take care of licensing issues as well. dragfyre 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any difference between a text link/reference of someone typing such and so which is the point of the reference and a video showing the person saying such and so which is the point of the reference - except in one way, there are people who don't have broadband access and thus generally wont be able to see YouTube or similar sources. On the other hand a picture or movie's higher bandwidth needs servers the purpose of saying more than just words. I don't know what a Commons is. I just think a YouTube entry could act as a reference just like a web page could.--Smkolins 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As a reference maybe, but usually a better secondary source can be found, and the best reference should be used. -- Jeff3000 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not as references but as related links; but only if they're both relevant and acceptably NPOV. -LambaJan 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limit Youtube to a "Baha'i video on Youtube" (or similar) page

[edit] No Youtube content on Baha'i articles on Wikipedia

No YouTube content on Wikipedia. They are equivalent to personal websites which don't pass muster. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Zazaban 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No. This site adds nothing whatsoever to an encyclopaedic understanding of the Baha'i Faith. MARussellPESE 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No YouTube as references. I would accept it as an external link as long it is very relevant to the subject, like a video about an individual on that person's biographical page. Cuñado - Talk 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion (although I haven't bothered to read all of it) just seems plain darn silly. Probably the existing policies are enough to deal with it, but at this point I think it is best to just shut down the nonsense and make it go away. There doesn't seem to be anything special about Youtube that makes it an especially important thing for us to pay attention to here. Please just stop it. —Wookipedian 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Danny Lilithborne 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other comments

Please limit comments here to specific additional thoughts that haven't been already hashed to death above. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a new general rule here. WP:WEB is enough. --Mipago 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think RoddyYoung cares about that. even if he's out voted he'll still accuse us of ganging up on him and being vandals. a vote doesn't matter if one party thinks the other is vandalising. Zazaban 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:WEB is more than enough — if only Roddy would read it. Roddy has really demonstrated a great deal of attachment to this topic, and generally poor demeanor here. He's baited, berated and belittled almost everyone, individually and collectively, who's addressed him on any point. Anybody else considering opening a WP:WQA? MARussellPESE 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, it was my contribution that was deleted and rvt and minimised to an point that removed any trace of it. It was not I who was doing the baiting, berating or belittling of any other persons contribution on the main page of wikipedia. Here is what Jimmy Wales says This content can be considered proceedings from a conferrence, published, notable etc and from Jimmy Wales of wikipedia fame himself. Audio visual clips are different from a personal text based web page in that it is not primarily from a persons mind. Photo and audio material are representations of an independant reality that others can view and come to independant conclusions on. Why I like pod casting (better term to use generally as youtube is just a brand name of pod casting) is that it challenges wikipedia to mature. The reason the Baha'i faith page has attracted this attention around pod casting is that Baha'i spans a time frame in progressive revelations terms that maps recorded human written history. It is hard for this page to have a time scale of 100's of years and then have a web2.0 application come along and want equal space and relevance on the page when podcasting is only 18 months old. Kick out new information until it is time tested is the conservative approach. Podcasting is web2.0. Here are some charges against wikipedia culture that editors must answer Some youtube material on truth about wikipedia ps MARusse I have not read any of your wikipedia work as yet, all I have done is respond to your charges against me and my arguments. I hope you have broadband and flash to watch youtube so you can give an informed and thoughtful reply. RoddyYoung 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my vote above I also think there could be a wider analysis of use of media and communications as a sub-topic under history of the Baha'i Faith and YouTube would be one of the newer avenues used. (But I saw no reference to this option among the answers. As such YouTube could act not just as a reference but as a phenomena among others that are worth noting.--Smkolins 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Any of such comment cannot be included in Wikipedia as it would be original research. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I haven't seen anything on YouTube vis. Baha'i that raises it to the level of consideration on Wikipedia. With about 100 Baha'i entries out of 200,000 plus total, the Baha'is are about as irrelevant to that site as it is to this subject. Please, can't this discussion be taken off-line if it can't die a natural death? MARussellPESE 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff how is referring to someone else's content on Youtube, any different than referring to someone else's content in a book? I see no difference. It certainly is not OR. Wjhonson 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a difference. A book is a published source and is acceptable in Wikipedia. YouTube is like a personal website, self-published. From WP:RS, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- Jeff3000 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

