Talk:Yisrael Beiteinu

message: It doesn't look to me as if the article is a stub anymore. If anyone edits it frequently, please review the case. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 16:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: Naming this article "Israel Beytenu" is odd.  The actual political party's Hebrew name is "Yisrael Beytenu."  The English name is "Israel, Our Home."  The title should be the one or the other, but not a mishmash of both.  I'm not sure why anyone decided to redirect this article from "Yisrael Beytenu."  As far as I'm concerned (& I am a fluent Hebrew-speaker), the article should be titled "Yisrael Beytenu."  That is how the vast majority of people searching for it here would do so.
Richard 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: See "Israeli PM lets hard-liner in government". Lieberman is becoming deputy PM and Israel Beytenu is now part of the ruling coalition. --John Nagle 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed, party now in ruling coalition 

message: There's a nice image of the Israeli political spectrum at Israelvotes.com.  This may be useful as a quick guide. --John Nagle 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position in left/right spectrum 

message: For those of us outside the region, It's a little hard to see what is being proposed territorially.  Has Lieberman, or his party, produced a map of how they intend to re-draw the border? Indisciplined 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman plan

message: With all respects to American correspondents Jeffrey Heller and Robert Berger, which were referenced in labelling Israel Beitenu a "far-right" or "ultra-nationalist" parties, this is simply their opinion which doesn't belong in Wikipedia, an opinion of outsiders at that, and is simply incorrect in respect to Israeli political landscape. Israel Beitenu, while pledging toughness towards Palestinians, in fact believes in a two-state solution, which makes them if anything - pragmatic right-wingers, as opposed to Likud, Mafdal, National Union, Herut, Moledet or other parties that still adhere to the Greater Israel policy. If Israel Beitenu was indeed far-right or ultra-nationalist, that would imply that there isn't a party in Israel that is more to the right then them, which is simply incorrect. Finally, will the anonymous person who keeps making these changes have the grace to identify himself by choosing a proper username, and discuss his ideas on this page. Many thanks! Eliyyahu 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Israel Beytenu is not a 'far right' party, but I'd say that calling it ultra-nationalist would be accurate. It basically advocates a more Jewish country (with a higher percentage of people from the Jewish nationality), proposes that anyone who doesn't identify with what the country is for be given only a half-citizenship, etc. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I think you accidentally reverted my minor changes to the infobox. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.P.S. By the way, I also disagree with the 'conservative' label. Maybe there's some political definition of conservative that I've missed (such as conservative = right-wing?), but generally Israel Beytenu does not overtly support religion, proposes many new changes (presidential system, ceding land in Israel proper in exchange for annexing WB areas, etc.), and in general different from conservative parties like Mafdal and Likud. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is safe to objectively call Israel Beitenu a right-wing Zionist party - ultra-nationalist, once again, would imply that they are the most nationalist in the spectre of Israeli parties, which is not the case. All Zionist or religious parties in Israel seek a more Jewish Israel, it's only the means that are different. For all the accusations, IB's plan of redrawing borders based on current ethnic divisions is exactly what the original UN partition plan was trying to create - except that it reflects the current situation. However, the fact that Israel Beitenu are also supported by many loyal non-Jewish Israelis, such as the Druze, automatically disqualifies them from the ultra-nationalist label. I agree, however, that calling them conservative is not appropriate, and, as you correctly pointed out, Likid, Shas or Mafdal are more conservative, and United Torah Judaism is probably ultra-conservative. Eliyyahu 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Far-right" and "ultranationalist" strike me as reasonable labels for this party. I'm curious, though, as to whether the party is described in these terms in the Israeli political arena. Does Israel Beytenu dispute these labels? I've put in a section in which I just state that some observers have described it as "far right" without taking a position. (NPOV, all that jazz). I see that you, Eliyyahu, speak Hebrew. Perhaps you could ferret out some Israeli sources, because that's what this article needs more than aything else. Of course, such sources should come from all over the political spectrum. --Zantastik talk 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither references you quote come from Israel, rather but from left-wing European media, which keep parroting the label, without any understanding of Israeli politics. Secondly, far-right or ultranationalist in one country can be centrist in another (e.g. some might call George W. Bush far-right, while in the context of Palestinian politics anyone that anyone that doesn't call for the destruction of Israel is a "moderate". I am not going to make a judgment on the validity of these labels. Have a look at this website, which outlines Israeli political parties, their platforms and relative position on the left-right spectrum . The use of far-right ("yemin qitzoni") is reserved to parties that call for PA to be dismantled and Arabs forcefully expelled to Jordan (Herut and Jewish National Front). Likud, National Union and Mafdal do not support the two-state solution, yet are never called far-right. If anything, Israel Beitenu is a "pragmatic right-wing party". Eliyyahu 23:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Israel Beitenu doesn't advocate "transfer" of Arabs, merely re-partitioning areas adjacent to the PA which reflects the demography. It is in line with logic of the original UN partition plan. Eliyyahu 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled into this conversation, and merely wanted to note that NPR is neither "far left" nor "European" and has used the label "far right".  Additionally, I agree with Zantastik that it's appropriate to note that the party has been described as "far right", so long as the article is careful to note who has called it far right (but not that it is objectively far right). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing: while I think it is appropriate to include a sourced description of the party's ideology in the article, it should not be under the subheading "far right".  Perhaps the blurb could be included in the "platform" subsection, which already discusses the party's ideology, or a new "ideology" subsection could be created. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While Revisionist Zionism is not the right label - Israel Beitenu does see themselves as the heirs of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky - which is the first thing you can see on their English website. Revisionist Zionism, of course, believed in Jewish settlement of both the West and the East Bank of the Jordan River, which is far from what IB is proposing. Eliyyahu 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Far-right" and "Ultra-nationalist" Labels

