Talk:Opinion polling for the September 2019 Israeli legislative election

Graph for preferred PM

I think we should discuss adding a Netanyahu/Gantz (or more, if a third candidate becomes recognized in the polls) preferred PM graph similar to the one we have for the Knesset, it could help the visualization of the public's opinion of the two. Gibzit (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a bit skeptical on covering the preferred PM polls at all, because it may be misleading as public opinion on preferred PM is irrelevant to the election. ShimonChai (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If the polling firms cover it, then we should too. ערן117 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The title of the page is "Opinion polling for the September 2019 Israeli legislative election" These polls do not fall under that category as people don't vote for individuals in legislative elections, this would be like having polling for the Likud primaries on this page, it is completely irrelevant to the page topic. ShimonChai (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Sums

The sums of the latest Maariv poll should be corrected to read 57 and 63 respectively. 79.179.223.31 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Legend for graphs

Hi,

Can someone add a legend for the two graphs in the Graphs section? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC).

They do have a legend, it's just hidden on the right side because the graphs are wider than the page. Maybe we should make them narrower. ערן117 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Parties order in the table

I think the order of the parties in the table is wrong. It is like someone tried to organize them from left wing to right wing – but failed. Here is the order from Economist magazine: Israels political kaleidoscope. If we are gonna sort by political ideology we should follow it. Joint List, Meretz, Labor, Yisrael Democratit, Blue and White, UTJ, Shas, Likud, New Right, Yisrael Beitenu, Zehut and United Right. Sokuya (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Gibzit did you miss this section? or this previous discussion Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_April_2019_Israeli_legislative_election/Archive_1#left-right_axis, Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_April_2019_Israeli_legislative_election/Archive_1#Major_edit? You reverse my edit without looking at the talk page. Sokuya (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this economist ordering, being from a foreign source, is highly misleading. How could you put Yisrael Beiteinu which has been pushing for a unity government to the right of Likud and even New Right (which they consider Religious Zionist while United Right are apparently not)? The practice of putting the Haredi in the center is also outdated, most pollsters don't put them there at all.

The points I have made are all presented in the most recent Kan poll https://www.kan.org.il/Item/?itemId=55087. Which has Lieberman in the "centre" while putting the Haredi in the right wing just like any other right leaning party. Gibzit (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yisrael Beiteinu is clearly right to the Likud, supporting in Death penalty to convicted terrorists, Loyalty Law etc Liberman is not a center party Yisrael Beiteinu split from the Likud so it can go more right. Haredim support left economy and government intervene in social issues. The Ashkenazi Haredim are not very Zionist. The Religious spectrum is not align to the right-left spectrum. Haredim was in Rabin government, they clearly not a hard right and don't really deal with the conflict or support the open market. You can't just discredit the Economist Magazine for being foreign. KAN put Lieberman in the center because he is the king maker, he doesn't committed to any pac. Just like Vivienne Rook from Years and Years series. Sokuya (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they should just be ordered as they sit in knesset: B&W, Meretz, Hadash-Ta'al, Ra'am-Balad, Labor, URP, YB, UTJ, Shas, Kulanu, Likud. --Yair rand (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I like Yair rand's compromise proposal. Alternatively, you could sort them by the number of seats the party currently has (Likud, B&W, Shas, UTJ, Hadash-Ta'al, Labor, YB, URP, Meretz, Kulanu, Ra'am-Balad, and then parties with no current representation in the Knesset (IDP, Gesher, Zerut, etc.) Bkissin (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is too much conflict over ideological ordering, I think we should order them by the number of current seats. This is what most polling wikipedia pages do. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Dutch_general_election Gibzit (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The first ordering was by number of seats, until someone changed it. I like if we go back to that. Sokuya (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Scenarios section still needs to be re-ordered. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors have given up re-ordering because that's where using an axis makes so much sense. Parties are exploring mergers with neighbors on the axis. And by using one axis we can easily compare the scenarios with one another. Kahlores (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I too prefer Yair rand's order. Ordering by number of seats doesn't make sense to me. ערן117 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who are nostalgic about the old ordering can visit the special article in my sandbox "Israel, election for the 21st Knesset in one table", where scenario polls have also been included so as to allow for easy comparisons with the regular polls. Another version does not include the scenario polls. Kahlores (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use the order from the last election polling page, which reflects the order used in Israeli media. At minimum, it would be nice to have "left", Yisrael Beitenu, and "right" in that order, because that conveys information of most interest to the reader (in terms of distribution of votes between blocs and among them). Admittedly, there is no perfect left-to-right ordering (especially since there are many possible axes, including economic, social, religious and geopolitical) but there are a number of informative ones, and the current ordering isn't among them.--Rxtreme (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Tell me if you like it that way. Kahlores (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I like your version a lot! (Save for the NAs for parties that emerge later. The current multiple table approach works well.)--Rxtreme (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated it again and removed the [N/A]s, which were unsightly indeed. I'll try to add polls whenever there's a slew of them.

To anyone: feel free to voice your remarks. Kahlores (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation for Israel Democratic Party

There's been some back-and-forth regarding how we are to abbreviate Israel Democratic Party in the polling table. Based on recent revisions, it would appear our options are:

Demo- cratic	Democratic	Democratic Party	IDP	Democratic Israel	Israel Democratic

At the moment, my preferred solution is IDP, because it allows the column to have a width similar to that of other columns, and because it conveys the party's full (English) name. For what it's worth, I haven't encountered any English-language media using this abbreviation. A few media outlets based in Israel are still calling it Democratic Israel, too. Does anyone have any other opinions or suggestions regarding which abbreviation this article should use? Jacoby531 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

IDP: agree with reasoning, I don't think we need a citation because we aren't using a name that is in conflict with what WP:RS is calling the party, it is only an aesthetic / technical usage of an abbreviation, and the abbreviation is not at all a controversial representation of the parties name. ShimonChai (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with IDP. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Gesher (2019 political party)

They've dropped off the chart. That might be a smart comment on their polling, but we shouldn't do smart comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like User:Sokuya removed them here: [1], with their reasoning being Gesher didn't declare they were running and they aren't included in polls anymore, apparently. I tried undoing it, but it'll have to be undone manually. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sokuya please reinstate them. Unless and until they announce they're not running, it's POV to omit them, even if some pollsters are doing so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I put it back. Sokuya (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