… making YouTube inappropriate as a blog, not WP:OR. MARussellPESE 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Yes I can agree that YouTube should be treated the same as a personal website. "Generally" not acceptable. A month or so ago, we had quite a long discussion about when self-published sources could be used, and how. I believe there were a few spin-off pages related to that somewhere in the reliable sources archives. I can't quite recall. Wjhonson 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is equivalent to a personal website, not OR, besides the relevancy issues. Cuñado

- Talk 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a couple thoughts. The internet is evolving as part of the overall evolution of humanity and our processing of knowledge and wisdom. Wikipedia is itself a step in that process. Before the internet almost all media were push-types. Conglomerate decision making and some of that aimed at high levels of refinement. Traditional Encyclopedias reflected this. The internet fundamentally gave voice to more people. Wikipedia is a creation gathering the efforts of people who would never have had voice in the older printed encyclopedia form. Now, as surely all know, the internet has been a place of worse than incorrect information as well as approaching the best available information and wikipedia is clearly aiming at that best-info case. And yet it's not really designed at strongly limiting the voices down to a tightly managed few as best I hear of it. Web 2.0 technologies take qualities of web 1.0 already noted into new realms and that evolution is ongoing. As much as the traditional printed encyclopedias surely must have found the upstart wikipedia distressing so could wikipedians find new developments distressing and onwards past pod casting I'm sure. It's all rather like progressive revelation. And yet simply denegrating and flouting authority isn't the solution either. In each case of printed encyclopedias and wikipedia care is taken and from a rather sloppy mess when the form began, value is added and built on. Wikipedia's early days I'm sure were far more wild than they are now; why else would rules evolve? But it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on the prize. Is not the union of abilities of the administrative structures of the Faith and the priorities of the spirit worthy of some kind of implimentation even here in wikipedia? --70.41.146.174 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You should take that discussion to the Wikipedia policy pages, and not here. Until there are any changes, we abide by Wikipedia policy. Let's end this discussion now. It's not for us to decide to change Wikipedia policy. If you feel strongly, take it to those pages. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found resonance in those policies. Some are sited often here. Other's aren't. I like this quote: "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people."[8] Clearly this hasn't been followed. On the otherhand, there is this official policy too: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.[9](emphasis repeated.)--Smkolins 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, only after RoddyYoung failed to agree with consensus, did the tone of the edits get worse. So the first quote above which requires seeking consensus first fails. Secondly, note that almost all disagree that YouTube edits on this page maintain Wikipedia's quality. Actually, almost agree they reduce the quality of the page. Thus those quotes should be viewed within WP:Consensus. Again, if you disagree with these statements, open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also note the very specific things that are the origin of this dispute/discussion which has somehow got lost after Roddy went on his repeated statements that YouTube is revolutionizing the world (1) A section about Baha'i YouTube downloads on this page (completely non-notable, (2) a link to a generic search of Baha'i content on YouTube, linkspam. The observation that YouTube is revolutionizing the world is completely orthogonal to anything about the Baha'i Faith, and his additions which were reverted. -- Jeff3000 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RoddyYoung is trying to give us a guilt trip

Ok, firstly, he is compairing himself to Jesus and us to the people who crucified him. Secondly, he's wieghing the 7 of us against the amount of people who visit YouTube each day, most of which probably have never heard of the Baha'i faith, to attempt to prove us wrong. all of this can be seen on his talk page. Really I think he's beating a dead horse and rehashing the same useless argument. Zazaban 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree. I have come late to this discussion and as I read through it the tone soured quite a bit, and it wasn't Roddy Young's fault. From the beginning right until his last or second to last post he has been congenial and willing to compromise. It wasn't until he felt the need to defend hisself that he did just that. Saying that we're crucifying him is rather dramatic, saying that he said or implied such is inaccurate.

I don't mean to come in here and scold any of you. I have no authority to do such things. I just can't help but think that we could've conducted ourselves much better. When people who are unfamiliar with the Baha'i Faith read this they will conclude that this is how Baha'is treat eachother. We all know that we would never let things sour like this in real-life communications. Why here? -LambaJan 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis LambaJan. Roddy was originally presented with the policies and statements from multiple editors that the content was not acceptable. Only after he constantly disagreed with consensus, and re-added the content, and went on some diatribes, did the rest of the editors here become more forecful. There is such thing as consensus, and Roddy continues to believe that his understanding trumps it.

