Talk:2013 Israeli legislative election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"budget for the fiscal cliff 2013" ??!![edit]

What's with this fiscal cliff ?
Why use this expression when it's not appropriate (neither here, and IMO, nor anywhere else) ?
Ronbarak (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Ypnypn (talk)

B class assess[edit]

  • Referenced  Done
  • Covered  Done
  • Structured  Done
  • Well-written Not done—Needs grammar tune up
  • Supported  Done
  • Understandable  Done

--Metallurgist (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Polling[edit]

With Mofaz elected, should we take out the hypothetical Livni polls and put them in a navbox (or a subpage)? I would argue yes because they are irrelevant now. Certainly keep them around because they are irrelevant to the election, but they should be sidelined a bit.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Polls are supposed to have long-term/enduring importance/notability; otherwise they have no place in Wikipedia, regardless of their relevance to current events. If they are removed from this page, they should at least be kept in some sort sub-page or polls page. Rami R 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah We can put them in a subpage or in a navbox. I fully support keeping them, just moving them aside for greater clarity.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's ON!!!!![edit]

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Knesset is going to vote to dissolve itself on monday.Ericl (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"in order to choose the 33rd government"[edit]

I have strong reservations about this part in the lead. The elections are for the legislative, not the government. The formation of a new government is a mere consequence. The discrepancy between the Knesset number (19) and government number (33) is good evidence. Rami R 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be changed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. I have removed it. Number 57 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Plural/Singular[edit]

Per this the bold in the lead should reflect the article title. How can we have inconsistency right in the front? the whole page should be consistent. Its also ONE election to ONE bodyLihaas (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The plural is common English usage - see the BBC headline Armenia votes in parliamentary elections. The article title is very formulaic (using the comma and the year) and does not have to match the first sentence of the article. Number 57 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If theres inconsistency, its probably because several editors were using different conventions. I would argue for singular since only one vote is cast. For constituency elections or multiple office, make it plural.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed , we also dont have to parrot misconceptions of the media. Its more academic n an encyclopaedia. If we are to use "results"/"electios" we should get a wider consensus to change the nameLihaas (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not a "misconception", this is how the language is used. We definitely should not be using "Result" as a heading, as this is never used in speech - it is always "the results of the election". Number 57 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Speeches are not, and hardly if ever, up to standard quality english 9or any language) they are (like the media) to cater to the mass market. One outlet then parrots the other. Anyeways, it seems metallurgist makes a better arguement than mineLihaas (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, "Result" is not common usage in speech or text. The IFES uses "Results". Number 57 18:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Using "Results" (in plural) also makes perfect sense logically, as an election yields multiple results: how many votes Kadima got, how many Likud got, etc. Rami R 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Actuall an election yields ONE result FOR different parties because it is to ONE body. THe result is the same as announced by the ONE election commission monitoring the election to that ody.
Now if there were multiple events to municipal councils etc (which often have different oversight and rules) then thats plrualLihaas (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
There are very few reliable sources in English which use result as opposed to results the election resources site uses results. We shouldn't confuse that with the outcome of the election. Valenciano (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Option 1 Option 2
Israeli legislative election, 2012

← 2009 4 September 2012

All 120 seats of the Knesset
61 seats needed for a majority.
  Benjamin Netanyahu.jpg Avigdor Lieberman - 2011.jpg Shaul Mofaz.jpg
Leader Benjamin Netanyahu Avigdor Lieberman Shaul Mofaz
Party Likud Yisrael Beiteinu Kadima
Last election 27 15 28

Incumbent Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu
Likud



‹ 2009 Flag of Israel.svg 2016 ›
Elections for the 19th Knesset
on or before 4 September 2012

Benjamin Netanyahu portrait.jpg
Question Mark.gif
Prime Minister before election

Benjamin Netanyahu
Likud

Subsequent Prime Minister

TBD


In light of the recent differences of opinions regarding the infobox used in this article, I have decided to raise the matter for discussion here so that all of the participating editors as well as the rest of the Wikipedia community would be able to help determine what would be the best suited infobox to be used in this specific article, and what data should actually be presented in it in this early stage of the elections.

