Talk:The Jewish Home/Archive 1

Article title
Naming convention would seem to imply this should be at Jewish Home, if the usage in the article is anything to go by: it's used without the article, and where it is used, it's not capitalised in running text. Is there a pressing style reason for this version? 84.203.47.89 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew name is "הבית היהודי" (HaBait HaYehudi) which means "The Jewish Home".  M ath K night  20:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't the Hebrew Wikipedia, or a translation thereof. See (as I say) how the name is used in the article.  Or on INN:  "Central Elections Committee accepts Likud complaint against Jewish Home ad that shows Netanyahu and Bennett side-by-side."  ToI:  "Friday polls show Jewish Home surge may have been an outlier".  (And that's not particularly looking for them, those are the top relevant google hits.)  84.203.47.89 (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Far right? Ultra-nationalist?
The Jewish Home is a political party which continues the National Religious Party (NRP, Mafdal). Despite what the BBC said: it is not an ultra-nationalist far right party but a Zionist religious mainstream party. It is righter than the Likud but not far right.  M ath K night  20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BBC is a reliable source. If you want to refute or recontextualise this, you should to find countervailing sources that say otherwise, in preponderant or balancing quantity.  Frankly, in the context of broader world politics, "righter than the Likud but not far right" has a rather oxymoronic ring to it.  84.203.47.89 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think "far-right" and "ultra-nationalist" are inappropriate descriptors, find reliable sources that use other phrases (such as "right" or "nationalist") to describe the party. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About a week ago, local news website (ynet, a very popular one) referred to the Likud and The Jewish Home (Habayit Hayehudi) as the right-wing parties. Botend (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to be certain there's a systematic distinction here, as "right-wing" doesn't necessarily exclude "far-right", but as best as I can tell that's a usable cite, and may indeed reflect an intended distinction: in one article, YNN characterises Otzma Leyisrael as "far-right", in implied contrast to JH, as far as their estimation of Likud coalition partners.  Then again, other usages of "far-right" on that site are applied to some of Likud's own TKs...  84.203.34.169 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to reflect the Ynet article's description of the party as "right-wing". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The party is of course not "ultra". What do they call for? Conquering territories? Expelling Arabs? Come on. You don't have to believe any BBC, CBS leftists, antiisrael stuff. (Usually they call every right Israeli leader "hardliner" and don't know what to write, if he grounds some settlements.) It's a great rightwing-centrist party, what you can also see on the high percentage of Israelis that are going to vote for them according to polls. And my advice: Save some superlatives! How for example are you calling the now running party "Oztma LeIsrael"? "Super-mego-ultra"? Just keep to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.68.220 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Our policy at Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. The BBC, which is considered a reliable source, used the term "ultra-nationalist". Those are the facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha a "Malik" is the one defining what sources are reliable to describe an israeli jewish party. The beauty of wikipedia at work. Sometimes the press in english call it "ultra" or "extreme" but sometimes it does not, which prove that both views are valid, its a right-wing party for some and a far-right party for others. Exemple of reliable sources NOT using "ultra" or "extreme" :
 * Times of Israel
 * Washingtom Post
 * The Telegraph
 * For info only : Wikipedia's entry for Bennet
 * For info only : Wikipedia's entry for Moledet --Squallgreg (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any particular using you're using external links for Wikipedia pages? Normal practice would be to pipe links like this.  Your logic is curiously reversed:  one can hardly cite a source not using a phrase as evidence for it being inapplicable.  Especially as the Telegraph one -- which I added to the article myself -- characterises their agenda as "far-right":  "more likely a partner in a coalition government, pushing a set of far Right policies".  That the other two use "nationalist" and "religious nationalist" is hardly in sharp contrast to our multiply-sourced "far-right" and "ultra-nationalist".  84.203.32.73 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to cite the Telegraph or the BBC or any other source than that party's stated position from their website or other published material, otherwise it is just someone's opinion, and most likely not an informed opinion. Newspaper articles are very poor excuses for sources. They may appropriate to source news, events, or objective facts from the article that are taken from somewhere else, but not in this way at all. My professor would ask me to re-write a paper if I handed it in citing the Telegraph of the Daily Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.106.44 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a reliable source for "great rightwing-centrist party", I don't see how any of that comment helps us any. See Nationalism if you care to "tickbox" Israel's motley collection of right, righter-than-right, righter-than-the-one-before, etc, parties.  