Talk:Likud

message: My initial edit was based on just the previous diff that looked incorrect, based on my knowledge of pre-Kadima Likud; I am however, less enlightened concerning internal political dynamics in the Bibi era, following the demise of the previous Herut generation. Things change.  The edit summary states why I reverted it.  My next edit  was justified and ref'd to the same source given for the opposite view.  I don’t want to argue; I want to edit.  My third edit was to meant to defuse it, but also add my two ref’d cents; on BBC, Bibi had just left Peres’s office, and the edit was sourced to an existing ref.  I then read and edited critically further thru the page; it seems there is a lot of fluff and little meat. Then I moved on.  Upon returning, I find my two ref’d cents were deleted under questionable pretense, based on the edit summary, but that another editor had arrived.  I will generally leave this ‘center-right’ fight to others, but consideration of a ref’d American government pov should be included in the discussion, and I will tend to protect its inclusion.  This is NPOV, I believe, and I re-inserted it with quotes.  
Though not invited, this discussion raises some common points, which I would like to be discussed.  I guess the first is why unbiased American government (not political) sources might not be considered important also. Can an American source be that --- they certainly put their money where their mouth is.  I don’t know, but their opinions are certainly easily RS’d, particularly with regard to Likud and where they see them as particularly “right”, compared to whom and sometimes why.  A second point is the 'source spectrum' from which the term “center” and the 'source spectrum' from which the term “right” are derived, as noted above.  In some general terms they could be divided into things economic and every day life and things political with both domestic and international dimensions.  I understand there are also many things specifically Israeli and/or Jewish, which I can not fully comprehend, but note some have remained unresolved since the Haskalah, American Jewish assimilation, and the utter failure of a similar attempt in Europe.  
As a non-Jewish foreign editor, which might be different than those here, the political side, particularly international, aspects of Likud seem more important in the big picture than they are currently indicated.  My personal bias is that Likud tends to earn ‘centrist’ cover from specific domestic economic issues (e.g. non-socialist), but seems to secularly or politically pick and choose on religious issues, as alluded above.  I am sure internal sources define the details best, but these issues are often completely absent or replaced by fluff, as they are in America.  That is not to say these are unimportant however, as many international RSs attest.  One item included not once in the current Likud article is the term Eretz Israel, as well as that specific spelling, which is documented in major English media to the period of Begin’s ‘77 Likud victory.  That is said to differentiate the phrase from Eretz Yisrā'el,which should not to be confused with Medīnat Yisrā'el, but absolutely is, including Likud.  Another item is the extremely poor link to Revionism hidden in the lower text, but I assume it may be related to the OR currently residing in the past tense usage in the lede here.  That appears incorrect, based on WP:Lede, as well as appearing pov’edly mis-leading.  I hope this helps explain why I completely agree with #57.  It is another RS’able POV that should not be excluded on what seems apparent ownership or other issues.  
Since I see my two cents has been deleted again, I hope I will receive a more reasoned collaborative response rather than just an unreasonable deletion.  Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, maybe not; moved on or ignored.  Seems less than collaborative. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The Likud is generally seen as center-right (e.g. - see Bloomberg from 17 April 2019). The Israeli far-right is a different beast entirely - and generally there are very few such members in the Likud itself (there's usually a party or three to the right of the Likud). The left side of the Likud (which varies in size per session, but is generally not insignificant) is generally indistinguishable from the Israeli center (various center parties, or the right side of Labour) - when the now defunct Kadima (a centrist party by definition) split from the Likud it was made up from the Likud's left side with some of Labor's right (e.g. Haim Ramon). Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: POV of a different source

message: Should we be using the descriptor of "secular" so prominently in the lead, given its only supported by one citation from 2008? We have other ideologies given for the party, most of which are cited with multiple sources that we could use in the lead instead. This seems to be placing a lot of weight and reliance on a singular and fairly old source when we have better cited alternatives. Helper201 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of "secular" in the lead 

message: The party has moved much to the right under Netanyahu and is almost never cited as "centre-right" these days. I think it should be simply described as right-wing, the party is not far off from Yamina which this wiki describes as "right-wing to far-right".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWorldThatNeverExisted (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Centre-Right" description should be removed 