In the end the YouTube content can not be included since none of the options that Roddy has suggested passes Wikipedia policy:

YouTube cannot be added as a section about YouTube Baha'i downloads since it is completely non-notable to the Baha'i Faith (especially in a summary style article) and can be original research if those downloads are interpreted in some manner which Roddy has suggested many times above.
YouTube cannot be added as a general link to Baha'i search on YouTube in the External links, which is easily considered linkspam, and not acceptable (see also Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive10#External_links). Specific links in specific daughter articles might be acceptable.
YouTube cannot be used as a reference for some statement since YouTube is considered a self-published resource and cannot be used as a reference just as personal websites cannot be used as referenes (see WP:RS).

Roddy seems to not understand that while YouTube is a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia, by definition, completely tries not to be a publisher of original thought. Their goals of expanding information to internet users follows completely different paths. -- Jeff3000 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LambaJan is addressing, I think, the emotional/personal content of this discussion. I couldn't agree more with his observation that face-to-face this would never have degenerated like this. As someone as skilled and observant a communicator as you are, Lambajan, you well understand the dearth of meaningful emotional content available in the naked written word. What's gone on here is more than just the talk page though. There's a series of edits/reverts/re-reverts with sometimes terse edit summaries and only afterwards was the talk page used. Roddy is a new user, and using the talk pages is not always obvious to newcomers.

However, once the conversation finally arrived here, my impression of this was that it cycled repeatedly about the axis of Roddy making his points, and others, sometimes several people, stating that these were not germane. That that got into a feedback loop was frustrating all around. Roddy, no doubt thought nobody was listening. (In the absence of direct communication how could he see anyone nodding, "hm-hmm"ing, — any of the other odd non-verbal cues that enrich face-to-face interaction.) On the other hand, personally, I was irritated by what appeared to be his assumption that we had not listened or considered his position (He couldn't see/hear any of our non-verbal cues either.) even though several comments responded directly to his points. In writing, direct response to a point indicates that that point has been considered — but this medium is so often treated as a "chat" with the worst of both written communication and the flippance that accompanies "chat".