It's hardly the BBC's fault if Israel is oversupplied with extreme nationalists, varying mainly in the speed and violence with which they believe neighbouring territories should be annexed, to the point of exhaustion of the norms of psephological terminology.  84.203.34.169 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Come now, the news arm of the BBC and the Telegraph are unreliable sources and will at best give you a British understanding of world politics. The best (and maybe only) place to look for a party's political position is to look on their website! They never label themselves right wing. Far right implies extremism and fascism. This is not a fascist party. Arabs ran in their primaries. They are radical because they want to annex parts of the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria- I'd say you have to be radical to not want that! You can't have a two state solution with a people that are hell bent on your destruction and teach their children hatred from cradle to grave. Wanna have a conversation? PM me. But my point remains- the Jewish Home can tell you what their position is, not the Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailorvcap1 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There should really be some sort of way to address the fact that the BBC is in no way a truly reliable source when it comes to Israel. They are, of course, reliable when it comes to a great many things, but Israel is a tremendous blind spot. It's embarrassing. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Malik, the primary policy at WP is consensus. BBC on itself is a RS, but not everything printed there is RS and can be brought up for discussion and retraction, especially if they are the only ones referring about them to be ultra-anything. --Shuki (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Watching several international news channels last night reporting on the results (CNN, Russia Today, Euronews, Sky and Al Jazeera) almost all of them denoted the party as "far-right". "Hard-line" was another favourite. Number   5  7  22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AlJazeera and Russia Today ? to describe a small israeli party ? seriously ? When do you use an israeli media to describe a non-israeli ? Moreover, Foxnews seems to only use the term "pro-settler" and never "ultra" or "hard-line". --Squallgreg (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you planning simply on scoffing at any source you don't like, and restricting yourself to what Fox says and a highly selective reading of some cherry-picked others, or do you have any serious basis for contending the suggestion that such descriptors are widely used in reliable sources, by any criteria other than "Israeli topic exceptionalism"? 84.203.32.73 (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The most reliable sources for internal Israeli politics are Israeli newspapers and their on-line editions. Reading these every morning, the Jewish Home is considered a right-wing party and not far-right.  M ath K night   19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Somewhat selective use of sources. There are plenty of examples of the Israeli media referring to the party as far-right:  Number   5  7  20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And an entirely wild misconstrual of what a "reliable source" is, in Wikipedia policy terms. You don't get to select one set over another because you have a pet theory as to why some reliable sources are to be disregarded in favour of others.  If you feel that 'the international community doesn't understand us', you may perhaps want to consider whether you're in a position similar to the proverbial frog in the pan of boiling water.  Centre-right parties are not generally characterised by their vocal demands for population displacement and territorial expansion.  84.203.32.239 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see Jewish Home continues to drift to the centre... not in reality of course, where they're screaming "kill the terrorists!", but on this page through a series of "softening" edits.  It now no longer states "ultra-nationalist" in the lead sentence (multiply sourced elsewhere), but simply "nationalist" (unsourced), and it goes undue weight to the single-sourced "right-wing", having it precede the multiple-sourced "far right".  Request restore of a version more accurately reflecting the sources.  (Suggestion:  per this version:  "The Jewish Home (Hebrew: הבית היהודי‎, HaBayit HaYehudi) is an ultra-nationalist[1][2] and religious Zionist political party in Israel. Its political views have been described as far-right[3][4][5] and right-wing.[6]"  84.203.34.166 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited this myself. Was I seeing semi-protection where none existed?  Never mind, might just be confused by the new edit tabs.  84.203.34.166 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not mind bold, but making adding that ultra-nationalist (one source?) to the lead sentence is certainly UNDUE when there is already mention of the right and far-right descriptions of the party.--Shuki (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's remotely "bold" about this? It's what the sources say, it's what the article used to say.  And why is you "not minding" "bold" edits material, given that making them is the express intent of a very well-known guideline?  Perhaps you found it necessary to characterise this as "bold", the matter to claim WP:BRD (not policy or guideline, I'd like to point out) for your summary revert.  Or perhaps not.