message: I have noticed that people have been adding revisionist Zionism to the party's platform. I think this may be another error of association - similarly to how people associate right-wing with conservative, even though Israel Beytenu isn't conservative in any way, so do they associate right-wing Israeli parties with revisionist Zionism. This is incorrect because the revisionist ideology today opposes a Palestinian state and wants to maximize Israel's borders, including re-settling in Gaza and all of the West Bank. Israel Beytenu does not oppose a Palestinian state, but supports a land exchange and disengagement from the Palestinians. It does not claim that Israel should extend from Jordan to the sea, but that Israeli Arab towns like the triangle should be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in order to annex Jewish settlements like Ariel and Ma'ale Adummim. I fail to see how this is in tune with revisionist Zionism. Moreover, the source provided by someone in the infobox (Israel votes) doesn't even mention revisionist Zionism - this is even assuming it's a reliable source, which it may not be. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Revisionist Zionism is not the right label - Israel Beitenu does see themselves as the heirs of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky - which is the first thing you can see on their English website. Revisionist Zionism, of course, believed in Jewish settlement of both the West and the East Bank of the Jordan River, which is far from what IB is proposing. Eliyyahu 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist Zionism

message: I imagine that Russian speaking voters in Israel (by far Yisrael Beytenu's chief demographic)  would immediately recognise the association between the name of the party and the Russian nationalist party  Россия, На Дом (Russia, Our Home). 
Is it reasonable to expect that non-Russian speaking Israelis would also be well acquainted with the connotation and the similarities in outlook? If so, might this association not merit a notation in the article?
Finally, another point. There has been an lively discussion as to whether Yisrael Beytenu can be reasonably categorised under various rubrics (far right, conservative, etc). Yet everyone seems comfortable with the designations "nationalist" and "zionist". Is it not then a reflection on the strange make up of Israeli society that this nationalist, ultra-nationalist and/or zionist party is the public face of recent Russian immigrants, few of whom are Jewish?
--Philopedia 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Few of whom are Jewish"? Actually the vast majority are Jewish or at least consider themselves Jewish (as someone pointed out to me, in Russia you are thought of as Jewish if your father is, but the Israeli Rabbinate demands matrilineal descent). The number of immigrants who do not consider themselves Jewish is quite small, mostly consisting of Christians married to  immigrants. Also, although the party is thought of as Russian dominated, it is also the major party of the settlers (if you can read Hebrew, check out the city-by-city results here) - Yisrael Beytenu was the highest scoring party in Ariel! Number 57 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironies and Assocations 

message: *(ideology =) Neoconservatism , Revisionist Zionism 
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: *(ideology =) Neoconservatism , Revisionist Zionism 
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: Why has this picture of him in front of a United states flag been chosen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.246.168 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume (s)he means this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the answer is that it's a free image, and we don't have another free image of Lieberman. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this picture? 

