Talk:Herzog Park

0 views

RfC: Herb Keinon's comparison to Nazi Germany

[edit]

Should the comparison that Herb Keinon made of the proposed renaming of the park to the renaming campaign that took place during Nazi German for things named after Jewish people be included in the article?
Pinging all extended confirmed editors who have edited the article in the past 18 months: StairySky, SeoR, Guliolopez, MemicznyJanusz, Sumanuil, Financefactz, Fearadach, Dewritech —Green Montanan (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Firstly, I don't think Keinon can be considered someone of notability in this context when compared to the others quoted. Secondly, I think someone who lives in the Occupied West Bank can't be considered a neutral commentator on this and is unlikely to have as thorough an understanding of the issue as the others quoted. Thirdly, comparing Dublin City Councillors to Nazis is defamatory. So no, I don't think it should be included. Fearadach (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - merely one opinion of one remote non-expert commentator, and non-neutral per above comment, and per a previous edit, looks like a fringe view. Possibly defamatory, certainly bad faith, as some of the people involved explained their non-antisemitic logic (and the proposal was not known to, nor is there evidence it had the support of, most of the public, but that does not place it anywhere near “Nazi”.) Comments by local reps, and Irish and Israeli leaders are relevant, a US diplomat less so but arguable. SeoR (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems like a relatively WP:FRINGE theory/opinion. That, unless there are other independent sources which analyse it, appears to be WP:SELFSOURCEd. Also, and while I had no pre-existing knowledge on the commentator (or his comment) prior to being pinged on this RfC, I find myself agreeing with SeoR's description of it as a somewhat "bad faith [comparison]". Which, in all honesty, seems to be made (even within the context of that opinion piece) as a form of short polemic hyperbole. Made at the top of the piece - and not repeated. As a sensationalist rhetorical exaggeration - used to make a point or draw the reader in. (I'm not even sure the writer actually believes that the handful of seemingly well-meaning if mis-guided local councillors, who supported a discussion on renaming the park, are actually part of a "campaign" equivalent to what "took place in Nazi Germany".) Personally I don't think that one/short/sensationalist statement, in one opinion piece (which doesn't even seem to be the main point of that opinion piece) needs repeating here. And agree that it would be UNDUE weight to one op-edit statement. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, I would like to note that I also wrote the page on the Jewish school Stratford College in Dublin in November 2023, and have also contributed to other pages on Jewish life and society in Dublin and Ireland over the past 5 or 6 years. I do not think attempting to link a proposed democratic renaming of the park with the Holocaust or with Nazi Germany could be deemed to be a fair or balanced view of the situation. While I personally oppose the renaming of the park for multiple reasons, the current name, undoubtedly has familial connections to the current President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, who is directly involved in supporting and directing the ongoing Gaza genocide. The name and naming of the park therefore, only appears to have connections, albeit tangential with a single genocide, that of the Palestinians rather than that of those of the Jewish faith in Nazi Germany.Financefactz (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is already verging on WP:COATRACK territory, and there should be less discussion of the naming controversy, not more (at least proportional to the rest of the article). And this doesn't seem like a high-profile enough journalist to make his opinion a must-have. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Conditional) Leave it out (invited by the bot). One writer going Godwin is not informative about the situation. I said "conditional" because if if (there is sourcing that) such an argument has become widespread in this situation, then it would be informative to put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] ^ This. One source isn't enough. Two sources (at the ordinary-reliable-sources level) might be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even Irish but this is a nasty throwaway comment by a biased commentator, not a historian or politician, or a regular journalist. Clickbait. On the substance, the Irish have been noted for their lack of anti-Semitisim, and their Jewish community has been unusually prominent for a few thousand among millions, and the idea that this has any resemblance to the highly-organized Nazi hostility to Jews is offensive nonsense. Irish people are sympathetic to the Palestinians, and very negative about the current Israeli government, but that does not equal anti-Semitism, and has nothing at all to do with Nazism. Some groups, notably the ADL in the US, try to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism but this is false. All this controversy was just enthusiastic but squishy amateur politicians trying to help the millions victims in Gaza, like that poor little girl dialing and waiting for hours before being blown up by a tank crew, albeit in a clumsy way. ~2025-38289-95 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC) Strike out comments of non-extended-confirmed editors relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Green Montanan (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I concur with Green Montanan.Halbared (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate complete? One provacateur seeking clicks versus considered commentary...