I would point out that Roddy did continue to edit the article even when this conversation had not closed. Chalk that up to being a newcomer, but that is bad form given wikipedia's culture. MARussellPESE 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I admit to some wikipedia cultural upset. For this I am sorry. You have my full attention. (helped with my name being in the headline?). Jeff3000 states that "Roddy was originally presented with the policies and statements from multiple editors that the content was not acceptable. Only after he constantly disagreed with consensus, and re-added the content, and went on some diatribes, did the rest of the editors here become more forecful. There is such thing as consensus, and Roddy continues to believe that his understanding trumps it." This is true Jeff3000. You have still to address the youtube content contention with argument. For example. If a person was to read each word of the wikipedia Baha'i page into an audio recorder and make an audio track that was uploaded into youtube then would you consider wikipedia content in audio form original work? No. If all that has changed is the format of the content (from text to audio) then the quality and nature of a wikipedia page is the same. Encyclopedic in nature but represented in Youtube's audiovisual format. Now if that audio track was placed into movie maker and someone added pictures, diagrams, video clips to compliment the words of the wikipedia audio track I ask would that change the nature of the words from the wikipedia page.No, well I say maybe, as the pictures have not the same tested standards as the text has. However this is the rub we are discussing here in the talk page. I understand you take the strong argument that wikipedia can not accept youtube content because it will always be non-notable, even if the content is exactly the same as the Baha'i page text. You also hold to the notion that all youtube content would be considered as linkspam on the main Baha'i page. You say "Specific links in specific daughter articles might be acceptable." If that were true you would have to conseed that a picture of the Universal House of Justice building on the Baha'i page could link justifiably to a 360 degree youtube shot presentationn of the same building from the air. One picture or time sequenced 24 frames per second giving the sense of motion is different how? It is not. The image is acceptable for the Baha'i page as an image. Then explain how a motion picture becomes linkspam? Well it does if it is not legal in the wikipedia sense. The statement that "YouTube cannot be used as a reference for some statement since YouTube is considered a self-published resource and cannot be used as a reference just as personal websites cannot be used as referenes (see WP:RS)." In some youtube content you are totally correct it is just personal video clips and not notable (Jimmies cat for example) however other content on youtube must also have the status of print in wikipedia because the content demands it. I gave the example that youtube carries exact wording in audio format of a reference to text in wikipedia that is acceptable. You state that "Roddy seems to not understand that while YouTube is a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia, by definition, completely tries not to be a publisher of original thought. Their goals of expanding information to internet users follows completely different paths." My understanding is that a book of text can be turned into a screen play and that screen play then has actors who bring it to life on the screen as a motion picture, talkies if you will. Once the material is filmed it dates. Unlike wikipedia that is a changing genetic code of text being updated and refined. Some things do not change and an example is a photograph of Baha'u'llah's hand written of His Hidden Words, or audio material of the Shoghi Effendi's wife speaking to an audience in the past does not change. The video presentation of the Trustee of Huququ speaking on a DVD on [Huququ] also does not change once recorded. The picture of Baha'u'llah's hand writting of a Hidden Word can be on youtube, the audio of Shoghi Effendi's wife can also be on the youtube format, and the talk of the Trustee of Huququ can also possibly be on the format of youtube with permission. That is a convergence on youtube format and wikipedia format and an argument that refutes the statement that you made "Their goals of expanding information to internet users follows completely different paths." but to the same end? In your defence I want to make the final comment that the stakes are high in the wikipedia Baha'i page granted. Unlike other pages the Baha'i page has a watchful eye on the content that is posted and an administration outside wikipedia that looks in. Other pages can carry differing matterial but the Baha'i page must not and will be defended vigorously to keep the status quo or what is considered acceptable by the body politic. My understanding of matter in this talk discussion is that mixing formats (text of wikipedia with audio visual of youtube) have touch on the ease of material not becoming corupted on a Baha'i encyclopedic page and protection of corrupt material entering the page is the prime motorvation on the one hand and on the other is the reality that 20 million people per month access on average 150 video clips each on youtube. The expedient solution to this challenge as a strategic thinker is to suggest that wikipedia has a youtube format type set up internally where content mentioned before can be uploaded into wikipedia and fully control in the wikipedia environment that feeds the wikipedia pages. The point about the rapid growth of youtube is that the format is very acceptable and broadband with flash software is what wikipedia needs to look to also embrace and part of an ever advancing civilization. To the comments about this talk page not being a good expression of seemly human communication I just have to say that I hope that it does not get translated into other lanuages of the world and only the product of the talk is seen by the other language speakers, that being the wikipedia's use of broad band and flash technology to provide audio visual feeds of material linked to text pages. To the person who stated what I think, I want to assure you that I do not think that a manifestation of God from 2000 years ago is fair to be likened to my humble mortal being. Please refrain from statements that are sensational so that you can direct readers to other pages. Your comments have upset people and show that you are upset as well. You have the right to edit your own words on this page and if you consider any changes to be proper then I encourage you to make the appropriate changes. I would appreciate mitigation of any sensational statements and if any person wishes for me to reconsider any of what I have texts then ask in open talk and I will address your request likewise. RoddyYoung 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Roddy, you are once again going without actually looking at the content you have added in the past. So let's look at your actions. First you added this content:

While true, it is totally non-notable to the Baha'i Faith, but is in reference to YouTube. This is not the same as what you are arguing just above regarding Wikipedia material on YouTube, but the opposite, YouTube explanations on Wikipedia. Your further arguments for it's inclusions, such as "Youtube content around Holy days lets a wider audience interact with Baha'i and see and hear international language in evolution, gender equality expressed in practice" is completely original work. Then after everyone agreed that this paragraph was non-notable, you started adding a link to YouTube with the search term "baha'i". This is equivalent to adding a link to google with a Baha'i search term. A search by definition does not provide a unique resource, and therefore is considered linkspam. Now let's go into your further comments in your last post

