Talk:Ronald E. Poelman

message: Regarding linking to the video of the entire talk on Youtube, see HERE:
Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
So yes, it does implicate WP when we link to Youtube's violations, despite what the editor maintains.
Also from WP:COPY, it says:
Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites
There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights.
Bonneville Communications owns the copyright on all LDS Church general conference sermons, and I see nothing on the Youtube site which indicates that it is a legal posting or that Bonneville has given its permission for the posting. It can't be "fair use", as an editor has suggested, because the entire sermon is included in the two videos. "Fair use" involves situations where snippets of material are taken, not the entire work. There is no evidence that Bonneville has "disowned" the original work; Bonneville and the LDS Church are separate legal entities and Bonneville has said nothing that I know of about the original sermon. Snocrates 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube link

message: That's not particularly long, is it? Was it at the time? It's not as if everyone speaks in every conference. Thmazing (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I just counted the speakers in the October 2008 conference. There are ten non-apostle/First Presidency, non-auxiliary, non-Presiding Bishopric speakers. So, in 4.5 years, there's be 90 such slots, versus (about) seventy members of the Seventy plus the seven presidents, and one can assume that a) the Presidency of the Seventy would get more speaking slots than the others, and b) newly-called Seventies would get priority for their "introduction" talks. Elder Poelman waiting 4.5 years doesn't seem unusually long considered in this light. YLee (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this all WP:OR anyway? The cited article mentions that he was not invited to speak again for that period of time, which is probably why it is mentioned. Anyway, this article doesn't suggest that he was "punished" in any way, apart from being required to re-tape the speech. If the article is being read to mean that the 4.5 year delay was a punishment for what happened before, it's an extrapolation or assumption being made by the reader. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's indeed original research; I had no intention of using it in the article itself, and did not edit the article because, taken by itself, the sentence is a neutral statement of fact. The mention of the years in Anderson's article, though, is obviously meant to imply (cue sinister music) a punishment of some sort, and there just isn't evidence for that. YLee (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which article? The WP one or the cited one? I would agree that such an insinuation could be being made in the cited article, but when it's reported in the WP article, it's probably better seen as just a reporting of what others have said, since that's what WP does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lavina Fielding Anderson's article, the one cited in the Wikipedia article. YLee (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes--yes. She's good at cuing the music, that's for sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.5 Years