 * But more materially: there are two sources for "ultra-nationalist" -- see the info box.  There are none for "nationalist".  Policy is to follow what the sources say.  Likewise, characterisations of them as "far-right" predominate over "right-wing" (which don't even contrast that with far-right, as as the current text seeks to).  But I'm pretty sure I covered all this already.  It's not "undue weight" to repeat information between an info box and the article text.  In fact, it would be ridiculous not to, since the entire point of .  Having the two be inconsistent, as at present, is silly, and having a key assertion of the lead sentence be unsourced is wholly unacceptable, especially when a sourced alternative has been given.  Please propose some alternative text rather than simply reverting to an inarguably inferior version.  84.203.34.166 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is right, Shuki. Your rationale doesn't hold up. You're the one giving undue weight to a single source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the sources, the sources. You're making the real 'ultra-nationalists' look bad. The Jewish Home is quite frankly the moderate nationalists and you are putting UNDUE on foreign sources which is unfortunate. I can't believe I'm defending this party. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Next phase
I have seen sources stating that it was a "right-wing" party and those stating that it was a "far-right" party.

It cannot be both and we have to use a minimum criticism of these sources without performing WP:OR.

When I read that a Jewish Home member suggested to make blow the Dome of the Rock] and was supported by the President of the Party, I don't see how to argue it is not an extremist party and between right-wing and far-right, chose the second option.

Other points:


 * Tzipi Livni: Naftali Bennett’s Israel would look worse than apartheid South Africa


 * Israeli far-right figurehead Naftali Bennett has (...) walked out along with the other lawmakers from his religious pro-settler, anti-Arab Jewish Home party (...).


 * Bennet supports the annexation of the full zone C: 60% of West Bank. It is an extreme position even if there are more extreme ones.



Pluto2012 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making inferences not explicitly stated by these sources, including at least one (Mondoweiss) that is not a reliable, authoritative source. Please be aware of WP:SYN and WP:OR. --Precision123 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not true and I very clearly stated my point.
 * If you refuse to discuss, I will just revert you. That's not an issue for me.
 * So, we have sources stating it is far-right ; we have sources stating it is just "right-wing". Is this both or are some biaised ? What are their due weight ? How to solve this ?
 * I suggested to check by ourselves and it seems there are very extreme people in that party who are supported by the President. That's a point for "far-right".
 * Are there points for just "right-wing" ? If so, which ones ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clean up and proposal
I have seen some of the dispute above and have sought to make some proposals that can be included, at least until a final resolution is sought.

Currently, the infobox is a bit of a mess. It contains a laundry list of ideologies, most of which are unsupported by any sources. The infobox need not be so excessive. Generally, up to three ideologies is sufficient for an infobox; further explanation of the party's ideology is included in the article. In addition, many parts of the infobox, and the article itself for that matter, are clearly redundant. This can create problems of readability and potentially of giving undue weight. I will go through each of these point by point, starting first with the infobox.
 * 1) "Religious nationalism." Unsourced. It also clearly overlaps with the party's main ideology: Religious Zionism. This is redundant. (For example, conservative liberal parties like the Party for the Netherlands and Proud of the Netherlands generally need not state in the infobox that they, in addition, are economically liberal. The former ideology encompasses the latter.)
 * 2) "Neo-Zionism." Unsourced. It will probably not be substantiated by several reliable secondary sources. I have yet to find one. It may also be redundant.
 * 3) "National conservatism." Unsourced.