New poll is available from Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/likud-kahol-lavan-at-par-ehud-barak-s-party-makes-it-into-knesset-poll-shows-1.7486224 Andrewmeiners (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I added it. The total number of seats adds up to more than 120, though. It doesn't make sense. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It was there earlier, but it's gone now. Starks (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because it was a likely misreading of the scenario poll with Zehut and New Right running together. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

'Other' Parties

There should be a column named 'others' in the polls, summing the aggregate of all parties that poll inconsistently, such as Gesher, and have no seats in the current (last) Knesset. Just like other opinion polling pages. 2402:8100:396C:5F38:98BE:8730:2760:860 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We could replace "Gesher" with "Others"; the three rows containing Gesher percentages would be included in an explanatory footnote using Template:efn. We would not remove Zehut's own column, though, as it was polled in the last 5 polls, and passes the threshold in one of them. Kahlores (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

With the merger with Labor, the problem is gone. We can keep Gesher's column in the first tables, it doesn't stretch them so much. Kahlores (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

With Otzma Yehudit, the problem is reborn. 42.109.252.9 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

IMHO we can safely remove Otzma and Gesher, they haven't passed the threshold in any poll, and aren't even close. Zehut is up for debate, it passed in one poll only, and comes close in several others. ערן117 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If the party doesn't pass the threshold on a given table, it doesn't make sense to include it because it passed the threshold on another tables time frame.. The best solution would be to merge all of the parties that don't pass into an "other", that adds up all of the percentage points for the parties under threshold. The reason being that per the WP:RS, the parties are mentioned, so to someone reading our parsing of the sources the context of several percentage points being on parties that aren't large enough to gain seats is somewhat important to contextualize information. ShimonChai 01:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to put an 'other' column. Most of these parties don't get polled in each survey so it will be confusing to merge them all. And there are many more other parties who even don't get mention at all, very small parties. Sokuya (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Add new info

July 21 Ayelet Shaked head of the new right

It's added now. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

How often are new tables made for the polls and why

Each time one of the parties polled suffers a split or effects a merger with another party that is also being polled separately. 2402:8100:396C:3934:607A:F864:D537:36AF (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Camp

Just like IDP, it should have a concise abbreviation. I'm partial to Dem. Camp because DC sounds absurd. 2402:8100:396C:3934:607A:F864:D537:36AF (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The party is referred to as "Democratic Union" in English (similar to the Zionist Union), I support the abbreviation DU, which doesn't sound as absurd as DC. Gibzit (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest Dem. Union, and retaining the IDP purple colour as it features in the logo -- and at the very least it contrasts with the green of United Right in the next column, which Meretz green doesn't. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/israeli-alliance-democratic-union-to-get-10-12-knesset-seats-election-polls-show-1.7575458 Add two polls mentioned in this articles. 86.173.81.191 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Already done It seems like this is already done. Please re-open request if it's not. --Trialpears (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Panel Project HaMidgam and Midgam

Pay attention when adding or modifying polls: "Panel Project HaMidgam" and "Midgam" are different pollsters. Rami R 12:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

There is a poll in the Hebrew version of the page not featured in this one from the 26th. 86.173.81.191 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The Hebrew version includes 2 polls on the 26th: Israel Hayom which is actually from the 25th, and 103fm. The English version includes both. ערן117 (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a problem

New Right (הימין החדש) and Union of Right-wing parties (איחוד מפלגות הימין) agreed to run on a joint list caleed United Right (הימין המאוחד). However the article name of Union of Right-wing parties is alredy United Right, so we got a problem. United Right is a new list with new name and leader, probably will have a new logo. Sokuya (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In terms of looks:

For a time, last March and April, we used the abbreviation "URWP", until someone used United Right.

URWP	United Right

Thus, a solution could be to rename as "URWP" all occurrences of "United Right" before yesterday, back to the start of the pre-campaign (and possibly on the April article, to avoid confusing readers in the future who may ignore the subtle difference).

Of course, this implies that this is really two parties fusing together, and not URWP absorbing New Right and getting a shorter name.

I don't know where to check for that legal aspect.

As for the articles:

1. First, to avoid later confusion in the articles we have to quickly rename all the links pointing towards United Right (except the newest referring to the NR+URWP list) into "Union of the right-wing parties". Since there are more than 300 of such links, we need the help of a bot. I am making a request on WP:BOT.
2. "United Right" should be renamed to "Union of the Right-Wing Parties".
3. Its lead section should also be changed, and the name confusion explained.
4. Finally, we would have to create another article called "United Right", referring to the newly-created party list.

Kahlores (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the United Right (Israel) article to Union of the Right-Wing Parties. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue was swiftly resolved by @David O. Johnson:, who went through the articles one by one, and admin Number 57, who found that the cause of the high number of links was a template. Kahlores (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Colors in bottom graph

All the greens and medium blues are blending together (particularly Dem Union and the Joint List), is there a logical way we can change the colors for one or more of the parties? Nevermore27 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

United Right might change their color soon. They didn't publish their logo yet, so we need to wait. We can use Gold color for Shas cause they are using it in their campaign (and previous campaign also). Sokuya (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Another time Shas is using gold as their party color, see end of the video. Sokuya (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We could use the orange from Yemina's logo? It was the color from one of the funder party, Tkuma, and orange isn't used by any other party. --Aréat (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its needed, cause Yamina is using more yellowish color than United Right used, so you can really differentiate between them. Yamina primary logo is green so I don't think its a good idea to use orange. Sokuya (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the other one is better, you're right. Well, now we have a less confusing palette, so all is well. --Aréat (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Otzma Yehudit

Otzma seems to be in the same situation that Zehut is in. It is included in most polls now, however, it hasn't passed the threshold. What are the thoughts on including it just based on that the polls themselves include it? ShimonChai (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be included. Can also be included retrospectively if that matches RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to leave Otzma out. Zehut passed the threshold in a few polls, Otzma didn't. ערן117 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seats at dissolution

I know Jeremy's Knesset Insider now puts Likud's current seat total at 38 and United Right's at 6 because of Eli Ben-Dahan's switch, but the row says "Seats at dissolution" -- i.e., the seat count as of 30 May. I don't think subsequent party switches should be reflected, not least because the lists, not the people on them, are the primary units of the process.