~2025-40334-00 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Strike out comments of non-extended-confirmed editors relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Green Montanan (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don’t see any comparable takes from other opinion writers currently cited in the article, nor do I see secondary coverage of this writer’s take, let alone of this specific comparison. Assuming that no secondary coverage exists, it would be giving undue weight to spotlight this particular comparison. I also see no reason to include it anyway but fix the due weight issue by including the full spectrum of other reactions by opinion writers in reliable sources, I think the section is already probably too long. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Adding a Comment - I was actually quite disturbed by some of the comments made in this RfC. Criticism of the comparison is not relevant, it's in fact a WP:FORUM comment, the fact that you (or I) think that the comparison made by Keinon is bad for whatever reason is not a valid argument against including it. I don't know how to productively address the fact that a significant number of editors felt the need to fulminate in this way, but I think identifying the problem is probably an important start. I'm not going to address !votes that shouldn't be here (ARBECR), or arguments that I think are just wrong, like invocations of WP:FRINGE (People keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means). Samuelshraga (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] You shouldn't be too surprised. What has been exibited in this RfC fits perfectly with Ashley Rindsberg theories that Pro-Hamas editors have hijacked Wikipedia. It would be interesting to see if he will ever use this RfC as an example in a future criticism of Wikipedia (he is a big critic of Wikipedia and the article I linked above is one of many he has written). Green Montanan (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I was especially troubled by this comment attacking Keinon for his place of residence. Green Montanan (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Imputing bad motives to some of those who took time to make comments, as requested, is a breach of Wiki etiquette, and simply unfair - and should be withdrawn. On the broader point, assessing whether a comment comes from a source with standing, as well as weighing whether it is a fringe view, is of course germane to deciding whether to include it - there are no doubt many opinions out there, but we can only cover a small number (I'd say we've too many already, and would cut McEntee and Huckabee, for example, while seeking something authoritative from a news or academic source which has reviewed all aspects). Any comparison with the Nazis, with regard to a country noted many times historically for its lack of anti-semitism, and which is one of the few in Europe where the far right has made little progress (see article and map of recent days), is clearly a stretch. And while IP comments can be a mixed bag, I'm not sure excluding them - as the designation, from today, of this article as part of the PIA, is ideal, but it's done now - but I welcome the point below, to retain those already made, albeit struck-through SeoR (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Are you seriously making the argument that just because Ireland is a country that is "noted many times historically for its lack of anti-semitism" means it's immune from ever becoming an antisemitic country? There are all these quotes in the article (which if I correctly read what you wrote, you think they should be removed) of Irish officials saying that the move is antisemitic. Green Montanan (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Just because it's not the first time this point has been made here, I'd suggest that editors asserting that Ireland has no significant history of anti-Semitism direct their attention at a minimum to History of the Jews in Ireland#Antisemitism. More relevantly, we should also consider that the need to describe Ireland as historically free of anti-Semitism is unrelated to any arguments for supporting or opposing the RfC, even were it not ahistorical. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] While I've stepped back - and if this is what the "PIA articles" tend to (I've not met this before), I'm sure this is the right call - I will allow myself to answer, in fairness. So, to be quite clear, I never said any such thing re immunity - but I do believe its unlikely. And I have read several books on the Jewish community in Ireland, which has been prominent and impactful way out of proportion to its numbers (1.4 to 5k, over the last century or so), and Joyce, in whose works Jewish presence is key, and I weigh the likes of the Limerick Boycott and the bad attitude of some clergy, in that assessment. All this is not the point of this RfC, but I think it is important in answering the (I still believe wrong) assertion about the responses to the RfC. On a factual point, Martin said that the de-naming attempt would be seen by some as anti-semitic, not that it was - which respects the points made by some of the sponsoring councillors, that this was not their motivation at all (and some proposed one or more other Jewish naming potentials). As to cutting, I'd simply use 1-2 representative politicians, and state that others agreed, to keep things compact. Now, my final comment - if the "What has been exibited in this RfC" comment was not attacking multiple editors, but rather a claim that one commenting party was part of the 40?-editor cabal mentioned in the Rindsberg article, please flag this party. Either way, please keep in mind WP:AGF, one of the most fundamental of all Wiki policies. SeoR (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think striking out the comments would be preferable. Green Montanan (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Just in case there are any questions why I think striking out is preferable to removal is that I think all opinions [so long that they are coherent] should be heard (or read in this case). Opnions from non-extended confirmed accounts cannot be used to form a consensus (hence they are struck out), but that doesn't mean that they should be deleted. No comment on whether the particular opinions expressed by the non-extended confirmed accounts within this discussion add any value to the discussion. Green Montanan (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast de-plaquing relevant ?