message: I removed the IMEU link, because it is a biased third party website with a clear (and self-proclaimed) political stance. I believe that the IMEU page linked adds nothing to the subject's understanding and puts unnecessary spin on things. An analogy would be linking to an HonestReporting profile in Fatah's external links section. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMEU link 

message: well, thats the official transliteration, isnt it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.90.180 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official transliteration is irrelevant, although I have been pondering moving it to Yisrael Beitenu, per WP:HE. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you do that. The second "i" in "Beiteinu" is plainly wrong. "Beitenu" would be consistent with the transliteration conventions.Berndf (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The party's official site uses "Israel beytenu". Debresser (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  move page to Yisrael Beytenu 

message: I am concerned that Miacek may have violated WP:3RR with his blanking of content. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How could I have violated this rule with one bold edit plus two reverts? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You made three reverts of content that I added in good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of content 

message: The lead section does not appear to abide by WP:Lead. From the page: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."
The article does not concisely overview other points of the articles. The last sentence seems to be quite off focus as well, making the focus of the article Lieberman's political orientation. This is not the case with the rest of the article.
Perhaps there should be a section about Lieberman's political orientation, but this should not be a prime focus of the lead, as it does not abide by WP:Lead.ShamWow (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In fact, this is exactly what I proposed earlier.  I made the first draft, which might need some expansion.  Please do not remove the section without discussion.  Mhym (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You're seeing things that aren't there. How can you possibly argue that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points"? Additionally, many other parties that are also accepted to be far right are described as such in their leads. (See British National Party, Forza Nuova, Front national, Vlaams Belang, etc.) Obviously other editors don't support your radical interpretation of WP:Lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not add redundant references - I moved your refs characterizing the party down to the perception section.  Please read it carefully before restoring them.  Mhym (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The political alignment of a political party is one of its "most important points" and as such belongs in the lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps.  But these and further references already do appear in the section below.  You would need to make a balanced summary of the Perception section, not keep your old phrasing.  Mhym (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because you moved them without consensus. You need to build WP:Consensus that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points". JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  Regarding the lead in the other party articles.  Please read WP:OSE which explicitly explains why this is not a good argument.  Mhym (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the section Precedent in usage in that policy article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This portion used may which indicates this can be used as an argument, but it is still preferable when other arguments are used.  Mhym (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put forth some other arguments, please. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you are not reading what people are trying to explain to you.  It is preferable that YOU, editor JCDenton2052, use other arguments why one should violate WP:Lead, since "other articles exist" is not a good argument. Let me repeat: I am not disagreeing with having political directions in the lead per se - I am disagreeing with your arguments.  Mhym (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are the one advocating a violation of WP:Lead, not me. You have yet to put forth a compelling argument that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points." JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  Once again, this article does not abide by WP:Lead. The political orientation of the party is important but it is not the focal point of the article. The article as currently constructed makes it the overriding focus of the article, which is not reflective to the article as a whole.ShamWow (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first two sentences contradict each other. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  Untrue. A section on "Political Orientation/Global Perception" would fulfill such a need. The article, as previously constructed, made it so that the focal point of the lead was Yisrael Beitenu's "far-right" political orientation, when the bulk of the article makes no mention of this.ShamWow (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first two sentences make contradictory statements. Additionally, one sentence out of eight does not make it the focal point of the lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: Why not?  If it's disputed, include the dispute. Joshdboz (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Moving the generally accepted political alignment of a political party from the lead to a section with a POV title is a violation of WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming this section sounds fine to me.  Why don't you do that rather than start screaming POV when none exist. Having the short summary in the lead is also fine with me.  I am against having the same references twice.  Moral: no POV, just style differences.  Mhym (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As for the alleged factual dispute, I don't see it.  I repeated the old lead sentence nearly word for word and added few more characterizations with numerous references.  Please read and edit the section rather than try to cry "dispute over facts" when none exist, at least as far as I can see.  Mhym (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I add this two because the are essentialist part of his ideology.Almost half of his voters (if not more) voted because both this,Mainly the Russian immigrants want civil marriage.Oren.tal (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Oren.tal, please feel free to add (if it is not already included) and expand upon this topic in its Platform section. Perhaps maybe Lieberman Plan can be included in ideology, but not those mentioned above as they are not political ideologies but rather part of the party platform. Thank you for your good faith edit. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  civil marriage and two state solution  

