Talk:Holy Cross Monastery (Niagara Falls, New York)

Dn. Damick, please let me know what is it that you don't like --Stefan 09:31, July 31, 2006 (CDT)

The article needs to be wikified, which includes standardizing the introduction and adding wikilinks to relevant articles. Additionally, it needs to be reworded in an encyclopedic fashion. At the moment, it's written in the first person and reads as an introduction from the monastery itself. It needs to be rewritten in the third person in the form of a "report" on the monastery.

A good example of an article on a monastery is: Patriarchal Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist (Maldon, Essex). Additionally, editors may wish to take a look at some of the other articles in Category:Monasteries to see other examples.

You comment in the edit summary that the original text hasn't been touched in any way—it needs to be. Additionally, since this is an "original text," its source needs to be cited and we need to make sure that inclusion of it does not violate any copyright. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 09:38, July 31, 2006 (CDT)

Addendum: I've done the recommended work. If anything is in error or needs to be added, all are welcome to do so. Also, just as a note—I was just tagging the article to indicate that work was needed, not that anyone in particular had to do it. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 10:27, July 31, 2006 (CDT)

Thank you. If needed, more details can be found by following the external link.--Stefan 11:24, July 31, 2006 (CDT)

Copyright

Sorry, Dn. Damick, I think you're a little too picky. The original text (as well as the current one) was only a piece of information about a monastery. You don't need any special right to publish such a note about something that went public. If I am wrong, then there was no newspaper today. Also, a link to the source is even more than citing the source. I did take it personal because it doesn't look as a crowded place over here. Anyways, I agree with you about the format and thank you for doing it. --Stefan 14:35, August 2, 2006 (CDT)

I admit to being picky. But it is illegal under international copyright law to republish any piece of text without the copyright owner's explicit permission. That's why it had to be significantly altered. (Newspapers write their own original material or get permission to reprint others', such as official press releases.) In any event, besides being a question of law, it's also the policy of OrthodoxWiki. Anything that is republished on OrthodoxWiki without the explicit release of the copyright holder will be removed. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 19:23, August 2, 2006 (CDT)

IANAL and TINLA, but for the legal side: facts about the monastery (or anything else) are a matter of public record; hence, no copyright issues. In this case, the way that it is expressed is subject to copyright because it was original and/or creative. Even with the necessary significant editing (not sure how much 'edit' there is in a 'significant', but anyway), it is necessary to acknowledge the source; this is standard practise in essays and articles and is mandatory by OW policy (I'm less sure about international law on this one). — edited by Pιsτévο at 03:26, August 3, 2006 (CDT)

On another note - has this article, as it currently stands, been sufficiently changed? — edited by Pιsτévο ^{talk complaints} at 03:27, August 3, 2006 (CDT)

I cut quite a lot of it, but it could still probably use some more work. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 06:52, August 3, 2006 (CDT)