"For example. If a person read each word of the wikipedia Baha'i page into an audio track in youtube then would you consider wikipedia content in audio form original work?" – Wikipedia already allows you to read an article and save it as a sound file (see the Hinduism article). No need for YouTube here.
"wikipedia can not accept youtube content because it will always be non-notable, even if the content is exactly the same as the Baha'i page text" – If the content is the same, then there is no need for there to be a link to YouTube, it's already in Wikipedia.
"you would have to conseed that a picture of the Universal House of Justice building on the Baha'i page could link to a 360 degree youtube shot of the building from the air". – If the video is licensable under the GFDL, or some other free license, upload the media to Commons, and link to it. Again no need for a link to YouTube. If it isn't licenensed under a free license, then you would need to still upload it to Wikipedia and then use a fair use rationale to include it in an article. A lot of fair use media get deleted quickly.
"I gave the example that youtube carries exact wording of a reference to text that is acceptable" – If it's the exact wording of a reference, then the reference should be the original document, and not the YouTube media.
Once the material is filmed it dates. Unlike wikipedia that is a changing genetic code of text being updated and refined. Some things do not change and an example is a photograph of Baha'u'llah's hand written Hidden Words, Audio material of the Shoghi Effendi's wife speaking to an audience does not change. The video presentation of the Trustee of Huququ also does not change once recorded. The picture of Baha'u'llah's hand writting of a Hidden Word can be on youtube, the audio of Shoghi Effendi's wife can be on youtube format, and the talk of the Trustee of Huququ can also possibly be on the format of youtube. " – These are all specific media, and as I have already noted, they can be included in specific daughter articles. This does not allow for a generic search link to YouTube in the External links section, or a section of text about YouTube in this article.
"The expedient solution to this as a strategic thinker is that wikipedia has a youtube format type set up where content mentioned before can be uploaded into wikipedia and fully control the environment that feeds the wikipedia pages." – This already exists and is commons, but because of Wikipedia wanting to remain free, everything has to be licensend under the GFDL, or become public domain. No need for YouTube.
"The point about the rapid growth of youtube is that the format is very acceptable and broadband with flash software is what wikipedia needs to also embrace." – This is a policy question, and Wikipedia tries not to use any format that is not free. For example, the recommended audio format is ogg and not mp3. Flash format is propietery, and not something Wikipedia would use.

As you can see Roddy, inclusion of YouTube content, except for very limited use as External links in specific Wikipedia pages, is not possible. -- Jeff3000 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This was on the first ever Baha'i talk page and I am interested in quoting it here. If you want to reference this then visit archive.

"An old-timer who has been here since the very, very early days (I know Larry Sanger if that helps gives you a sense of time).I rarely participate in discussions. I am an administrator - one of the first ever appointed - but I rarely exercise my admin rights. I generally try to avoid many of the petty disputes that the admins regularly get themselves caught up in.In the off-chance that anyone cares about my opinion: I am very disturbed by the trend to championing "process" over "quality" which has become a hallmark of the 'pedia's internal wrangling. It's heartbreaking, and is the reason why so many good people have left the project.As a result, I just stick to writing content whenever I find the time."

Roddy Young.

PS looking at the copyright laws I feel that delete and rvt of others work may be argued as superceeding the person's copyright entitlement. If that is the case and upset was had due to deletes and a law suit could be taken over others deleting work then this would raise some interesting changes to the culture of wikipedia and may even be the end of it as we know it. I must admit that attention is agained when someone deletes a bit of work. If deleting stopped then wikipedia would become flabby. Jeff3000 I invite you to take the new understanding that you have gained and present a case to the policy committee. Why? Because that would atone for you deleting work and rvt work that was never authored by you in the first place. I have to talk this out to concensus here before I go back to the page to add material to the main page. So those people that ask to leave the matter and move on miss the point that deletes are at the heart of the matter. What is at the start of this matter is the following text "Baha'i content has made its way on to www.youtube.com website. With over 100 million video downloads each day and 20 million users per month on Youtube this website is a growing forum for Baha'i Holy Day commemorations and other Baha'i content in audio visual material. The earliest video upload was added September 25, 2005, "Baha'i wedding". The next oldest video upload was added October 20, 2005, "Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday". As of 21 August 2006 there is 113 video uploads that have the tags "Baha'i" that is picked up in a Youtube search. Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday has 158 views in 10 months and Baha'i wedding has 1,185 views."