message: Can someone properly define the economic philosophy Israel Beiteinu subscribes to? Here are their principles: 
Yisrael Beiteinu supports the advancement of free-market economic policies and favors financial incentives, tax discounts and the reduction of bureaucracy, along with governmental assistance in the setting up of factories and research-and-development programs to attract foreign investment.
--Shamir1 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic policy 

message: Yisrael Beitenu is NOT even remotely secularist, their platform says they are opposed to separation of religion and state.
I have a few suggestions for changing the "ideology" part since it's wrong:
*delete Secularism (very wrong)
*might be able to secularism with Pseudo-secularism (as you can see from "Organisation", they are only presenting themselves as secularist to attract votes and support from secular russians.)
*might be able to add Halacha as they claimed in their platform it's the basis of their policy regarding religion and state.
*might be able to add Populism.
*add Centrism or Third way ( see "Lieberman Plan")
Check and ratify those proposed changes.
--5:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Secularism and Yisrael Beitenu, and further additions

message: Putting "Criticism" under "Perceptions" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, i.e. you're saying that all criticism are merely a perception rather than a fact. Factsontheground (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make the edit, but it's true, criticism is a perception/allegation, not a fact. If something in criticism is a fact, it shouldn't be there in the first place, but should be under a 'controversy' section. This is why I always prefer to make sections like this 'controversy' rather than 'criticism'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: The correct spelling for the party is "Yisrael Beytenu" according to party officials. This can be verified on the party's official website, "beytenu.org." How can this problem be fixed so the information is more accurate for future readers?
: I proposed a rename like this in the section above. One editor oppose, and my proposal was dismissed as not finding consensus. I still think it is the right thing to do. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - it's clearly not the common name. Number 57 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Spelling of the "Yisrael Beiteinu" Article 

message: I don't know how this utterly garbled spelling ever could have gain assimilation in the distingished English Wikipedia database, but, I mean, <<"Beiteinu">>? Are you just serious?.. It's Beitenu. = "Our Home", that is; "Beiteinu" is purely an inexistent word, and this is a terrible transliteration mistake - do whatever you desire with it. There might be editors who believe this is just yet another one of "standardized errors" common among Israelis as a reliable reflection of our inconsistent public life, which enables embarrassing variations of latinized place names on road signs etc, but the truth is that this one is a too-much for an encyclopedia trusted by millions; indeed not even the Russian immigrants voting for that political party would say "Beiteinu", they know – like every reasonable Israeli – it's Yisrael Beitenu, so anyone with just minimal attention to proper Heb-to-Eng transcription around here, or you'd simpily and easily let thousands of readers be baffled? 37.46.46.85 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the most common spelling used by the English language press in Israel. Number 57 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately the previous editor is right. But the spelling is awful. I wrote about this also, higher up on this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beiteinu"? Huh ? 