 * 4) "Greater Israel." This is not an ideology. It is for similar reasons that another editor rightfully removed "Two-state solution" from the ideology in the infobox of Israeli Labor Party. I recently added here a source that describes how the party's members "adhere to the belief that Jews are divinely commanded to retain control" over the Land of Israel. I also added the ties that the party has to the settler movement, as well as Bennett's call for annexing parts of the West Bank (details below). Information like this belong in the article.
 * 5) "Jewish nationalism." Unsourced. Same other concerns. Already specified that the party is Religious Zionist.
 * 6) Suggestion: The infobox should include the party's main, core attributes and ideologies. A website like Parties and Elections, which covers European parties, does an excellent job, and can provide us some insight and ideas. My suggestion is to include the following: Religious Zionism • Nationalism • Modern Orthodox minority politics
 * 7) Political position: There appears to be a disagreement over whether to characterize the party is "right-wing" or "far-right." One editor has stated that "it cannot be both." I respectfully disagree. Many parties straddle the border between political positions, and many articles here reflect that. The New York Times, a newspaper of record, uses "right-wing" the most consistently for this party. (By comparison, the National Front (France) is consistently described as far-right.) Suggestion: I do not mind if this discussion continues, but at least until an alternative consensus is formed, why not, in political position, include "Right to far-right"? This way we can include both sources and descriptions. It will also be one way for most editors here to agree, at least in the meantime.
 * 8) Last points: I don't foresee any problems with the following uncontroversial points. I am assuming that other points added will not be controversial. I cleaned up the article and added an Ideology section. The sentences are all referenced to reliable sources and generally make neutral, factual points. --Precision123 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Nothing will be included before there is an agreement.
 * Why do you make a fool of other editors ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will answer to you later more precisely.
 * There are some points where I share your mind; others not. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1.-> Neo-Zionism is more precise than "Religious Zionism" given it includes "Religious nationalism". In fact, the last 2 are redundant with the first one.
 * "Greater Israel" is indeed not an ideology; it is the 3rd pillar of the "Neo-Zionism", which is the right description for this political party.
 * "Jewish nationalism": do you doubt they are ?
 * My proposal is to keep only Neo-Zionism which is the way scholar tag these kind of Israeli political parties.
 * Anyway, I must admit I have no source for this.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. My claim is that the source (there is only one) that states it is right-wing and not far-right is not neutral. I argue about this here above.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that describing it solely as neo-Zionist and not religious Zionist would be an issue, as the party is known primarily as being the party of the religious Zionist population. Number   5  7  19:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with that the party is known as a religious Zionist party and it adheres to that ideology. I also add that the claim about "neo-Zionism" is not sourced. Also, I have already addressed the inappropriate inclusion of "Greater Israel" (which Pluto2012 calls "the 3rd pillar of Neo-Zionism"), and talked about what the article's body can cover. Pluto2012 has conceded he has no source for this. In addition, this is not about us "doubting what they are," us making our own arguments, etc. This is about using sources appropriately and providing due weight in the infobox. My proposal, with due deference to sources, already includes Religious Zionism and Nationalism. Also, Number 57, could you comment on the rest of the proposal please? It looks reasonable.
 * Second, Pluto2012's own argument about that "one" source (The New York Times) not being neutral in describing the party as right-wing is original research. (And there is not just one such source, but several cited by editors above.) Last, it appears that including both terms was indeed the consensus before, as multiple editors could not agree above, until you took it upon yourself to remove right-wing. The proposal looked like the closest agreement editors could come to last time. --Precision123 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Neo-Zionism" cannot be sourced and from that point of view, could be removed but Jewish Home is Neo-Zionist. I am confident that it's just a question of time so that WP:RS sources confirm this but I agree that we will have to wait for these. Regarding the "Greater Israel" ideology, the proposal of annexation of Zone C and the practical control of zones B and A proves this. I didn't check for sources anyway. There may be some. The banalisation of killing Arabs by Bennet illustrates the racism of this party. The support by Bennet of a member of this party who suggested to bomb the Dome of the Rock illustrates the Religious ultra-nationalism. They are totally Neo-Zionist and extreme-right. All the componets of Neo-Zionism ae there. The only issue is the 2nd source.