In my view, it doesn't make sense to treat a seat as if it follows an individual MK because people didn't particularly vote for that MK or any other MK, they really voted for the lists those people happened to be on back in April. That's why Labor's count is still at 6 despite Stav Shaffir's defection to Democratic Union.

Plus, it can be confusing for someone reading the tables if Likud is at 39 to start but then drops to 38. There's no indication of why and it could appear to be a mistake. So, for consistency's sake, either the row should be renamed to something else ("Current seats") and the defections added as news rows in the tables or as pop-up footnotes, or the counts should be reset to the 30 May totals. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Current seats" is a good idea; but I think United Right has 6 seats and the Democratic Union 4 because Eli Ben-Dahan was an Ahi candidate on the Likud-lead list and Stav Shaffir wasn't affiliated to the Green Movement before July 2019. Braganza (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The "seats at dissolution" isn't accurate; United Right, Democratic Union, etc. weren't even formed months after the Knesset actually dissolved. "Current seats" makes more sense, IMO. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "current seats". Stav Shaffir resigned from the Knesset, so the Democratic Union only has the 4 MKs of Meretz. ערן117 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Colors in graph still a problem

Specifically thinking of how The Joint List, Yisrael Beiteinu and Dem. Union interact, they're in similar positions polling-wise and the colors we list them under are damn near identical. Any thoughts for a fix? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Shas and UTJ are also nearly identical colors and polling similarly. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Shas can be gold, the other colors are fine and not identical. Sokuya (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sokuya: I think he wanted to draw attention to that

JL  YB UR DU

Braganza (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

With the new color of Yemina, I think it's now fine as it is. There's still similar shades, but only two max of each, so it's easily distinct. If tht's their logo and you can stil see the difference, it's okay. We can't just invent different colors out of nothing just for the sake of it. --Aréat (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

YB and JL have also new colors Braganza (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying "invent new colors", just saying that since the colors for Dem. Union/YB/Joint List and Shas/UTJ are similar enough that it makes the graph hard to read, that maybe we should consider using alternative colors. For instance, why not use gold for Shas as mentioned above? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rh0809: first you thank me, and then you undo it again without participating in the 2x mentioned discussion! Braganza (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I dislike that we switched to using gold color used for Shas, the gold is similar to Yamina's lime, and it doesn't fit Shas, who's main color is the Haredi black. It was distinct enough from UTJ's blue, I don't understand this was necessary. Gibzit (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Braganza for the mixups, it was never my intention to cause emnity or malice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rh0809 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

But Yamina does not cross Sha other than, JL-YB-UR-DU or Sha-UTJ Braganza (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Color of Shas

Shas gained seats in every elections since 1984, and in every pages he's been in black. For the sake of continuity, I really don't think it's a good idea changing its Color.--Aréat (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aréat: UTJ and Shas are polling similarly and have the exact (or near exact) color in the polling graph and the tables. Gold is their other official color, and I think changing their representational color is warranted for the sake of readability. Regardless, it's not your decision to make unilaterally, and the suggestion to change them to Gold has been brought up at least a couple times now. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's particularly bold of you to say "it's not a problem" as if your experience is universal. I have a problem differentiating the two, which is why I keep bringing it up. It is a problem. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you've been having a problem with it, but considering how long these two parties and their colors have been on election pages, with the color template used on as much diagrams, we can't change it without having to work on a lots of changes, so one person finding it annoying isn't a good enough reason. Besides, using black for Shas is logical, considering it's a party for haredis. --Aréat (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aréat: @Sokuya: pointed out in an above section that Shas also uses gold prominently in their campaign materials. I think changing a few articles is a better option than continuing to accept poor differentiation. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with switching Shas to gold is that unlike black, their usage of gold as a color is fairly recent. (I think it only started around 2018) If we were to switch Shas to gold in all articles, that would be retroactively changing their color, and in old elections (when they primarily used Black and Azure) they would have gold as their color, which wouldn't be accurate. I think black is the most fitting color for Shas, and has always been one of the colors that they used. Gibzit (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gibzit: It's basically just about the diagram Braganza (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to retroactively change anything, we just have to change the color in one graph. Graphs should be readable; matching official party colors is a secondary concern. (And I agree that Shas and UTJ have been impossible to distinguish so far, and many readers would like to be able to distinguish between them.) --Rxtreme (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean Braganza (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not change UTJ color instead, using the color #385380 of its first logo ? It would be distinctive enough from black and others colors, and would retain the consistency with previous election page by not switching a party to a completely different color.--Aréat (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Graph

Hi. Isn't a bit weird that, even though the y-intercept is supposed to be seats, there is also the 3.25% threshold and the share of votes of the parties receiving less than 3.25% of the votes and consequently no seat? Aren't we supposed to express every information with the same unity ? --Iniți (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iniți: In Israel the polls only indicate the seats and for parties below 3.25% in percent; The graph shows a hypothetical number of seats for the parties whose percentages are only given (multiplied by 1.2;*120 seats/100%) Braganza (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Graphs blurriness

Why are the graphs looking very vivid on edit preview but much blurrier on the actual article page? Is there any way to fix it? Sokuya (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The graph extension converts the SVGs to PNGs except when previewing. See phab:T96309. --Yair rand (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

In the latest poll (27-29 Aug, Maagar Mohot), change the sum totals from government 58, opposition 62, to government 55, opposition 65. The numbers for the individual parties were added wrong. 2001:16B8:5CCC:CB00:A965:164E:6A55:6996 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed this. ערן117 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Coalitions

