Talk:Brush Run Church

Regarding the focus of the Article

In attempting to clarify the Lead paragraph, I ran into the question of whether the focus is on the building or on the Brush Run congregation. It appears that the original intent may have been to focus on the meeting house rather than the congregation. I find it difficult to keep the focus there. Some of the existing lead section needs to be moved to the body of the article.

~~ Suggested Alternative Lead section ~~

The Brush Run Church was built in 1811 by the congregation of Christian reformers which had evolved from the Christian Association of Washington (Pennsylvania). It replaced the temporary log building in which the congregation first met. Because it was built in a brush run on the farm of William Gilchrist, both the building and the congregation became known as Brush Run Church.

It was the center of activity for Thomas and Alexander Campbell, father and son respectively, in their movement for Christian reform on the American frontier.

In 1828, the meeting house was moved to Bethany, Virginia (now West Virginia).

~~ End of Suggested Alternative ~~ John Park (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

John: I have adopted your summary beginning. I agree that there is some focus need, but not sure which direction Hal Doster wants to go with this, as he is the one who wanted this started. I think he is focusing more on the theolgoical influence of the congregation and the Campbells, although he has been instrumental in getting a marker placed at the site and trying to raise funds for a replica building, which has not yet happened. Hal is in his mid-70's and is feeling time pressure to complete some material on the church. He has trouble with the technical aspects of computers and software and I'm going to have to go to his home and work with him on his material. He doesn't feel comfortable editing this online, so I'm encouraging him to put his material down in a Word document. Maybe you can be of assitance along with others in reshaping what he will write. Thanks for your insight into this article. -- Bill Thompson User:gooseisland102 —Preceding comment was added at 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding next steps in developing this Article

John: I am awaiting material from Dr. Hal Doster on the history of the Brush Run church. I am not entirely sure that it is going to fit within the parameters of the Wiki that I started. It seems that Hal has his own thing going, hoping to eventually publish something. It is aimed at more of the history of the church, its construction, its beliefs, and its development. Am wondering if a new Wiki might be needed -- something like "History of the Brush Run Church." When I get it, may I send to you for your input and thoughts? Hal has a lot of line drawings that he has copied from outerh sources. I told him we would not be able to include these without releases. He has some original photos that he has taken, which I assume would be all right to include. I'm going to need some guidance here. His material is a dozen single spaced pages long. - Bill Thompson

Bill, I have a few concerns about whether Wikipedia is the appropriate place to publish Hal's material. basically they have to do with wikipedia's "five Pillars"

1. no "original content" -- Wikipedia requires all material be supported (or at least supportable) by published, verfiable sources. A good Wikipedia article is like a college term paper with citations of sources. If the content has not been published elsewhere, then perhaps the DOC historical society could be interested in publishing it in one of their journals and the article cited in a Wikipedia summary. This type of approach would give Hal the copyright on his original work, while sharing the information with the world throug Wikipedia.
2. Typically Wikipedia Good Articles are expected to be about 30 Kilobytes, or about 5 pages of content. In that space the topic is expected to be fully explained with no extraneous content. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article that I have been working on is already to long by that standard.
3. Pictures that Hal has created himself can be added if he uploads them himself and creates the release into the public domain. Photos that are copies of pictures created after 1923 are deemed to be under copyright and not usable without a release.

I would be glad to confer any way that would be helpful. Just let me know. If I am not sure myself, I do know how to get the help you need.John Park (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

John: Hal and I discussed this tonight at church. I think he's going to limit what he puts in the Wiki and invite others to add to what he puts. We'll see what he comes up with and you can help us understand whether this is correct. - Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.18.111.156 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! I stand ready to assist in any way I can. John Park (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