I have several comments about the infobox currently displayed above in this discussion under the headline "Option 1" (which is also currently in use in the article itself):

  • In my opinion, in this early stage of the campaign, in which currently no official information exists regarding the parties which would actually participate in the 2012 elections, we must refrain from displaying any party in the infobox. Presenting only three parties in the infobox (as it is currently implemented in "Option 1") alongside the number of seats which each of the parties won in the 2009 elections (figures which could be easily retrieved from the infobox located at the top of 2009 elections article), is arbitrary, unnecessary and speculative (at this point in time there is no certainty that these three parties mentioned in "Option 1" would indeed be the leading parties in the 2012 election.) In my opinion, instead of presenting a handful of arbitrarily selected parties, we should add information regrading all the participating parties in the 2012 elections BUT only after this information would become finalized and official. Either way, until we would reach this point in time when this information would be official, I think this specific infobox should only indicate who was the Prime Minister before the elections and indicate that the next prime minister is yet to be determined (in the same way, or in a similar manner to the way this information is currently presented above in the infobox which appear under the headline "Option 2").
  • In addition, I object to displaying pictures of all the chairmen of the various parties participating in the 2012 elections or of a a few parties selected arbitrarily – mainly because the elections held in Israel are not Direct elections (the voters vote for the parties themselves) and therefore it is unnecessary to emphasize the chairmen of each party in the infobox with their images AND because we should rather prioritize displaying all the parties participating in the 2012 elections in the infobox (or at least those who passed the threshold) than presenting only the images of the chairmen of a handful of arbitrarily selected parties. Nevertheless, if the majority of Wikipedians participating in this discussion would insist on including an image for each participating party, we could instead debate the possibility of using the logos of the parties in the infobox.
  • Regarding the design of infobox used in this article – in my opinion, I believe we must maintain uniformity in this series of articles, and therefore, unless a consensus would be reached regarding the replacement of all the infoboxes that currently appear in all the articles covering the general elections held in Israel (Template:Infobox Israeli Election) with the infobox template:Infobox election, there is no actual justification to have an infobox with a design that is visually significantly different than the infobox design that is used in the rest of the Israeli elections articles. In any case, even if the there would be a consensus regarding presentation of only a handful of arbitrarily selected parties in the infobox that appear in this article (such as only the data of the Likud, Kadima and Yisrael Beitenu), in my opinion we should still present this data in a manner which visually is similar to the way the data is displayed in the infobox Template:Infobox Israeli Election which is currently used in the rest of the Israeli elections articles.

What infobox should be used in your opinion in this article? What information do you think should be currently presented in the infobox? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good discussion and thanks for bringing it here.
Just to outline first, im not sure why the 2nd one was created even, its standard practice to use the first one on elections...though consensus can change.
You make good points in your argument too. The first 3 were just the largest current parties, though we could add more (but it gets unsightly to list them all for a GA), the tables can/will change when and if another party becomes bigger after the election...though i agree with you that if one were to not have the infobox until more certainly on who is running id have no probs taking them out for now. As for the leader i think we should put him despite it not being a direct election because if the party were to lead in government he would be the PM. So that should be notable enough.
WP:OSE doesnt mean we have to have the same table automatically...though was there any consensus to change the infobox format to ahve a separate one for israel?Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Lihaas. I am glad you agree with most of my points. As I said, currently no official information exists regarding the parties which would actually participate in the 2012 elections, and therefore in my opinion we must refrain from displaying any party in the infobox at the present time until this information would be official and finalized.
As for the template Template:Infobox Israeli Election. It is based on the parallel template used in the Israeli Wikipedia. Not all elections and political systems around the world work the same, and for this reason in this instance this template which presnts puts the emphesis on the actual parties which passed the threshold, works much better than the standard infobox template:Infobox election which puts the emphasis on a selected few candidates and presents their image (in the Israeli political system every party which passes the threshold, and the amount of seats each one got, is important when the coalition is eventually formed and later on during the political negotiations). Either way, If you still insist that the infobox Template:Infobox Israeli Election should be upgraded and include photos of selected chairmen OR alternatively that it should be erased and replaced with the template template:Infobox election, then you can always ahead and follow the necessary steps to do so and we'll have further discussions on the matter in the template's discussion page after you open the AfD, and we'll see what the rest of the community thinks of your suggestion/s.
Anyway, as I mentioned above, at this point in time, presenting only a handful of arbitrarily selected parties in the infobox (as it is currently implemented in "Option 1") is arbitrary, unnecessary and speculative since at this point in time there is no certainty that these three parties mentioned in "Option 1" would indeed be the leading parties in the 2012 election and because by doing so we make them stand out above the rest of the parties which would participate although there is no justification for it at this point (execpt for, of course, the cases in which the wishful thinking of an individual Wikipedia editor led to such a decision). Therefore, for now I am restoring the infobox which appears under the headline "option 1" while I agree that we should present an expanded template in the future when there would be official and finalized information regarding all the parties which would participate in the 2012 elections. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The other opinion/option was to present in a non-arbitrary manner the incumbent leaders as influential going in (and their possible loss being ntable). Still though the current infobox is rather poor in both coding and presentation.
Think we should take them out for now till something if affirmed.
Btw- dsurprised by todays update. Did lieberman have anything to do with it? they wanted the tal law amended tooLihaas (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It was certainly a complete surprise. Regarding your question about Lieberman, I'd rather not discuss speculations in Wikipedia talk pages.
Regarding the infobox, as I've previously stated, in my opinion we should keep the current simple infobox in this point in time, until there would be official and finalized information regarding the all the parties which would participate in the 2012 elections - for the same reason it has become customary in the English Wikipedia to place similar infoboxes in the U.S. election articles in the early stages of the U.S. elections when there are still no official nominees. Either way, I suggest that we hear what the rest of the editors think should be done on this matter. Do you support keeping it or replacing it with a different infobox? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, dont mind having this as the preliminary infobox
But we should get wider discussion on the lections wikiproject either to use this as preliminary ones across the board or have one decided vbetween the two for good.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually agree with what you three have decided since we won't have all of the parties in the infobox at the next election anyway. For the moment, the parties that got the largest share of the vote at the last election are the ones that should be listed. As they are at election articles across the project. Even setting that aside, the current box isn't really an infobox. It has the title of the page, the election date, the PM, and his party. A huge portion of the infobox is dedicated to a no-image block and the fact that the election's winner is unknown. If there is a strong object to having an election infobox that conveys information, then why not just use {{Politics of Israel}}. -Rrius (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like some form of option 1, which is how i originally made the article.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