message: Should conservatism or national liberalism be placed at the top of the ideology list in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , look you made a major change to this article about a prominent party in Israeli politics without reaching a consenous in the talkpage first. I just restore it back from your change. You should revert your edit back while trying to reach a consensous here. You can't change the primary ideology of a party on your own without a consesnus. It also not a citation contest cause Likud has serval ideologies and it BOTH National liberlism and BOTH coservative (in part), if I will now another citation to the other ideologies then I will cahnge the major ideology to another ideology? NO. You added a new citation and changed the major political ideology on your own based on your point of view without anyone agreeing with this change. It also wrong to make this change as I explained in the edit summary. Sokuya (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I think conservatism makes much more sense for the Likud than national liberalism, especially in terms of how RS describe the party. The phrase "national liberalism" is unsupported and perhaps a bit misleading to readers who are not familiar with Israeli politics. For both this page and 2022 Israeli legislative election#Current composition, I would support replacing national liberalism with conservatism. Jacoby531 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , actually conservatism was on top before national liberalism, as seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&diff=1006228994&oldid=1006228127 - before any of my recent edits. As I said, there was never any consensus made to have national liberalism at the top. You were the one first asked to take this to the talk page and to stop reverting. Yet you have continued to blatantly ignore this multiple times and be uncooperative and are the only one rejecting or taking any issue with this and are making a big deal out of this when you don't have a consensus and, as said, if you are going to make the argument of reverting back, conservatism was at the top first. You have no leg to stand on here unless you gain a consensus. Helper201 (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was National liberalism for years! see January 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=998722735 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=935541469, January 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=879537538, January 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=759014236, January 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=699323267, January 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=644279317, January 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likud&oldid=590181232 If there was a brief period of Conservative on top (as the link you provided) it was reverted back shortly afterward. Clearly National liberalism was on top before your change and kept that way for almost a decade. if you want to change such an imported prefernce you must reach a consensus. I just reverting it back to the way it was before your change. It dosn't matter you asked me to go to talk page fist, its somthing you should had done before any major change in the first place. I dissagree with your change. Sokuya (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are continuing to wilfully ignore is that there was no consensus for having national liberalism at the top. All your saying is "status quo = good", "change = bad". This is not Wikipedia policy or mandated that this has to be followed. You can't use this to dictate that others are not able to change things without consensus for change from what came first, which itself didn't have a consensus in the first place. Helper201 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservatism or national liberalism at the top of the ideology list

message: - Sergey Kondrashov (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is an empty request. Lemonaka (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 

message: Members of Likud are never racists. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate on what parts of the article are biased and how you'd like to see them change Totalstgamer (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

text: That’s just a lie lol Hattiexo (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too Palestinian biased 

message: In this phrase:
 Israel as "threats" and "enemies,".[137][138][139]
Please remove the stray comma. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023 

message: Cf. Irgun entry on Wikipedia.The Likud history and chart are factually inaccurate and incompatible with Irgun Wikipedia article. Also, inconsistency, if Italian Brothers of Italy is (rightly) linked with Mussolini, then Likud which has same individuals as Irgun still living and constituting the party, this omission so egregious and disrespectful of facts, it suggests propaganda or manipulation. (No, I'm not an antisemite. I'm an ethnic Jew, not like Kanye, like Chomsky). Iopis (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's particularly relevant here. It is absolutely relevant to the Herut article, but Likud didn't come into existence until nearly 25 years after Irgun ceased to exist. Number 57 15:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History inaccurate, omits ארגון Irgun • Etzel Orgins 

message: It’s not immediately clear why the following statement is relevant to the “Palestinians” section:
“However, it has also been the party that carried out the first peace agreements with Arab states. For instance, in 1979, Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords with EgyptianPresident Anwar al-Sadat, which returned the Sinai Peninsula (occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967) to Egypt in return for peace between the two countries.”
My suggestion is to either remove this statement, or replace section header with “Palestinians and Other Arab Nationals”
Blockkay (talk) Blockkay (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement relevance to section 

message: There needs to be an addition to the article pertaining to Likud under the “Culture” section. This is an important topic that is disturbingly (and likely purposefully) absent from the article at this time. It need to be unlocked so that relevant information can be added by myself or others with sourced and important information. Utahcountypiano (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MAKINGEREQ. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT rights under Likud 

message: Could someone remove the entry for "Anthem"?- it is no such thing, just a one time jingle used for election videos, a long time ago (when Sharon was still the party leader) Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anthem" 

message: The phrase “the Arabs” is used to vaguely refer to some of Israel’s neighbors. 
“…reaching agreements with the Arabs…”
The term is extremely vague in this context, also inaccurate and mildly racist.
This should be revised to refer to the specific nation (in this case Egypt.) The agreement the Likud made was with the Egyptians and the Egyptian government, not all Arabs.
Furthermore, 
“…suspicion of neighboring Arab nations' intentions…”
is again unnecessary, overly vague and racist. All of Israel’s immediate neighbors are Arabic speaking countries. The only non-Arabic speaking neighbors anywhere close are Turkey and Iran - the Likud are also suspicious of them. 
Adding “Arab” makes it less accurate and more racist. 2601:152:800:11A0:A93B:F2B6:51F3:EA0F (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Totalstgamer (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the Arabs” rather than specific countries 

message: * What I think should be changed (format using ):
* it is not an  "Anthem", just a one time jingle used for election videos, a long time ago (when Sharon was still the party leader):
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anthem" 

message: It seems that someone has changed Likud's political position to "right-wing to far-right". I can find no sources that call Likud a far-right party, nor does this article have any sources saying as much. Either
A. It should be listed as only right-wing
or
B. The proper sources should be added to justify this change Sutapurachina (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed all 8 citations and did not find a single case where Likud is directly described as far-right. Multiple sources use far-right to refer to the current coalition, or to other parties within the coalition like the Religious Zionist Party, but all of these sources describe Likud as simply right-wing. Since the page is about Likud and not the entire coalition I have removed this from the infobox. Jamedeus (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024