John: I have posted four images. One is a photo of the marker on the Brush Run site, mentioned under Location. The other three are early photos or illustrations of the building, one of the 1811 building (public domain), a second of the building when it was used as a blacksmith's shop (taken from a booklet on the Disciples published by Christian Board of Publication whom I have emailed to get permission to post), and the third is a photograph of the building when it was moved to Bethany, W.Va. (photo taken by Dr. Hal Doster). How do I make the caption smaller under the second picture? -- Bill Thompson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooseisland102 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

john: The system objected today to the 1844 Brush Run image, but I don't know what to do about it. I have permission from Chalice Press to use it. -- Bill

Bill, Please see Wikipedia:Upload. The instructions and conditions for using the Chalice Press authorization will be found under "The work of someone else, who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia or it is a work released under a free license." Chalice press may not have given you a free use license for the image. There is another possibility: The image may actually be public domain, if it is a reproduction of a photograph that was taken prior to 1923. If it is an artist rendering done in the 20th century, then it is not yet public domain. What do you and Hal know about the image and where CBP found it. Is it a painting at Bethany College? Reproductions of pictures over 100 years old are considered public domain. So it is really important to know where it came from. (i.e. the original, primary source)--- BTW - Remember to sign your talk page edits with 4 Tilde's (~) so that you comments will be identified and date stamped. John Park (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can find nowhere to change this to the suggested choice. The wikipedia system is too difficult to understand. Remove it if you must. I'm not going to deal with this anymore. I'm pretty frustrated. Gooseisland102 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Bill Thompson

My guess is that Chalice Press did not give the level of permission needed for Wikipedia. That does not mean that it cannot be used, if there are other ways to release it. I suspect that it may actually be public domain. (If 75 years have gone by since the death of the artist that painted it.)

• Do you know anything about the picture other than the fact that CBP used it in the book?
• Is it from a painting hanging on a wall some place? If so where? When was it Painted?
• Is it from an actual Photograph? I doubt that because it would have had to have been taken before 1850 when photographs were rare, but that is possible. If it was painted more than 100 years ago even though the artist is not known, it is probably safe to claim public domain. Wikipedia has screening questions for public domain.

I wonder if this picture is on the campus of Bethany College, on a wall some place. Is there any way to find out? I understand that this may not be your priority, for the moment. John Park (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John: It appears to me to be a photograph, very early in the 20th century, of an old building, reused as a barn or something, that Hal Doster says was actually the building reconstituted. It was a post and beam building that could be disassembled and reassembled, he says. I have emailed Bethany for info on the status of the photo, whether copyrighted or not. I do not see anything in my choices for the photo that approaches what you have suggested.Gooseisland102 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Bill Thompson

It looks like a photo to me too. What we are looking for is who took it, when they took it. and any other history that we can find out about it. The Challenge is like solving a mystery, or cracking a code. If the data in the article are correct and if it is a picture of the building while it was a BlackSmith shop then it MUST HAVE BEEN TAKEN between 1842 and 1869. If so, IT is in public domain regardless of the fact that CBP published it. The problem is we do not know where CBP got the picture. (or is there a credit in the book ot came from?) If you cite the cbp source then their copyright applies and they are not likely to want to release it to General Free use on Wikipedia. But that is not a problem if we can be sure that it is a photo or painting done more than 100 years ago. Photos of images that old will also be public domain. But a hand drawn picture done after 1923 by an artist who lived until 1950 would be copyrighted until 75 years after his/her death, because it would be a derived work. You may have to upload it again when you find the information. Does this make sense? John Park (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

John,can't seem to log in to my account from this motel in TN. I received a reply from Bethany. Here it is: "The picture, as far as we can trace it, was first published in "To-day's Pictorial Story of Alexander Campbell and the Christian Churches" by the R. W. Johnston Studios, Inc., Copyright 1909--

I believe a proper citation is all that is needed and you will not be infringing on any copyrights at this point.

Good luck with your article and say "Hello" to Hal for us. Felicity Ruggiero" Does this help at all? Bill 12.50.102.194 (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Now logged in. I assume this was something that either Hal got from this source or Chalice Press got from the source. Either way, I can't figure out how to change the copyright designation for the graphic. Can you do it? Bill Gooseisland102 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)