irrelevant article going nowhere[edit]

The hype about elections has dissipated. The article is a mere time capsule of the media hype of recentism and is not relevant anymore. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That we delete the entire article? If this is your wish - simply put a {{delete}} template at the top of the article and follow the necessary procedure to see if there is a consensus for this proposal. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Though that would easily fail. Thats why its called "next" elecion without specifics as the data is pertinent even without knowing when the lection would be. When decided if the issue is moot then it can be removed/re-worded/movedLihaas (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Gnome, just looking for discussion before doing anything. --Shuki (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I created this article long before the election hype because there were some polls on it and speculation, as well as the leadership elections. The hype enabled a great expansion. There is no reason to delete it. I dont understand why some people have a deletion obsession.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pollsters[edit]

At present, we list the pollster (Dahaf) and the commissioning media organization (Yediot). I feel this is too clunky and unnecessary. In the US and Canada, pollsters are generally profitable enough they dont need a media sponsor (I think). However sometimes, they still have joint listed polls. So I think we should just list the pollster and not the media sponsor, which isnt really as important.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tal Law controversy and 2012 unity government" is too long a section title[edit]

Any ideas for improvement? --Metallurgist (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's on at last![edit]

this needs a clean up for the big show. Ericl (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure this time? LOL :P --Metallurgist (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion Polling graphs[edit]

Graph of Haaretz/Dialog poll results between 8 January 2012 – 28 September 2012

I would like to see more Opinion Polling graphs in this article, ideally similar to those used here. Yesterday I added the graph of the Haaretz/Dialog Opinion Polls. What other Opinion Polls do you think should be created and added to this article? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally think we should add another opinion polling graph based on the Dahaf institute poll results (Mina Zemach). What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, Dahaf is widely used in Israel and the owner appears all the time on the media, but make sure there are enough recent Dahaf polls. The last Dahaf poll on this article's chart is from July... --Jethro B 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh you are separating it by pollster? Thats a decent idea. You could do all of them and put them down the side.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that's the best way. We'd obviously write next to each graph "According to..." Otherwise, we need to combine polls on our own etc... --Jethro B 02:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dialog poll[edit]

The IMRA link I put has the main poll data, but lacks Netanyahu data. Does anyone have a Hebrew link that shows it? Please update if you do.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I got a source and including it now. --Jethro B 02:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done By the way, what are the two rows for? I'm confused by it. It's 1 poll, but there are 2 rows for it in the chart. --Jethro B 02:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The polls are done one on one, not as a group. eg Netanyahu v Mofaz, Netanyahu v Yachimovich. I can fix it now that youve posted the link. I can read enough Hebrew to figure out a poll on a page, but I dont know enough to search :P Thanks--Metallurgist (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabs[edit]

These two articles might be good for the Arab section, but Im not sure what to write on them. [1] [2] --Metallurgist (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC) more links [3] [4] [5]--Metallurgist (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Knesset Jeremy[edit]

There is a huge number of polls on Knesset Jeremy. Unfortunately he doesnt link to his sources. But it does tell us the existence of polls that we could search for.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of the election[edit]

This section is full of speculation when the article was written about the future elections. Is it relevant to have the drama from the past year in this article? --Shuki (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a paragraph about the bluff election call earlier this year is notable, but could be merged into another section.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Table width[edit]

