Talk:Touro Synagogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] This is not the first congregation in America

The distinction of being the first congregation in North America belongs to the Congregation of Shearith Israel who arrived in the United States in 1654, 4 years before the congregation of the Touro Synagogue. In addition, Shearith Israel's first constructed synagogue was built on Mill Street in 1730, again before the Touro Synagogue. Info on Shearith Israel can be found here: http://www.shearith-israel.org/folder/learning_history_new.html. This change will also affect other articles such as "Jews living in the United States".

[edit] Plagiarism?

The similarity between a paragraph in the intro section and the text on the synagogue Web site makes it clear that this was minimally rewritten before posted to Wikipedia, with words and phrases replaced with synonyms. This sort of rewrite does not avoid the claim of plagiarism, and the offending text should be fixed.

From Wikipedia:

It was designed by the noted British-Colonial era architect and Rhode Island resident, Peter Harrison, and is considered his most notable work. The interior is flanked by a series of twelve Ionic columns supporting balconies. The columns signify the twelve tribes of ancient Israel. Each column is carved from a single tree. Located at 85 Touro Street, the synagogue the Touro Synagogue remains an active Orthodox synagogue. The building is oriented to face east towards Jerusalem. The ark containing the Torah is on the east wall; above it is a mural representing the Ten Commandments in Hebrew. It was painted by the Newport artist Benjamin Howland.

From [1]:

This architectural jewel was designed by Peter Harrison, America's most famous 18th century architect and is considered to be his finest effort. Dedicated in December 1763, the Georgian influenced building is situated on an angle within the property allowing worshippers standing in prayer before the Holy Ark to face east toward Jerusalem.
The magnificent synagogue chamber contains a gallery supported by twelve Ionic columns, representing the tribes of ancient Israel and each made from a single tree. Five massive brass candelabra, gifts from congregation members, hang from the ceiling. The Holy Ark, located at the east end of the sanctuary, contains the Torah Scrolls. Above the Ark is a representation of the Ten Commandments in Hebrew, painted by the Newport artist, Benjamin Howland.

S. Ugarte 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Facts aren't copyright. And the synagogue's web site is an excellent source for the facts. I don't see the problem. Zsero 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Facts are indeed not copyright. Nor did I make a claim of copyright infringement--the rewording might be sufficiently transformative to avoid such claims. The scope of "plagiarism" is broader than the scope of "copyright infringement," however, and the wording is sufficiently similar as to make it quite clear it was cribbed and minimally rewritten (i.e., a few choice words were replaced with synonyms).
I don't know enough to say what this implies WRT copyright violation, but regardless, that wasn't really my point. I think it's embarrassing that someone would do such a childish plagiary--it's academically dishonest, if not legally so--and I was hoping the original author would change it. The standard for academic acceptability is higher than the standard for legal acceptability, and while there may not be an official Wikipedia policy on plagiarism (where it falls outside the bounds of copyright infringement), this is still clearly a case of it.
If you do not wish to fix it, that's OK. I just thought I'd drop a note on the Talk page in the hopes some kind soul would take care of it.
S. Ugarte 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you have no point at all, you're just whinging for the sake of it. If you have a problem with this article, explain exactly what is wrong with it; simply calling it "plagiarism" doesn't do that, without explaining why you think such "plagiarism" is wrong, and why WP shouldn't have it. I remind you that WP does not claim to be original work, indeed WP:OR is specifically banned. Zsero 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to lighten up, and I think you need to reread what I wrote. The lightening up I suggest because there seems to be an overly personal tone to your messages (e.g., "you have no point at all"--many might consider that to be an attempted insult), but maybe I'm misinterpreting that. The rereading I suggest because I was quite clear what was wrong with the article--a paragraph or so is copied and pasted directly from another source, with merely a few words changed to synonyms.
Regarding your mention of "original research" as being synonymous with "original work," you're quite wrong. Facts should indeed be sourced, but text should not be copied and pasted--synthesizing new text from a variety of sources is, in fact, what all non-original research is (that is, all that which is not plagiarized). The academic standards of plagiarism are reasonably easily understood, I should think, but if you do truly not understand what I am talking about, I'll be glad to refer you for further reading (Plagiarism is probably a good start). As for why such plagiarism is bad, it's bad because it's academically dishonest--it wouldn't be acceptable in Britannica; I fail to see why it should be accepted here. Are the standards of Wikipedia merely the standards of legality? S. Ugarte 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"It's bad because it's academically dishonest" All that means is that it fails some arbitrary standard that you think important; you're just substituting one buzz word for another. I only care whether it's actually dishonest, not whether it's "academically dishonest" or "Ugarte-ally dishonest"; the only meaning I can extract from that is "I don't like it". What specific bad thing can result from using text based on the Touro web site? Zsero 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You have repeatedly accused me of using a subjective standard--as though I have it in for you. For Christ's sake, it's an article about the architecture of a temple--hardly something I'd get worked up about. The standard I was applying--as I have repeatedly told you--is not my own. I have already once linked you to the Wikipedia article on Plagiarism; you don't have to read it, but if you refuse to do so, I don't see why I should bother explaining to you what the standard I am applying is.
Like I said, I don't know if this would be considered a copyright violation. On a large scale, it certainly is; on the scale of a few paragraphs, it might be fair use. But that's one potential "bad thing" that could happen as a result. Another is simply that people take Wikipedia less seriously--I know I do, when I come across juvenile stuff like this. You clearly are a kid who doesn't understand how academic research is conducted--and that's OK. Or at least, it would be OK, if you weren't the one making final decisions on what gets written.
You admitted a while ago that your concern was not copyright infringement. Instead you complained that it breached some other standard, which is irrelevant to WP. This is not academia, and the internal rules of some group of institutions are not ethical law. And don't make assumptions about my age; for all either of us know I may be older than you. Zsero 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm done talking about this. I don't care enough about this article--or Wikipedia, to be honest with you--to bother debating this further. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Good_faith, the only thing I wish to add before I stop reading this talk page is that I think you take commentary far too seriously. So you messed up and did something academically dishonest. Big deal. Wikipedia isn't school; nobody's going to expel you over this. But if you can't take criticism like an adult, people will start to think you're not an adult. S. Ugarte 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi S. Ugarte. I am not sure if you refer to my own edits, or not. While I respect your opinion I disagree that the text are sufficiently similar in structure to constitute plagiarism. In editing Wikipedia there is no implication of new research. I wonder why, assuming you found time to compare texts and author several opinions here, that you did not invest that time in rewriting it to satisfy your concern? CApitol3 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't rewrite it because I didn't want to take the time and because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the material. It just seemed obvious to me that it needed a rewrite, so I posted here on the talk page. Isn't suggesting improvements in the spirit of Wikipedia? S. Ugarte 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, while I wasn't referring to your edits, thanks for your maturity in responding to this. S. Ugarte 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? The text you're objecting to was indeed originally inserted by GearedBull, as the history shows. Zsero 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You're excused. And yes, you're right. It was inserted by him. I misread the history. Thanks for pointing that out. S. Ugarte 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths, and maybe a nice cup of tea. We'll get thorugh this with noone getting hurt. CApitol3 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation help

I am in contact with a professional voice actor who is trying to record a spoken version of George Washington and he wants to hear someone pronounce "Touro Synagogue". If anyone would be willing to call him up or even leave a voice mail with the proper pronunciation, please email me and I will send you his contact info. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)