Left and Right figures

I don't think we should sum up the left and right figures, because they are misleading - unexpected things can happen (like the right failing to form a government). We should instead compare current (34th) government v. opposition figures. 2402:8100:3973:4FA8:68A9:68F2:A63A:A4F0 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That's why we have the "Note: Political blocs do not necessarily determine the exact makeup of post-election coalitions." All sources report the bloc sizes, there's no reason to leave it out. ערן117 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree, we should definitely go back to 34th gov vs opposition figures, if there's anything this recent election fiasco should've taught us is not to make assumptions based on the past, and that the blocs are far from set in stone, definitely not set in stone enough to include in a Wikipedia article. Gibzit (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat agree. Supplying some sort of sum is useful for those of us who don't feel like doing mental math to work out whether every single poll is a good or bad result for Netanyahu's or Gantz's prospects at forming a government. But while Yisrael Beitenu is still ideologically right-wing, I think it's pretty misleading at this point to assume the party is an assumed right-wing coalition member. Same for including the Arab parties on the left even though it is very unlikely they would ever join a hypothetical left-wing coalition. For these reasons I think it would be, at the very least, less contentious/more neutral to change the figures to outgoing coalition and opposition from the 34th government/20th Knesset. PrimaPrime (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Lieberman has said he won't join a Netanyahu-led coalition, so the current R bloc isn't useful. On the other hand, the question of whether Netanyahu can form a Lieberman-less coalition is very relevant.--Rxtreme (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You all made good points. Now here's the dilemma: if we count Yisrael Beiteinu as opposition because it wouldn't join a Netanyahu coalition, should we count Zehut as opposition despite it just made it clear it wouldn't enter a center-left government? or should we exclude it from both sums? Kahlores (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Zehut also seeks to merge with another right-wing party. Feiglin had a meeting with Bennet, so probably with the New Right, which is in the government. Besides, Zehut is not part of the opposition because it wasn't represented in either the 20th or the 21st Knesset. The way the article puts it now makes no sense at all. ערן117 (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

YB won't sit with Netanyahu and won't recommend Gantz either. So maybe we shouldn't include it in either block, like the Kan poll did. ערן117 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the R and L blocks we had before, with the only change that YB not included in either of them. ערן117 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Zehut should be counted as opposition, any party which is not part of the last coalition should be counted as opposition until proven otherwise (ie. if Zehut merges with a coalition party) Gibzit (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we are allowed to speculate even a little bit. We can only distinguish between parties that form the current government and the ones that don't. The composition of the next government is a problem for the (next/current) Prime Minister, and he will decide which parties to include in it and which to leave out. We can only provide current set-in-stone figures for government v. opposition, regardless of ideology, because we have no idea what kind the next gov will be. The L v. R thing will become irrelevant if the government leaves out certain leftist or rightist parties or if it is a unity government, etc., etc. Zehut is not in the current government, so it will be in the opposition when it enters the Knesset. If it negotiates to join the government, that is a thing for the future. Also, if Zehut hits a YB-type roadblock to joining a coalition, then once again the L v R figures will be frustrated. So any party not in the current government should be mentioned as part of the opposition, regardless of what statements the leaders have made about joining the next government. But we can include a note mentioning the political positions and coalition rule-outs of leaders of all parties.

2402:8100:3971:94AA:6536:101C:F3CC:3C07 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the best option is to include one column for parties that declared they are going to support netanyahu, one for parties that declared they would support gantz, and a third column for all others (declared they could support either, declared they wouldn't support anyone, or didn't say anything).Note that YB declared they would only form a government with Netanyahu, but what happend this week is still by far the exception rather than the rule, nobody predicted it because it really wasn't a good prediction to make at the time. --Nngnna (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's not make any predictions at all, shall we? 2402:8100:3970:DC3A:84C7:30B3:85DF:5298 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't suggest we would. Just the opposite, taking each list at their word without making judgement.--Nngnna (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need to have two blocks shown? Just have a number for the previous coalition, and if people want to subtract it from 120 (plus/minus YB/Zehut/other) let them. This way, we convey essentially the same information without making any claim about YB, Zehut or any other party, save they weren't in the coalition when the prior Knesset ended.Rxtreme (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What do we do now after Netanyahu fired Bennett and Shaked? Are we supposed to include the New Right in the opposition? This is ridiculous and has no meaning whatsoever. ערן117 (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We do nothing. What does firing Bennett and Shaked from their cabinet positions have to do with what parties were in the last governing coalition?--Rxtreme (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Zehut switched from opp. to gov.

Hi,

Since Zehut has been moved from opp. to gov. in the Legend (here:Opinion_polling_for_the_September_2019_Israeli_legislative_election#Polls), the totals for Opp. and gov. will have to change as well (at least in polls where Zehut makes it past the threshold). David O. Johnson (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's now correct Braganza (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did Zehut move? IsraeliIdan (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They declared that they support "whoever is chosen to lead the national camp" Braganza (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Zehut never was in the government or coalition, so I don't know how it can be included as part of the government. Sokuya (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

New Right wasn't also in the government since the last election, the category "government" was introduced only because of the break with Yisrael Beiteinu. Braganza (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

But the New Right split from Jewish Home who was in government. And besides Bennet and Shaked were ministers while being New Right members, so technically New Right was in the government while Zehut never enter the Knesset. Sokuya (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Zehut has always supported whoever leads the national camp. We agreed above to stop using "Left" and "Right" blocs (which is precisely what this is) and instead use "government" and "opposition". Zehut was never in the government. By contrast, United Right is made up of parties and Knesset members from the 34th government of Israel. Rxtreme (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yisrael Beitenu

YB is pushing for a unity government: [2], so it seems misleading to put Lieberman's party in the opposition. His party holds the balance of power: [3], [4], with a government needing him as a partner. Jeremy's Knesset Insider has the Right bloc, the Left bloc and YB on its own [5]. Maybe we should adopt something similar? It would be more accurate than the current layout, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Replaced pronoun with "Lieberman's". David O. Johnson (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current layout is good, because it represents the fact that the important part of these elections is if Netanyahu can get 61 seats for his bloc without Lieberman, as that is what was problematic for him last time. Gibzit (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To show the fate of Netanyahu's current coalition, only one column is necessary. The issue is with the other column. Columns should be meaningful. Jeremy Saltan's Phase 2 Recommendations are undeniably meaningful. Our column "Opp.", less so.

A third column is unthinkable, as it would be redundant (unless you want it to count Liberman's plan, YB+Likud+B&W, which so far would be WP:CRYSTAL). So we're left with an "Opp." column renamed "BG" for Benny Gantz, where YB is removed, which means that colors would disappear in all but a handful of cells.