The table I think we all recognize is too wide. Wikilogin proposed a change that I dont think looks good at all, so I reversed it. To compensate, I removed Tikun, which is a defunct party anyway. But we still have it a bit too wide, so I have two proposals: 1. Remove Atzmaut. Without Barak, it is not going to win any seats (if it even runs) and even with him, it probably wouldnt. If this is done, I would also like to consider removing the information about Atzmaut, since they were never really an electoral factor and certainly wont be now. 2. Only cite the polling firm, not the media release. In the US, Canada, and UK, polls tend to be done by pollsters and released by them. In Israel, it seems a media organization commissions a poll and publishes it. However, in the US there are sometimes joint polls like CNN-Zogby. I think it might be an acceptable idea to remove the media publisher of the polls and stick to the pollster (Panels, Dahaf, New Wave, etc). However, native Hebrew speakers and Israelis might know better how to do this. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The table is large because there are 18 parties?! passing the threshold at any given time and we yet have a confirmation from Olmert to run on his own. That's life here right now. At least we have Likud and YB uniting, and Mafdal and Tkuma as well. --Shuki (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is better not to kill data for the sake of format. Better to leave table wide and not kill Atzmaut or polling source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talkcontribs) 06:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Polling source would remain but it would say Dahaf not Maariv/Dahaf.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What about a line break in between publisher and pollster? Rami R 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
How does that solve the space issue? Metallurgist (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we also get "Atzmaut" changed to "Independence"? That's the name of the header above and the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not opposed, but media has been split on how to mention the party in English. Metallurgist (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it should just be removed now that the party isn't running, with a footnote added as to why not all polls add up to 120. Number 57 15:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Ill work on it soon unless someone else does. I really cant wait for that Visual Editor to be finished. I just rotated a giant table on another page and it took like 4 hours over 2-3 days.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question re: surplus vote agreements[edit]

Currently the article only discusses the situation where both parties make it past the threshold but one party agrees to transfer its "extra" votes to the other so that the other may get one additional seat. What about the related situation where, say, Kadima gets 1.7% and Am Shalem gets 3.1%, so that Kadima falls short of the threshold; can it then transfer its 1.7% to Am Shalem so that the latter gets extra seat(s)? How about the situation where both fall short, for instance, Kadima gets 1.6% and Am Shalem 1.8%, can they then "combine" their votes to push Am Shalem past the threshold? The article ought to clarify what would happen in those situations. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, if a party fails to pass the threshold, its votes are gone and cannot be transferred (so in all your examples no one would get extra seats). I'll see if I can find a source. Rami R 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The editor who insists on having this in the article refuses to really explain this aspect or provide any sources.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The knesset website explains it all very clearly, with copies of the election law on as well. A couple of relevant points: Both parties who sign agreements have to individually pass the threshold. Only two parties can sign with each other, no more.

The actual mechanics of how it works is slightly different to how it is explained in the article. Basically, when it comes to distributing remaining seats by using the highest average method, then the seats and votes of the two parties will be combined. If they gain an extra seat, it goes to the party (between the two) which has the higher average.Yamor2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Seats won in 2009"[edit]

Currently, the numbers shown are based on the current numbers (and someone just changed the heading to "Seats in outgoing Knesset." I don't think that should be how it is; rather, we should show which parties got how many seats in 2009, not which parties merged/disintegrated since then. -- YPNYPN 01:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not both? Rami R 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

attempt to ban Shas and United Torah Judaism[edit]

the article notes there was a request made to the central electoral commission to ban these two parties on the grounds that they do not allow women MPs and are therefore discriminatory. the article doesn't give the verdict. presumably it was decided not to ban them since they appear to be standing. does anyone know the details, thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done (with source) -- YPNYPN 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Polls[edit]

There are a very large number of polls, causing the article to be quite long. I think all polls should be moved to Polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2013. (Similar articles exist for US elections.) -- YPNYPN 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Was bold and did it myself. -- YPNYPN 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a good initiative, but there's no point in a separate article if you also keep the polls in this one. If this is the idea then transclusion might be a good solution. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd really like to replace the entire table here with a prose summary. The article is already too long, and will get much longer once the results of the election are known. -- YPNYPN 22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the polling section is already an improvement on the 2009 elections article. Israeli legislative election, 2009 and Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2009 --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not REPLACE table with a prose summary. ADDING summary would be great, but not killing the detailed data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talkcontribs) 12:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

Issues: Settlements[6] and IranLihaas (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Government formation[edit]

Shouldn't the article have a section on government formation? Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but we don't know much until a government is formed, or at least partly formed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Results[edit]

Table in Infobox doesn't match table in Results section. One or both needs to be updated with final results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

fixed now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

In the Participating Parties section of this article two Arab parties have photos that are significantly smaller than the photos accompanying the other parties. The third Arab party has no photo at all. Is there a good reason for this? Could someone who knows how please re-size the photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePhantomCopyEditor (talkcontribs) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> The Gatekeepers - Can a Film Change The Course of the Israeli Elections? (Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)).

infobox[edit]

Why we don´t make a normal infobox?83.80.208.22 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not appropriate to the Israeli electoral system. Number 57 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli legislative election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli legislative election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)