[edit]

Hi, I'm just passing but this is the kind of topic where I rely on Wikipedia to be unbiased and informative. So I wonder if you considered mentioning a past episode where Herzog's name plaque was taken off a building in Belfast. Years back but it's still spoken about up there. Thanks, ~2025-38289-95 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are sources which connect the two things (and expressly refer to the park), then mentioning this in an article on the park would be a form of WP:OR. Guliolopez (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is interesting, and possibly relevant, but aside from original research, could also run afoul of WP:SYNTH if we bring it in without someone linking the two. I've not heard of it, and would have thought it would come up in all the fuss of the last 5/6 days. So first, could you source it? I will Google too. SeoR (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] So, the BBC, as it turns out, did mention the Belfast matter - the removal of a Blue Plaque - at the end of an article about the Herzog Park debacle. I will sleep on it. (Council removes proposal to rename park named after former president of Israel) And further, there was also an opinion piece, in the Belfast Telegraph, linking the two episodes ("[not the only] attempt to erase Herzog’s ties to this land. In 2014, after a series of attacks, a blue plaque from the Ulster History Circle had to be removed from the birthplace of Chaim Herzog in Belfast. The plaque was removed indefinitely out of concern for safety...") SeoR (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] My considered opinion is that the Belfast point could usefully be briefly mentioned, but as I've already added a lot to this article, and also considering that the topic has become contentious, I leave any action on this point - and any other aspects - to others, preferably not previously involved. I step back from this article and, unless real needs arise, this page also. SeoR (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would add the 2014 plaque removal as a new subsection called "background" within the denaming section. However, since it would be a single sentence, it wouldn't be much of a background. If there were other similar incidents, perhaps we could list them in such a "background" subsection within the denaming section. Green Montanan (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section length

[edit]

As it stands now, the "controversy" section is a bit of a WP:COATRACK and has kind of gotten out of hand. I would suggest trimming it while keeping the important points relevant to the controversy. StairySky (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the recent controversy is perhaps one of the main reasons for the subject's (broader) notability, I do wonder if we need quite so many quotes from quite so many commentators. For example, we've already got a quote from Harris about the proposed renaming being at odds with the mores of "an inclusive Republic" - what does effectively the same quote from McEntee add? Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] The two are equally notable. The added quote from McEntee shows the level of opposition to the denaming. Green Montanan (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] The park's proposed denaming is the reason that the page has received the attention that it has, and that's why the section is as large as it is. I would oppose splitting off the denaming section into its own article, given that the article is not very long to begin with. Green Montanan (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I certainly agree there - the dispute and the park are both short-article cases already, a split would make no sense. I wish we could expand the non-dispute aspect, but I even visited the park, and took photos to help the article grow - and it's simply a nice but really small city park, so not much more to add. SeoR (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree that it would be ideal if the denaming section would be smaller than the rest of the article. I commend you for making the effort to try to do that. Unfortunately, the park will forever be known for the effort to dename it. I have never heard of this park prior to the denaming, and I doubt I ever would have. Green Montanan (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.