Kahlores (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think that the information conveyed currently is insufficient, we could try something like this section of the Belgian page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Belgian_federal_election#By_political_family with several possible coalitions that have been mentioned in WP:RS (Unity gov with YB, Unity gov with Haredim, Netanyahu gov, centre-left gov etc.) Gibzit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a possible way we could do this (I based the groups over the division created by the poll itself.) Gibzit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC):

Date(s) conducted	Polling firm	Groups						Coalitions
		Arabs	Centre-left		Yisrael Beiteinu	Right	Haredim	Secular Unity			Unity + Haredim			Right + Haredim		Centre-left + Haredim			Centre-left + Arabs
2 Aug 2019	Midgam	11	42		10	42	15	69			74			57		57			53

This table is unnecessary, too confusing. Sokuya (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How about if you put it this way:

Date(s) conducted	Polling firm
		Arabs	Centre-left		Yisrael Beiteinu	National (Caretaker gov.)
						Right	Haredim
2 Aug 2019	Midgam	11	42		10	42	15

Braganza (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Every single party wants to be in the government, and would rather lead it. "Gov." in the spreadsheet doesn't refer to whether they want to be in the government but whether they were members of the Thirty-fourth government of Israel. See the discussion of left and right figures at the top of this page. Given that Gov refers to the previous government, Zehut shouldn't be included in those figures, and I'm not sure who added them or what their justification was (beyond "Zehut is right wing" which isn't the same as being in the 34th government).

I agree that we shouldn't have an opposition column (Zehut has never been in the opposition either), as I maintained in the discussion above. Rxtreme (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while that we have had this discussion. Probably March-April.

Taking all your remarks into account, it seems that we need undebatable columns. Which means, Phase 2 recommendations.

Here's how it would look like with a "BG" column counting MKs would would recommend Benny Gantz, and "BN" for Netanyahu.

Date	Polling firm	Publisher	Likud	Blue & White	Joint List	Shas	UTJ	United Right	Labor– Gesher	Yisrael Beiteinu	Dem. Union	Zehut	BG	BN
Seats at dissolution			38	35	10	8	8	6	6	5	4	–	55	60

The paragraph before that (currently) explains which parties are counted as "Opp." and "Gov.", would be replaced accordingly, with a note to explain Yisrael Beiteinu's tactic. Kahlores (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kahlores Joint List doesn't support Gantz and Blue and White refused any coalitions with Non-Zionists Braganza (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also BG and BN is very strange; It would be better to write Gantz and Netanyahu Braganza (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You should read about the process of forming a government. Jeremy Saltan explained his concepts of "Phase 1, 2, 3" in an article for JNS here.

It would be WP:CRYSTAL to speculate about which parties will form the 35th government. Let's stick to recommendations for Prime ministership. Kahlores (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kahlores I did not say that I find the shortcuts only obscure, because "BN" and "BG" at first glance does not mean Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu; I would rather write the surnames in full form
Furthermore, the Joint List announced that they would be thinking about recommending Gantz [6], but they did not do it in April and nothing is decided yet (If you talk about the status quo) Braganza (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It should look like that Braganza (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Date	Polling firm	Publisher	Likud	Blue & White	Joint List	Shas	UTJ	United Right	Labor– Gesher	Yisrael Beiteinu	Dem. Union	Zehut	Gantz	Netanyahu
Seats at dissolution			38	35	10	8	8	6	6	5	4	–	45	60

@Kahlores, @David O. Johnson, @Gibzit, @Rxtreme, @Sokuya and @Eran117; Are you for or against my proposal? Braganza (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I like your proposal, but I wish Netanyahu's name was shorter. Can we use "Bibi"? By the way, why "Blue & White" breaking into three rows instead of two? Weird. Sokuya (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am open-minded about "Bibi", but I think three rows will make the header too wide Braganza (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am opposed to it, as it comes close to the failed speculation that we had in the April elections with the R and L blocks. I think we should stick with the current set up, the only change I would perhaps make is to delete the Opp column which has become less and less useful. Gibzit (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the current approach, though I don't like the "Opp." column.

I wouldn't object too much to switching to a number for the self-identified "Nationalist Camp". But I'd use Nationalist Camp/Bloc or something similar, rather than Netanyahu and make sure to explain it clearly. And unless the Joint List and Yisrael Beitenu pledge to support Ganz, I don't see why we would include another column with ~40 seats. (Would we add another column for Lieberman or Tibi if they decide to nominate themselves?)

Also: Have all the parties on the right openly pledged to nominate Netanyahu this election? Have the Democratic Camp and Labor pledged to nominate Gantz. If not, we definitely don't want to say they did. --Rxtreme (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Bibi" is colloquial. On the other hand, "Netan." would be irrespectful. That's why I suggested using the initials BN (and BG).
• The point of these columns is to provide the reader with the knowledge of how many MKs would recommend Prime ministerial candidates. There are just two of them.
• tip: to force "Blue & White" to split into just two lines, add a non-breakable space (& nbsp;) between "Blue" and "&".

Kahlores (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't like naming blocks after their leaders. I would like to go back to the L & R columns, and Israel Beitenu should not be included in any block. ערן117 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kahlores especially initials are not unique (especially since they are almost identical),
One should be able to recognize it best at first glance

L and R (without YB) would at least eliminate the problem with the not always existing recommendations Braganza (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that Yisrael Beitenu is a right-wing party.

It sounds like we're approaching a consensus that the single bit of information that we're trying to convey is "Can Netanyahu form a right wing government without Yisrael Beitenu? (Y/N)" (Though "Can the previous government command a majority?" is a reasonable question and perhaps more objective / justifiable by wikipedia standards.) Currently, the "Gov." column answers both questions. If Zehut or the Kahanists passed the threshold, it would be a different story, but that hasn't happened since the final lists were announced. (Also, a coalition with the Kahanists might prove politically difficult for Netanyahu.) "Right" has a different meaning than "Can Netanyahu form a right wing government without Yisrael Beitenu?" and shouldn't be used. If Zehut passes the threshold and we can give a well-sourced "Netanyahu" or "X Bloc" (possibly Nationalist, or Likud or something that clearly identifies a group), I wouldn't oppose a change. I see no reason to include a "Left" column (which mischaracterizes most of the parties in it), an "Opp." column (which mischaracterizes parties that have never served in the opposition, including Zehut, Otzma and B&W) or a "Gantz" column (which in the best case aggregates B&W, Dems and Labor and in the worst mischaracterizes both Lieberman and Tibi's positions). Rxtreme (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that only one column is necessary to convey the current coalition's chances (I myself said it above), we can convey much more with two. With a second column, we can convey 2) Gantz's chances to be the PM-nominee, and, given that so far he has almost never had a majority even when counting the Joint list, 3) the absence of color in either cell tells the reader that Lieberman is the kingmaker.