Now when I last read Nabil's Narrative, the book on the early history of the Babis, 1844-1850 heroic era, I was impressed. This book only needs a link to and a reference note on the main Baha'i page, because we would expect a person to get the book out and read it to know more. Thus space is saved on the main page. However I do see the youtube content as a contempory addition to the Main pages that requires a few lines (as it exists only on the internet and not in any books). These lines (Baha'i page reference to youtube) make the first notes of the present day "contempory Nabil's Narrative". (Youtube content may be seen as the) Age and era of forefilment (medium it) is now. The heroic era is over and closed. It makes good encyclopedic material. However the real time (contempory) "heroic material" is real time (video streaming). The Baha'i page notes the happening all around the world, ruhi books, childrens classes, devotional meetings and junior youth classes. When activities inspired by these efforts are reported on Youtube then that becomes material for the modern day "contempory Nabil's Narrative" (and I suggest worthy of note of the Baha'i page in some way) . "Baha'i content has made its way on to www.yoube.com website." This is a true statement. "With over 100 million video downloads each day and 20 million users per month on Youtube..." ...this makes the fact notable by the greatness of numbers - an unconscious concensus- of the www. "...Baha'i Holy days and commemorations..." is very much a Baha'i page content. People gathering today around the world to remember the 23 May 1844 at a Holy day and recording of a video and uploading it onto Youtube now lets others look at other languages and cultures doing the same all over the world. "The earliest video upload was added September 23, 2005..." this fact is true. The link to the video is the only reference method open to verification. Jeff3000 do you consider delete as an infringement of my copyright by superceeding. If so I agree that talk needs to happen first in the talk page before moving to the main page. You have my commitment to that. Jeff3000 do you see how you are the best person to take a policy suggestion change to the wikipedia policy page. You are more articulate than I and others who are giving non verbal confirmation that they also see your higher station. You have shown unquestioned loyalty, well trained mind, mature experience, recognised ability and selfless devotion. That is why I am asking you to represent this talk with a new policy suggestion around ogg and the like. With love .Roddy Young 203.97.2.34 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Roddy, since I completely disagree with you, and actually agree with Wikipedia polcies (as they allow for order, and the improvement of pages) I will not be taking anything to the policy pages. I have nothing to atone for, and I would delete your content on Wikipedia again and again. Don't take that personally, but the content lowers the quality of the article, as many people have already suggested. If you feel strongly, you should take it itself. Through my experience watching the talk pages on those policy pages I have no doubt, that your suggestions will be shot down there as well.

As for Nabil's Narrative, a link is not supposed to be included here. Remember once again that this page is not promotional. How many times does that have to be indicated to you. There are many non-Baha'is, in fact, who believe that Nabil's Narrative, is non-historic, and biased. So to keep this page WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, we have to try to present the Faith in the most academic way. All your arguments for including the work are personal feelings (not academic or objective, but subjective), and have a promotional view.

This is the last I will comment on this issue. It's over, Consensus has easily shown that YouTube content on this page will not be included. -- Jeff3000 13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you for making the reference to being "shot down" in the policy page talk area, I could hardly miss the references and metaphor made consciously or unconsciously by you to the part of Nabil's narrative that relates to The Bab's passing by means of two troops of 700 rifles each in the manner of shooting (firing squad). Like that incident the discussion had not finished and so between troops the conversation was continued. If you feel like further comment I would understand and you could always make changes to what you have said.

If a person is interested in an area of study and writes about it then that may be seen as promotional but equally so it can be seen as academic as well. The only way a person can link to youtube is off the wikipedia Baha'i pages is if they presently read the talk notes or look at historical early pages. This is not promotional because it is now historical fact, if a person wants to search the world "Baha'i" in wikipedia or in youtube they will find that both wikipedia and youtube are links to each other as historical fact. Remember the youtube page that has still shots of the Baha'i page to music? Well this in now an historical artifact of the main page and academics may refer to this information in later times. I still maintain that in future the Baha'i page concensus will mature to having an external link to youtube. If it did in the past before Jeff3000 deleted it then possibility is that it may possibly have youtube links in the future. That is now historical fact. Youtube connection lives both here in wikipedia talk notes and over there in youtube as a video of the Baha'i page when historically it had a youtube "spamlink" or as I would term it reference link. This is not promotional of either wikipedia, youtube or Baha'i by noting fact. It is an encyclopedic academic persuit that cuts to the quick of web2.0 developments on the www. (as an aside at work today, Tuesday 29 August 2006, at lunch time I was sitting in the staff room with a copy of the main national New Zealand newspaper "The Herald". It ran a full page spread on web2.0 developments! I almost fell of my chair in suprise to see old style print media keeping up with cutting digital trends and being part of the development at the same time in these pages.)

