Talk:Shaari Zedek Synagogue

Requested move 19 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As for the proposed spilt, it is a discussion/work to be taken separately. – robertsky (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Shaari Zedek Synagogue → St. Leonard's Anglican Church – switching redirect page name with existing page name to use most common and longest-standing name for article subject&#32;Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So you think Christianizing a registered historic synagogue is an obviously uncontroversial idea? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been a church since 1944, more than 50 years before the building was placed on the National Register. So you think a building that has been a Black/Afro-Caribbean church for 79 years cannot be called by its name? (P.S. The instructions for this page say to start requests where I placed them and then they get discussed if controversial.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the request to be valid. St. Leonard's Anglican Church has existed for 79 years, over twice as long as the time the building was a synagogue. so the church is eligible for an article under its own name. The present article explains adequately that the building previously housed the synagogue and is in the Register of Historic Places under the old name. One possible compromise is to do the move and then expand the article with more history of St. Leonard's. Therefore the article will be about the church and not necessarily about the building, which is probably the source of the current confusion. (Edit: see better idea below.) ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just not obviously uncontroversial, so it should be discussed. It's in the NRHP for its synagogue origin, and its architecture dates to that, and much of the article is about the history and the building. And people tend to get sensitive about changes of religious identify for places of worship. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not on the NRHP solely for its origins as a synagogue. The NRHP listing also points to its significance as a church. Quote, "The building’s period of significance - 1909 to 1959 - encompasses its constmction and use as a synagogue to its conversion and new use as a church... St. Leonard’s church stands today as a handsome work of architecture by Eugene Schoen, but perhaps more importantly as a remarkable testament to the religious and ethnic history of Brooklyn. The history of the three congregations that the building has housed - Shaari Zedek, Achavath Achim, and St. Leonard’s Church - reflects the evolving population of Bedford-Stuyvesant, the history of Jews and of African- and Caribbean Americans in the borough, and the strength of New York City’s immigrant communities - whether originating in Eastern Europe or the West Indies." The fact that the building has historical significance as a church (and has a substantially longer and ongoing status as a church) weighs heavily toward renaming (while addressing other names with redirects and hatnotes as necessary). Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting arguments in favor of your proposed renaming, and I suggest to bring them up in the RM discussion. But right now we're in RMTR, which is only for obviously uncontroversial moves. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is likely to be the type of discussion in which everyone is so passionate about their side that nothing changes in the end. (Or in WP Admin-speak: "no consensus".) Allow me to make a suggestion to split the article. The current article can focus on the building and its architectural history, because according to Notability (geographic features), "national heritage sites" are "presumed to be notable." Then there can be a separate article on St. Leonard's, under the requested name, that focuses on that church's worthy history while mentioning that it is housed in the historic synagogue. That way both the synagogue and the church have their own informative articles without cramming them together, which is the origin of the disagreement we're having now. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Split into two articles: one on the building for its architectural interest and recognition as a landmark, and another on the history of St. Leonard's. See the collapsed discussion thread above. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Move: It's not a particularly long article, so as split articles they would be closer to start length. Per the NRHP nomination the building also has historic significance as a church, not just the synagogue. Moreover, it's the same building; separate histories would seem unnecessary. The church is still active as a church and has been a church for more than twice the time the building was a synagogue. A move, combined with appropriate hatnote and designation in infoboxes and text, should be satisfactory.--Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you already made that exact same argument at the Requested Moves page and got little support due to the possible controversy of discounting the pre-St. Leonard's history. I fear the same will happen here, after which someone in charge will say "No Consensus" and then nothing will happen. I have at least suggested a compromise. There is also nothing inherently wrong with short articles as long as they are sufficiently informative about notable topics. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I disagree with your split proposal, which is why I added my two cents here. There is no consensus yet for any approach. Let's see what happens; a consensus may emerge. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Split - per doomsdayer.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's notable mostly as an historic building, and is listed as a synagogue (which is what it still looks like architecturally) on the NRHP. No real need for two separate articles, though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)