Something like this (taken from my sandbox):

Date	Polling firm	Publisher	Joint List		Democratic Union		Labor– Gesher		Blue & White	Yisrael Beiteinu	Likud		Zehut	United Right		Otzma Yehudit	Shas	UTJ	G	N
Seats at dissolution			10		5		5		35	5	39		–	5		–	8	8	55	60
5 Aug	Direct Polls	Channel 13	11		8		7		29	10	30		(2.2%)	11		(1.9%)	7	7	55	55
5 Aug	Midgam	Walla!	11		7		6		29	10	31		(1.9%)	11		(2.2%)	7	8	53	57
4 Aug	KANTAR	Reshet Bet	11		8		6		30	11	29		(1.9%)	11		(2.8%)	7	7	55	54

These columns correspond to the tallies calculated by Jeremy Saltan.

All speculations about the make-up of the next coalition are WP:CRYSTAL. The only thing we can talk about are PM recommendations. Kahlores (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Or we can talk about the most recent government.

I see you're counting Joint List under Gantz. Have they promised to recommend him? Have all the right wing parties save for YB promised to recommend Netanyahu? --Rxtreme (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Mansour (Ra'am) says the Joint list's result can end Netanyahu's fate [7] and Odeh leaves the door open to cooperation with Gantz [8].
• Shas' posters show Deri with Netanyahu (see [9]).
• UTJ didn't change since April, still backing Netanyahu unconditionally lest Lapid and Gantz gain influence [10].
• United Right first said their support for Netanyahu is guaranteed [11] but recently Shaked said it would be conditional to a right-wing government [12], which does not contradict putting them in a right-wing column.
• Zehut plans to change course from the April elections and emphasize it is right-wing [13]. Jeremy Saltan has always been counting Zehut seats in Netanyahu's tally anyway.

So I would venture to say yes, we have sources for all of them!

Kahlores (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So we have sources for United Right and kinda UTJ. We emphatically don't have sources for the Joint List, Shas or Zehut.

If we want to list the parties that have promised to recommend Netanyahu, they need to have publicly promised to recommend Netanyahu. And likewise for Gantz, who isn't even his party's sole PM candidate. Until that happens, this proposal is a non-starter. --Rxtreme (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a more explicit source for Zehut. [14]. The way Feiglin (and Shaked too) phrased it only strengthens my opinion that the blocs should be named left/right rather than Netanyahu/Gantz. ערן117 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And here's a more explicit source for Shas. [15]

The Joint List is more problematic. They haven't explicitly endorsed Gantz, but they explicitly rule out Netanyahu. That's why Jeremy includes them in the left bloc - he defines it as the parties that rule out Netanyahu, and the right bloc as the parties that rule out Gantz. ערן117 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should believe the party's promises on this when politicians do lie during elections (see Avi Gabbay and his "promise" not to negotiate with Netanyahu last elections)Gibzit (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you think the current situation is bad, it is standard practice to include both right and left wing oppositional parties outside of the government column, even if the government is right wing. For example, I seriously doubt we will see Bibi give a government position to Ben Gvir and Baruch Marzel, even if they do pass the threshold. Any speculation about "recommendations" or "blocs" is a terrible idea, as proven by the last elections. It is extremely possible that we will be proven wrong after the elections (as the current polling situation shows at least one party will have to go back on it's promises to prevent a third election), which would be a terrible thing for this page. The only objective thing we could do is to count the size of Netanyahu's last government. If someone wants to add Zehut or Otzma or YB or Labor-Gesher (or the Joint List for all we care) to that, they could do that easily enough in their head. If you still think that the current coalition column is bad, we could switch to a lead column, which will count the difference in seats between the largest party and the second largest party, which is entirely objective, and which many polling pages use (see the German, Dutch pages for example) and would finally end this discussion. Gibzit (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Talking about government positions is speculation. Talking about pre-determined allegiances is not!

As for your suggestion. As you know, in Israel all parliaments were "hung", all governments were multipartite, and not all first parties have led the government. Lead columns are thus meaningless. They were brought on Wikipedia on most articles, I believe because of a bias from editors who are versed into the Westminster tradition, and FPTP systems, where being first is crucial. Kahlores (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The only party that we can be sure will recommend Gantz is B&W, the only party we can be sure will recommend Netanyahu is Likud (and even these have become shaky with all what's going on), anything beyond that is speculation. Gibzit (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gibzit: Well speculations of the parties themselves and no foreign assessments Braganza (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

But speculations nonetheless. 2402:8100:3968:6737:88DC:A805:E04C:B71C (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Tallies' names

The long discussion above, about how many tallies we should have, how we should call them, and which parties should be counted in which, did not lead to any consensus.

Nonetheless, the contradiction that spurred the debate might become more acute should Identity or Jewish Force be polled above 3.25%. In such case it would be preposterous to describe those parties as being "Opposition" in the same tally as the Joint list.

Thus I suggest one modest thing: to rename "Opp." (Opposition) as "Oth." (Others). I'll do it myself unless someone has a point.

Kahlores (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Braganza (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We could delete the Opp. tally altogether. Renaming it to Others is another good option. Gibzit (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, that's a pretty obvious and non-objectionable solution. I approve! --Rxtreme (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC

Otzma belongs in the right wing column

The latest Kenesset and Yisrael Hayom poll totals should be corrected to read 60 and 58 seats respectively for the right wing column. Otzma can in no way be added to the left wing column. 109.64.242.220 (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "left wing column"; it includes all other parties that were not part of the previous government. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous. The info in the Gov and Other columns is useless. I prefer to go back to the L&R columns we used to have before. ערן117 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that in appearance it looks like Oth. and Gov. are diametrically opposed, and Otzma is committed to supporting Bibi. A pro/anti-Bibi system might make more sense, similar to American political entries from the early days ("Pro-Administration"/"Anti-Administration," which weren't exactly official titles), or even the traditional four bloc system used on TV (Right/Left/Arab/Charedi), since Gantz has said he won't sit with Odeh and Oth./Anti-Bibi would still be misleading on those grounds.212.179.28.34 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 109.64.242.220 and Eran117. The Knesset poll that has Otzma Yehudit above threshold, shouldn't show a 64-56 tally with a "light blue" hue, as if Gantz's chances were higher than Netanyahu's. 60-60 would be much more meaningful (A+L+C vs R), or 51-60 (max PM recommendations).