You state "how many times does that have to be indicated to you" in reference to text like www.youtube.com. Jeff3000 this is the name or tag that people understand as the web2.0 concepts we are talking about. Use of a word in communication to speak to a matter is just that. Linking to audiovisual material that "says" the point I want to make is just using the concensus concept. If I say it and Jimmy Wales says it but Jeff3000 does not say it then that is a concensus to Jimmy and I. Right? That is your logic? If 100 million down loads a day have 31 million looks at the "evolution of dance" in 16 weeks than that is popular concensus that "Evolution of Dance" youtube clip is the most popular in the world at the time. Not because of Jimmy or I agree but because people watching the "Evolution of Dance" give it its majority mandate.

To quote the "point of view argument policy" Jeff3000 in wikipedia over Nabil's Narrative use is not going to stop me Jeff3000 using a reference in this talk page to make a point. All expression of communication has a point of view. Wikipedia has a point of view that is linked to its own policy statements and filters every thin g that gets printed on main pages. What is important is the number of people who read wikipedia and contribute to his improvement.

You state "All your arguments for including the work are personal feelings (not academic or objective, but subjective), and have a promotional view." Well I could say the same about a person who deletes other peoples contributions. Two subjective points of view knock each others statements out from a main page. One writes it and the other deletes it. Only when one person stops deleting does a wikipedia page grow in content and have a chance of stating fact. Fact emerges not from promotional views but because it is fact in reality and common sense. Let people say it and say it with out fear and favour. It is a large statement you make Jeff3000, "all your arguments for including the work are personal feelings" no Jeff3000, search youtube with the key work "Baha'i" and you to will have a feeling of audio visual material independant of Roddy Young (or was that Danny Crane, I forget). The reality is that youtube exists and how to deal with referencing it is our problem in wikipedia.

On your comments about atoning for deleting others work, I see you will contine with deleting practice as is the rights conferred to you under wikipedia policy. I respect that it is a key part of what makes wikipedia alive and interesting. But all that happens is that the talk page just get huge amounts of words for the sake of four lines on the main page. You can not have it both ways, delete work and then refuse to talk about it further. Or refuse to talk about it and not make policy change suggestions. Delete is a right, but vandalism can be from adding of words or deleting words away. When does a delete become vandalism and when does contributions become vandalism. I would suggest it is very similar in nature to the term "criminal intent" to add to wikipedia with genuine feelings that you have a positive contribution to make is OK and not vandalism. But to delete and say you will delete any reference to youtube on a page is another matter. Then to get a group of deleters together and 3rr a person is really showing an intent. Then not to talk about why and for what reasons and not invite the person to again submitt with out fear of delete and 3rr is ... well you tell me Jeff3000. This is not personal because this debate is wider than just youtube references in the Baha'i wikipedia page. I want to have my say. Roddy Young

219.89.174.103 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

For God's sake, everyone, stop it! Roddy, Jeff, everyone. The point of the poll was to view consensus, then take a break. PLEASE TAKE A BREAK! I'm getting sick to death of the whole argument. For the time being, based on consensus and policy, Youtube will not be used as a source on the Baha'i pages. Now let's take a break. Roddy, regardless of what's been going on here, please look at this from the perspective of Baha'i Consultation, and consider the will of the majority your own, at least for a time. Take a pause, think about it for a few weeks, and try, honestly try to understand where people are coming from. Even if you feel the unfairly unheard. If, after such a break and contemplation, you can offer new insights that might sway people, then do so in a courteous manner.

Everyone else please stop reacting to long e-mails that have already been re-hashed. And everyone, please stop making smart-assed quick-witted sarcastic commentary. It's unbecoming. Please. I can't force people to stop, but I can beg everyone, for the love of all that's holy, to move on. This is the last I'll be contributing to this thread, and I'll warn the entire group that the whole thing is starting to break down on a "Wikipedia is not a chat room" policy level. --Christian Edward Gruber 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go

Ok invite me to make a contribution on the main page that addresses the growth of Youtube Audio Visual material and the Baha'i content that is appearing on Youtube. Help me referrence it correctly and then help me add a correct external link. All these requests I have learned to ask from following this discussion. I respect that it is polight to wait for a green light from talk before going ahead. I will request that I be given two weeks to have the youtube content on the site and if after two weeks you still feel strongly that it is not to your liking I will agree to have it off and I want first option to take it off myself. Why? That is the mature way to conduct ourselfs. Let us see if youtube can be successfully included and meet all the wikipedia rules. Are we ready to try a little experiment with this? Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus says no. -- Jeff3000 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Break all this youtube stuff into a special archive.

Like the picture disscussion ect. Zazaban 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/h/Talk%7EBah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_YouTube_2813.html"