 * Regarding "far-right" the fact there was a consensus is not an argument. Arguing consists in answering precisely to the points that are given. I gave numerous ones. I also explained how WP:NPoV is dealt in that case. "far-right" is a subcategory of "right-wing". So if a newspaper states that it is "right-wing", that is not enough to state it is not "far-right". More, unless I am wrong, it is not NYT that states so but Ynet. And even if NYT would state they are not "far-right" but just "right-wing" (which it doesn't) we could argue that even if wp:rs, they just made a mistake, which is acceptable (as argued here above).
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We will remove Neo-Zionist. Everything requires a source.
 * As to your second point, I am sorry but you did not give any points to which I could address. I cannot address a personal argument that an editor makes with WP:OR. I understand that you are trying to use those sources to illustrate a point of yours, but the point you are making is not one explicitly stated by those sources. Despite this, you acknowledge what the consensus was: including both. It should be back to what it was unless you can raise a new consensus.
 * I am assuming the other additions made above are not controversial. --Precision123 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All right, it sounds like there were no further objections. I will make the changes. --Precision123 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish Home → Jewish Home –Per WP:THE: no distinction in meaning with and without the article, and it isn't used capitalised in running text. In fact, the article isn't used with any consistency in English at all, per the examples in the first section on this talk page. Listing as a request due to objection in that discussion (and because anything touching on Israeli politics seems to be auto-controversial). 84.203.47.89 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Neutral, till I see more evidence. [ Adjusted in response to the IP contributions below. One point: we do speak of "an Age journalist", "Age editorials", "the two Mercury defamation cases", even though "The" is part of the names and capped. Contrast "The Hague", which famously cannot be treated that way.– N oetica Tea? 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC) ] The Hebrew name has "ha" (the definite article, "the") rusted on. Stripping that away makes the meaning even less determinate. It is a political party, not a home. Compare The Age (with "The" capped throughout the article), a major Australian newspaper. See also entries at the DAB page The Mercury. Without "the" in the title, such articles would be far more confusable. Perhaps even more important in translated phrases. N oetica Tea? 07:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, please do compare with The Age. In those cases, the "The" always appears in English text.  It's always capitalised in running text.  Compare with the cited examples where the subject appears as "Jewish Home" or "the Jewish Home".  And then, read what the naming convention cited says:  "Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia page only if at least one of the following conditions is met: [...] If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not."  84.203.34.169 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I invite you to "google news" "Jewish Home", and look at how it's used in English-language media (both Israeli and that elsewhere), which is what I'd be doing were I to be citing such evidence. There's a usage issue here in that very often the nominal name of the party isn't used as a proper noun at all:  as well as "Jewish Home candidates", "Jewish Home candidates", I'm also seeing a lot of "the Jewish Home party".  But little sign of running-text capitalised "The Jewish Home":  I could only find two in the ones I looked at, both in Arutz Sheva.  Even on those rare occasions where it's used non-attributively, I'm seeing usage like "The right-wing Orthodox Jewish Home is no home for Jews" (ToI), once again not regarding the "The" as an atomic name of the name, "Judging from the successes of Yesh Atid, Labor and Jewish Home" (JTA), "The Likud's campaign against the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) hurt the party" (AS), "The day after the new Israeli party Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) won 12 Knesset seats", "Jewish Home's Youth Leadership head Assaf Danoch" (AS), "Jewish Home, which sits to the right of Netanyahu's party", and so on.  84.203.32.73 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. As I explained above, "HaBait HaYehudi" = "The Jewish Home". That's the name of this party.  M ath K night  09:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And see above for why your explanation is not pertinent. 84.203.34.169 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Other proposal move to Habayit Hayehudi. Jewish Home is not their name. Please see official English site.--Shuki (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be their common name in English, which is the criteria here. 84.203.32.73 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually consensus beats commonname in rock, paper, scisors. It's only commonname because it has held up for so long here on WP, and the lazy media do in fact use WP as a source. --Shuki (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In theory, WP:V beats everything, including WP:VOTE and WP:ILIKEIT. Obviously in practice, people regularly vote to override the sources, regardless of policy.  