message: Israel and not Yisrael is the right spelling. There is no y there, it's exactly like in "State of Israel".Ewan2 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Yisrael because it's the Hebrew name. You can't have Israel Beiteinu because it would be half English, half Hebrew. The English would be Israel Our Home. Number 57 08:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Y is not needed,  in fact it is a wrong transription of the Hebrew letter Yud, which is pronounced here only due to the vowel khirik -simple i. Then the Hebrew pronunciation is Israel, if you want Issrael but never Yisrael. (In English in fact Israel is pronounced Izrael). The same is true about Yitzhak, which is pronounced Itzhak and not at all Yitzhak (Yitzhok  is  a Yiddish prononciation not a Hebrew one).Ewan2 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See the transliteration at the start of Israel or indeed the translation of רַכֶּבֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל at WP:HEBREW. Number 57 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel Beitenu

message: Because with much the same content as before, this article has erased mention of their political position as being "far right".  Even having many of the same sources...  still describing them as "far right".  Curious.  Likewise, there are many sources describing them as "ultranationalist", but for ideology we currently have merely the rather tame "nationalist".
We've been here before.  Please let's stick with what the sources say, rather than continually drifting towards a "less controversial" version more to some people's liking.  79.97.71.180 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did this party move left, or has Israel moved right? 

message: :"It takes a strong line towards the peace process and the integration of Israeli Arabs."
I don't really know what "strong line" is supposed to mean here. It seems like the kind of emotionally loaded terminology you find in political rhetoric, not particularly encyclopedic...or informative.  Is there a way of rephrasing this that actually says what the party actually believes when it comes to the peace process and Israeli Arabs? — Swedishpenguin | Talk 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's mean to be along the lines of "hawkish". It is an accurate picture of the party's policy, but I agree it may be better to rephrase it. Number 57 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's indeed rhetoric for "somewhat rightwing" (in Israeli terms, meaning "eye-wateringly far-right" by Western norms).  How to rephrase is a very good question.  The source given for that sentence is more directly for the "no loyalty, no citizenship" slogan, which would be a start, but unfortunately that article's very much focusing on their slagging match with Shas, rather than its original application to Arabs.  New Statesman uses the phrase "tapped in to populist anti-Arab sentiment", and quotes Isaac Herzog as saying the citizenship oath had the "whiff of fascism".  Not what you'd call the most sympathetic source, but possibly a useful starting pointing.  79.97.71.180 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strong line" in intro 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Yisrael Beiteinu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201165124/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2008Oct29/0,4670,MLIsraelMubarak,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct29/0,4670,MLIsraelMubarak,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215012639/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2009Feb04/0,4670,MLIsraelHardlineHero,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Feb04/0,4670,MLIsraelHardlineHero,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Yisrael Beiteinu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120814122824/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1229868806768 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1229868806768
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110526004845/http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8405/35/ to http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8405/35/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Yisrael Beiteinu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108011348/http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/ to http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109051628/http://arsiv.setav.org/Ups/dosya/7691.pdf to http://arsiv.setav.org/Ups/dosya/7691.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217140532/http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/middle-east/20080116-israel-lieberman-ultranationalist-resignation-government-olmert-opposition.php to http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/middle-east/20080116-israel-lieberman-ultranationalist-resignation-government-olmert-opposition.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They have a new logo, the one currently being used is from the 2009 elections. Can someone please update this? It can be found on the Hebrew Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhood97 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I believe that this section is highly outdated. Almost all of it's sources come from 2003-2009. Since then, the party has changed quite a bit, moderating and changing many of it's stances and it's rhetoric. In addition, public perception of the party HAS significantly changed since 2009. Today, many right wingers believe the party is no longer part of the "national camp", for example: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-Liberman-is-now-part-of-the-left-591074 , in addition, many left leaning figures have called for cooperation for the party, for example:https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-by-boycotting-lieberman-the-purist-left-cuts-off-its-nose-to-spite-its-face-1.7503366 , this is certainly not something that the current "perception" section represents.
I propose that we cut down much of what is currently written in this section, and frame what is left as the historical perception of the party. We should mention that perception of the party has changed, and write down the more updated perception of the party. Alternatively, we could delete this section altogether and move the most relevant information to the introduction or history section, as other parties, such as the Likud, Meretz or The Jewish Home, don't have a section detailing the public perception of the party. Gibzit (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perception section 

message: I'm starting a talk section as rquested  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.231.191.203 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure; on social issues the party is definitely to the left of Likud. On what issues is it to the right? Also, ultimately it doesn't matter so much what we think, but what the sources say, and there are several sources calling it centre-right. Number 57 19:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position 

message: The latest economic liberalism citation is from 2010. Is it still so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.85 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic liberalism