Talk:Likud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Likud article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A news item involving Likud was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 April 2020. |  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
Center right politics
It is LONG-established (here on Wikipedia, and elsewhere) that Likud is a center-right political party. There are certainly sources that describe it as right-wing which is an umbrella term for anything right of center, which includes center-right politics. That is what it is and it should be included. Just as the Republican Party and Liberal Party of Australia are center right parties. Only recently have some users (whose good faith, I am disappointed to say, I question) have gone on what it appears to be a smear campaign to include the words "right-wing" as much as possible. Reasons written by these editors include things along the lines of "Center right in comparison to whom?" A BBC article outlines the makeup of the parites in the Knesset (describing them as right, left, centrist, religious, etc.). It describes Likud as centre right. An AFP chart showing the makeup of the parliament, drew a half-circle pie chart, with Likud on the right side closest to the center, immediately to the right of Labor and Kadima. A "Fact File" by the largest media corporation in Israel goes into describe the main platform of every major party in Israel. Using words like center-left for the Labor Party, left for Meretz, and what do you know, center right for Likud. So there's that comparison.
Others are "Given current events, it is debatable that they are center right." According to whom? Certainly no significant source (or even an insignificant one I am yet to see). Or just "No way they are center", without any source. To make a long story short: Likud is accepted to be a center-right political party in Israel. The end. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The only people that could describe Likud as centre-right are either Likudniks trying to make their party look moderate, or far-right people trying to denigrate it for not being right-wing enough. There is absolutely nothing centrist about the party; it takes a hard line on security issues, a Thatcherist line on economics, and a blurred status quo view on religious issues. Please stop your unilateral edit war. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on this issue by Number 57. Actually, I have to completely agree with Shamir here, although sources for the statements would certainly help. Especially important are unbiased Israeli sources (such as the media's political analysts), which as I said in the discussions about Yisrael Beitenu, would be the most reliable and professional sources in this case. Obviously if there are no reliable sources, the argument does not stand up. However, assuming there are sources for both designations, here's why I agree with Shamir:
- Firstly, we have to ask the question of what defines the right-wing bloc and what defines the left-wing bloc in Israel. On security matters (which is usually how the parties are judged), it's the willingness to create a Palestinian state. The left advocates returning to the 1949–67 borders, while the right does not acknowledge a Palestinian state in any form, and is against any settlement evacuation. The center (led by Kadima) advocates a Palestinian state, but with significantly modified borders vis-a-vis the Green Line. On this issue, the Likud ideology has some rightist elements (no settlement evacuation), but also many clearly centrist elements, like the very idea of a Palestinian state, as well as a strong willingness to develop the Palestinian economy and police.
- On the religious issue, again, the Likud is right-wing because it supports religious parties and some of their ideas (actually mostly on security issues), but opposes many other ideas, such as larger pensions/child benefits, and takes a centrist stand on the status quo (e.g. their ambivalency on public transportation on Shabbat, again the same stance as Kadima).
- On the economic issues, the Israeli political system doesn't really have a clear right- and left-wing. Only two parties (Likud and Avoda) have strong economic policies, with Avoda being socialist and Likud being capitalist. If this is taken to mean that Avoda is left while Likud is right, what does that make of the other 10 Knesset parties? Most of the 34 Israeli parties are socialist or similar (i.e. not like Likud), including all the traditional right-wing parties (Haredi and religious-Zionist).
- I therefore believe that Likud is a center-right party, although what really matters of course is sources. However, I strongly support using more Israeli professional political analysts as sources, and less foreign media outlets that know about as much about Israeli politics as you can find on Google (or Wikipedia for that matter). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by 'sources' I didn't mean 'sources that mention that Likud is a right-wing or center-right party', but 'sources that discuss Likud as a right-wing or center-right party', i.e. sources that talk page Likud's ideology specifically. I don't think a media source that says 'the right-wing Likud party was chosen to lead' or something like that. There's obviously a controversy here, and we shouldn't use articles as sources where the author was writing about something else entirely and probably didn't think twice about using whatever term for Likud. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Ynhockey. The most comprehensive entries on individual Israeli political parties I have found in English are ones by Ynetnews (owned by Israel's largest media corporation, and the Library of Congress Country Studies. These entries are detailed and read like encyclopedia articles. The Country Studies article can be found here and its other articles on Israel (including other parties) here. The Ynet article can be found here, and for reference, here is a selection of other parties: Labor, Meretz, Kadima, Shas, Israel Our Home, Balad, Hadash. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Much less significant (but if you are interested), there are two recent New York Times articles that mention Netanyahu's gravitation toward the political center. I repeat, this really is not significant. Here is the AFP pie chart (would be nice if uploaded) and here is a BBC article that (on the right hand side) breaks down the political parties in power. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources! It might be worth noting that in these elections specifically, Likud might be sometimes dubbed more righist than it is because it ran jointly with the Ahi, which is not part of the Likud and thus not relevant to this article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the question here is whether we place Likud on the Israeli spectrum or go by a general international definition. A Number 57 noted, Likud would meet all right-wing criteria in England, for example. In Israel, it is centrist compared to many other parties, and is evidently somewhat reluctant to form a coalition with them. -- Nudve (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Two words: Avigdor Lieberman. Stop your "center-right" bullshit, i reckon everyone wants to be center because its trendy and because it prevents the "fear of extrems", but when you appoint a racist as a minister, you're not "center" anymore. I could say "Useless massac....sorry", i mean i could say "Cast Lead" too, isn't it? And as someone noticed, Likud is right-wing even for....UK. So i don't even have to give the French classification for this party. It's like saying the republicans are Center and the democrats Left, no one with even the slightest bit of serious would believe you. 161.73.55.141 (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
POV of a different source
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)
- But then again, maybe not; moved on or ignored. Seems less than collaborative. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is more accurate to call it a right-wing party rather than a centre-right party. Surely right-wing includes both centre-right and far right and it is therefore more neutral and less contentious to use the more general term if there is disagreement? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be described as a far-right party, not center-right or just right?
- 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)
The use of "secular" in the lead
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)
"Centre-Right" description should be removed
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)
I disagree, I think there are a lot of center-right factions within Likud. Center-right-to-right-wing is fine policy wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:C09E:ED01:61C1:6F65:7371:65E3 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
_electoral_support_in_the_elections_to_the_25th_Knesset.jpg)