We already discussed (8-10 August, see above) a set up with two tallies, one for Gantz and the other for Netanyahu, but User:Gibzit was over skeptical about the reliable sources we found on PM recommendations.

Kahlores (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that coloring the Other tally Gantz's shade of blue is misleading, especially when it includes Otzma Yehudit. It feels to me like WP:CRYSTAL to predict PM reccomendations or blocs before the election has happened, so having columns for Government at dissolution and Others is the most justifiable choice. Two suggestions: 1) Remove coloration from the Gov/Oth columns, because it is overly simplistic and doesn't communicate that Otzma Yehudit, and in the past, Zehut are in the right-wing bloc, and that Gantz has ruled out sitting with the Joint List. 2) Have a paragraph in or above the legend explaining that some of the parties included in Other have either committed to supporting Netanyahu or have been ruled out of sitting in a Blue and White government. Making these changes would hopefully clear up some of the ambiguity regarding the Other colum. Jacoby531 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Like this?:

Date	Polling firm	Publisher	Likud	Blue & White	Joint List	Shas	UTJ	Labor- Gesher	Yamina	Yisrael Beiteinu	Dem. Union	Zehut	Otzma Yehudit	Oth.	Gov.

Braganza (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

More like this

Date	Polling firm	Publisher	Likud	Blue & White	Joint List	Shas	UTJ	Labor- Gesher	Yamina	Yisrael Beiteinu	Dem. Union	Zehut	Otzma Yehudit	Gov.	Oth.

Kahlores (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be better Braganza (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be much better, but should probably also reflect Gantz saying he would refuse to sit with the Joint List and many from the Joint List refusing to sit with him. 212.179.28.34 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This still doesn't reflect Netanyahu's ability to form a government. Otzma supports Netanyahu, and should be included in the column of parties that support him. I can live with the Gantz column either including the Joint List or not, but Otzma should definitely not be there. ערן117 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Done on 8 September. 21:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Further remarks

The "Other" column is not the Gantz column, it is a column of every party that is not included in Netanyahu's current government. (The "Gov. Column) What you are doing is WP:CRYSTAL. How do you know that Otzma, Yamina, Haredim will actually recommend Netanyahu? Maybe they will recommend Shaked? Ben Gvir? Deri? The arrangement we had before you changed it was OBJECTIVE. It did not involve any predictions or opinions, simply a tally of the past government. And now it is not only MORE confusing with the weird note (and it's about to get even more confusing, judging by the comments here about the Joint List and Yisrael Beiteinu), it is your SUBJECTIVE opinions that Otzma or anyone else will in fact recommend Netanyahu. If someone wants to add Otzma, Labor, Blue and White, Yisreal Beiteinu, Zehut or anyone else to Netanyahu's tally, they can do it in their heads. It is not our job to make such predictions. I understand that perhaps coloring the Other column B&W's colour has created confusion, and I would support a move to change the colour to something else (Red for Oth.? Non-Likud blue for Gov?). But the Oth and Gov columns should be restored to their previous position. Gibzit (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What about grey for the Oth. column? Problem is, in all polls, except the few ones where Otzma or Zehut surpassed the threshold, the B&W colors make sense. Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this: There is not, and has never been, a Ganz column. Agree that it shouldn't be shaded Light Blue. I'm still okay with removing the Oth. column, but the edit that added Otzma to Gov column needs to be reverted (Otzma was never in the government.)--Rxtreme (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The meaning here is Gov. + allies. Ben Gvir (#1 on Otzma's list) says he wants to "save the rightwing block" [16]. Also known as the Right-Religious, Right-Haredi bloc. Would you prefer R-R as a column title? Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be misleading too. Yisrael Beitenu is, and has always been, a right-wing party. More to the point, you're not going to get around WP:CRYSTAL just by changing names around.--Rxtreme (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason we're highlighting 60s? It takes 61 seats for a majority (as we saw).--Rxtreme (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The custom on such articles is to have equal cells bold, but not highlighted. Someone (not me) changed that custom in March/April. Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is the total number of elected Knesset members who will support the right wing government. All the parties on the right (aside from Yisrael Beiteinu), including the Hareidi parties, already publicly stated that they will endorse PM Netanyahu as Prime Minister and this is what the table should reflect. Alternatively, at least there should be additional columns added that provide the breakdown - total number of seats endorsing a Likud led government and total of those who will not. It is clear that Likud, Shas, UTJ, Yamina, and Otzma will endorse Netanyahu. Without having this update, as previous people have commented, it would be misleading, notwithstanding the introductory explanation on the page. Many people who look at the table focus on the poll results and breakdown and will likely not read the explanation. This will likely lead many who view this page to wrongly believe that in every poll the Likud is fairly far from a majority, while Benny Gantz's Blue-White party frequently achieves a majority. The goal of this article should be to provide an accurate picture of what the polls are telling us. In Israel, when the polls are released, they regularly state how many seats the Likud under PM Netanyahu is expected to have, taking into account new parties not currently in the coalition, such as Otzma. It would be highly recommended that this table present the numbers the same way that the polls in Israel do, or at the very least to add columns that take this into account. I hope that these changes will be made soon. Thank you.YirasShamayim (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

it was like this when I checked earlier; but it's been changed back. Why? This is an excellent argument and prevents people from having to do math by doing it for them. Nickjbor (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Yiras. Last month I tried to form a consensus on having two columns, each counting the probable recommendations (for G and N, respectively) based on reliable sources about each party's stance on PM-ship. But there was bickering on whether we should count this or that party (see above, in early August).

Another strategy to the same effect could be to state that we reproduce what Israeli media do, which is a tally of Right-Religious parties, and a tally of Left-Secular+Arab parties. The best reliable source, in my opinion, would be to find such tally on the pollsters' and publishers' own pages. I know that some have 4 tallies (A-L-R-H), but A would be redundant and the Haredi parties vowed to support Netanyahu.