Not clear how to fix this, other than the occasional uses of '"Founder" beats everything', which is a worse problem still.  I don't entirely understand your claim about the "lazy media".  Wikipedia is using "The Jewish Home", and apparently has been for some time;  if they're lazily copying WP, why does it end up otherwise?  Rather, it seems much more likely that this is explained by the fact that slavishly treating "The Jewish Home" as an atomic title-case phrase is painful and unidiomatic English usage.  If you imagine that astroturfing WP for an official, more direct translation will suddenly cause journalists to think that "candidates of The Jewish Home" or "The Jewish Home policy" (or "the The Jewish Home policy", perhaps?) is great prose, I can only advise you to steel yourself for sustained disappointment.  84.203.34.28 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No theory needed. Most other Israeli parties are referred to by the original Hebrew name: Degel HaTorah, Ahdut HaAvoda, Yisrael BaAliyah, etc... --Shuki (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. If the "The" is not capitalized in running text, then that is a mistake of the text, not of this title.  It's part of the name.  That said, a Google search reveals a number of news organizations using "the Jewish Home" in their stories, so it's clearly not entirely cut & dry, but I still think "The" is more correct and harmless here. SnowFire (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to try to determine what's a "mistake" in reliable sources, just to reflect what they say. And the criterion is "common name in English", not "official name", or "most faithful translation".  I believe you're underestimating the "number of" news organisations not following this usage:  as I said above, I found only one that ever uses caps-The (and it does so inconsistently):  everyone else either uses running-the, or doesn't bother with the "the" at all.  84.203.34.28 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List
I have reverted the article back to a list of current MKs, rather than the party's list for the last elections. The latter is totally inappropriate, whilst the former matches most other party articles (which include lists of current MKs). The accusation that changing the section was "blanking" is somewhat dishonest. Number  5  7  20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for violating AGF and opening an edit war. I'll allow you now to explain why the extended list is recentism before I take you up on your violation of WP:CIVIL accusation that I am being dishonest. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But you were being dishonest. Blanking is removing a section in its entirety - I was merely editing the section to make it more appropriate. It's recentism because it only covers the most recent election (I would have thought this was quite obvious? It's like having a section in the Hapoel Tel Aviv article just for the 2012–13 season). The list itself is included in Israeli legislative election, 2013 (where it is appropriate), but is not required here. It is standard on other party articles to have a list of MKs (either full lists or just current lists). If anything, the list should be expanded to what we have on the Meretz page. Number   5  7  21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I've expanded the list to cover all past and present MKs. I hope this resolves the issue? Number   5  7  21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion, I had done the some a few weeks ago on another page, but having the current list is not recentism so your accusation was misplaced. No one was adding dated and removing previous info. I still think that next in lines should be added as well with an asterisk. It's not even about speculation. --Shuki (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish law
The ideology section says, "As the descendant of the National Religious Party, the Jewish Home is willing to cooperate with secular Israelis in governing the state, but it has not forgone its objective of creating a polity governed by Jewish law." I would like to see a source for this statement. It is not reflected on the Hebrew page. It's members opposes gay marriage on religious grounds, but so do other parties. The claim that they wish to force religious law needs a source or the sentence needs rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.90.98 (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Modern Orthodox?
Is HaBayit HaYehudi really a Modern Orthodox party? It has Knesset members like Bezalel Smotrich and Eli Ben-Dahan, whom I wouldn't consider Modern Orthodox, but Chardal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.128.191 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Dati Leumi (lit: national religious), is usually considered to be Modern Orthodox in English, they are the successor party of the National Religious Party. Also, Bezalel is not part of Jewish Homes core faction (which this article is about) he is part of the Tekuma party, which has its own article. Furthermore, there is a reason it says "core constituency" (or it least it did last time I checked, I have not read this article in a few days).

ShimonChai (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we remove this yet?
This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Hebrew.  (January 2013)  Click [show] for important translation instructions. It seems like this is highly outdated. ShimonChai (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)