Maybe you'll find enough people to support that change. I won't be there in the next 24 hours, however. Kahlores (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We already made this Left/Right bloc mistake on the April page, counting Lieberman in the right bloc as if it was obvious that he was going to join Netanyahu. I am trying to prevent a repeat of this mistake in this page, and to keep the bloc counter free from predictions about future blocs. To me it is not clear that any party will recommend or join any candidate, especially in this election. The Oth. tally is not a tally of Gantz's majority, it is a tally of every party which was not part of Netanyahu's previous coalition, we specifically changed the color of it to avoid confusion on this subject. The news can afford to make predictions about the future, because their goal is different from ours. We should not be making predictions about the future, even if news organisations do. Gibzit (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Another idea regarding the Government column

The point of contention regarding the Gov and Other columns is that displaying the current government vs. everyone else is supportable by RS but not very meaningful, while having Right and Left columns (or something to that effect) is more meaningful but is somewhat ambiguous and not supported by RS. So: what if we don't add columns until *after* the government is formed? Then, we can have a Gov column for the government formed after the election, and an Other column for parties not in government (and parties that failed to enter the Knesset altogether). If no government is formed and we go to a third election, then we could perhaps do a column for parties that ended up recommending Netanyahu, a column for those that recommend Gantz, and a column for those that nominated no one or missed the threshold. Thoughts? Jacoby531 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You can test these ideas on the April elections. It would be interesting to replace L/R by your three columns (with the final recommendations being: 45/10/65).

While time travel is thrilling, it is no less interesting to agree on the best layout for the next few days' many readers. Kahlores (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Right and Left columns are supported by RS. Most polls display 3 blocs - right-religious, centre-left-arab, and Israel Beitenu as a block of its own.

After the April election Israel Beitenu did recommend Netanyahu, just like they promised before the election. The problems began later. So your idea still doesn't solve anything. ערן117 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the Oth. Column

This point has come up repeatedly on this page, but nobody has implemented it or given much of an argument against it.

Does anyone object to deleting the "Oth." column? Apparently even with the change from "Opp." (which was misleading) and B&W's color (also misleading), people still think it's a Gantz column - and I can see why they would. I don't think it provides any information that the Gov. column alone doesn't. And even if we decide to switch the "Gov." column to an "Endorsed Nentayahu" column (which would be the only transparent name for it) we don't need an "Endorsed Gantz" column, in part because I don't think anyone has endorsed Gantz. (Even Blue & White officially supports a Gantz-Lapid rotation.) (Also, the implied BW+DU+LG bloc doesn't correspond at all to our Oth. column.)

I think it's time to kill it off.--Rxtreme (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty much useless. Other pages that use the Gov. system (like the Italian page) only have one column Gibzit (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I support deleting both Oth. and Gov. columns, they are both useless. ערן117 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the Oth. column except on the scenario polls. Personally I'd prefer a pro-Netanyahu column that would include Otzma -- there are plenty of RS to indicate they would recommend Bibi -- especially now that they seem to be polling at the threshold, but this is a start. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be both sensible and appropriate to include Otzma in the Pro-Gov. column. 109.64.237.163 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it would make this column meaningful. Either add Otzma, or delete the Gov. column as well. ערן117 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gov. is meaningful: It tells us whether the parties that made up the previous coalition have a majority. I agree that an "Endorse Netanyahu" column would also be useful, but simply adding Otzma's total to Gov. gets you that information. (Obviously we don't want both, it's a minor tradeoff between Original Research / POV and usefulness.)--Rxtreme (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gov. column tells us whether the parties that made up the previous coalition have a majority in the next Knesset, so it is anachronistic. It only makes sense if you assume the next coalition will be identical to the previous one, particularly with respect to Otzma, but this assumption is not supported by any RS. All RS include Otzma in the same bloc with the coalition parties. So the Gov. column is both wp:OR and useless. ערן117 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Above I'm assuming that Otzma endorsed Netanyahu, but I can't find a source for that.--Rxtreme (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Here: [17] ערן117 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link to the renowned Jeremy's Polls:

https://knessetjeremy.com/category/knesset/polls/

109.66.212.153 (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing the other column to grey would help clear up the psychological difficulty of comprehending it as an 'other' column. Also, it should be after the Government column not before, as it makes no sense to have 'Others - Government', just like it makes no sense to have 'none of the above' as the first out of four options (that would make it 'none of the below'). Also, maybe the Oth. could be replaced with a full 'Others' since it is not such a large word. 42.109.224.46 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Otzma yehudits place

being they are a hard right wing party pehaps should they be placed in the sum of govenment / coalition paties Noahjones123 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The rightist Otzma party undoubtedly belongs in the pro-Gov. column. 109.66.240.141 (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

i notice some people have mentioned that they were never in a coalition , it is however impotant to note that they spent time united in UNRWP Noahjones123 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

They may either join the coalition or support it from the outside. 109.66.231.53 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No they wont IsraeliIdan (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The unwarranted restriction of the projected pro-Gov. bloc to the 2015 coalition parties is misleading. It does not reflect the actual prospect of Netanyahu's reelection. 79.181.226.113 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The four Otzma seats in the relevant polls should therefore be added to the sum of the pro-Gov. column in accordance with all newspapers. 79.176.218.126 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a separate discussion from the exact same discussion above, but to reiterate: There is no "pro-Gov." column in the table. There is a prior government column. This is to avoid speculating about who is going to be in and out of the next government. Conveniently, it's easy to get from the Gov. column to (for instance) the "right wing and religious parties minus Yisrael Beitenu" by simply adding Otzma's tally to Gov. But again, that's not the purpose or meaning of the Gov column.--Rxtreme (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We must indicate the real balance of power between the blocs. You can easily add the word "pro" to the Gov. column as well as the Otzma tally. 79.179.237.34 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gov. column as it stands is meaningless and serves no purpose except mislead the readers. It would have them believe that this is the final sum of the right wing bloc as a whole. 79.183.220.78 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please someone add the polls that were posted tonight by Israeli tv channels (13/9 before silence)

IsraeliIdan (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)