Talk:List of Knesset speakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Knesset speakersList of Knesset Chairpersons – The name in Hebrew is "Yoshev-Rosh Ha'Knesset", meaning "Chairman of the Knesset", or "Yoshevet-Rosh Ha'Knesset", meaning "Chairwoman of the Knesset", hence "List of Knesset Chairpersons". Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Virant (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion condensed
  • Oppose Clear violation of WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME - we don't blindly translate the name of positions, otherwise we'd have "Head of Government of Israel" rather than "Prime Minister of Israel". The Knesset website refers to the position as "Speaker", and as an example for COMMONNAME, Haaretz has 2,850 hits for "Knesset speaker" and one hit for "Knesset chairperson" (there were also a further 65 hits for "Knesset chairman", but the ratio remains at around 43:1 in terms of the use of speaker to chairman/chairperson). Number 57 08:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no violation:
1. Other chairmen/chairpersons of Parliaments are referred to as such, e.g. Chairman of the Parliament of Albania, Chairperson of the National Assembly of Bulgaria, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (other examples can be found in Speaker (politics)), so that's not a "blind translation" but a known alternative in usage.
2. The Knesset website also refers to the position as Chairman, e.g. Basic Law: The Knesset - 1958, Basic Law: The President of the State.
3. Haaretz, with all due respect, is the least widespread nationwide newspaper in Israel. Ynet, the most widespread Israeli newspaper online (and a close second in print) has 1,790 results for "Chairman of the Knesset" and only 43 for "Speaker of the Knesset". Searching the exact phrase in Google will show 3,260,000 results for "Chairman of the Knesset" and 1,380,000 for "Speaker of the Knesset". So, yes, Chairman is the common name. Virant (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The Knesset website may refer to the Speaker as the chairman in one or two instances, but the common name is clearly the Speaker (303 uses vs 4) and the main pages about the position refer to it as the "Speaker". You have also made a rather big mistake in your Googling methodology - by searching for "Chairman of the Knesset", you get a lot of ambiguous results - the first two pages of hits for "Chairman of the Knesset"on Ynet are all for Chair of various Knesset committees (e.g. "chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee", "chairman of the Knesset lobby" etc), whilst in your generic Google search, 26 of the first 40 hits for "Chairman of the Knesset" are actually for committee chairs. You need to search for "Knesset chairman" to make it clear what you are seaching for. This gives a totally different picture:
Media source "Knesset speaker" "Knesset chairman"
Ynetnews 894 50
Jerusalem Post 3,200 132
Haaretz 2,840 65
Israel National News 1,570 495
Times of Israel 1,390 3
Total 9,894 745
If you also amend your generic Google search to adjust for the ambiguous results (i.e. using "Knesset Chairman" rather than "Chairman of the Knesset"), then the results are quite different, i.e. 124,000 vs 24,600. And anyway, you have requested to move it to "Knesset chairperson", for which there are only 996 hits on the whole interweb. Number 57 13:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, thet's more likely for an opposition. So, on the one hand we have "Chairman", which is the direct translation, is more common (Ynet, Google) and exists in the english wikipedia as an equivalent to Speaker; and on the other hand we have "Speaker", which is almost always used in the Knesset website and is more common in smaller newspapers/news websites. We'll just have to wait and see which option is preferred by other wikipedians.
Though looks can be deceiving, Dalia Itzik was the Chairwoman of the Knesset, so I chose Chairpersons over Chairmen, and that has nothing to do with statistics, and everything to do with english. Virant (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote above? "Chairman" is not most common on Google and Ynetnews - most of the hits were actually for Chairmen of Knesset committees. Number 57 19:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, but I did. I just didn't realize you keep changing your response, and I referred to one or more of your previous versions, probably this one. Anyway, I noticed a major flaw in your searching methodology, but that will have to wait till the very end of my day. See (or read) you later. Virant (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to when I accidentally used your flawed methodology on the Ynet search and came up with more hits for Chairman? Number 57 08:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. Not that I think that the lemma is important, but the Knesset website has under the heading "Basic Law: The Knesset - 1958": "Chairman and Vice-Chairmen. The Knesset shall elect from among its members a Chairman and Vice-Chairmen." [1] I guess, in 1958, political correctness regarding women was not an issue yet. As far as I know, but I may be mistaken, "Speaker" is the term in English speaking countries only, which of course leads to translating it as such into English. In many countries, such as France: French Parliament, Germany: President of the Bundestag, Switzerland: Federal Assembly (Switzerland) etc. it would be President, not Chairperson, nor Speaker. Therefore: Why "Speaker" for Israel? Because it was a British mandate? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably - English was an official language until 1948. As you point out, the legislation referring to "Chairman" dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, whilst the modern Knesset website almost exclusively uses the term Speaker in its English version. Number 57 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That may be so, but the question imo is, whether it is consistent with en.WP policy or not. My reference to the mandate was ironical, by the way. If the Knesset has used the un-British term "Chairman" in the 1950s, shortly after the mandate ended, but changed it later to "Speaker", British influence imo has nothing to do with it: It's called "Americanization". Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that the current title is in line with both WP:UE (as the Knesset's English version almost exclusively uses "Speaker") and WP:COMMONNAME (as shown by the table of usage in the Israeli media above). Number 57 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Oppose. I don't know that this would be such an egregious violation of WP:COMMONNAME, to be honest. All the same, the common terminology in English has been "Speaker" for years. It's not ambiguous, nor is it confusing. I see no reason to bother changing it. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but only for English speaking countries. I should not like to be present, when you call the President of one of the French chambers of Parliament "Speaker", or even the German not to mention the Swiss. Contrary to what you seem to think, StevenJ81, the term "Speaker" in this sense, is not known outside the former British Empire, to put it bluntly. A "speaker" translated into French is a "porte-parole", in German it's a "Sprecher", which has a totally different meaning. But I agree that it is not important enough to move the page if there is no consensus. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ajnem, let me please rephrase my previous statement: "... the common terminology used in English-language media to refer to the regular presiding officer of the Knesset has been 'Speaker' for years." I don't for a moment assume that the term is used in other languages. But I see no need to change this usage for this purpose at this time. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(continuation of the discussion with user:Number_57, regarding the message which started with "I assume you are referring...":)

Well, while my search methodology included other Chairmen of the Knesset along with the actual "Chairman of the Knesset", you're search methodology has two fundamental flaws, which divert the search results in favor of "Speaker" when combined:
  • Your search methodology excluded most (if not all) of the results containing the terms "Chairman of the Knesset" and "Speaker of the Knesset", leaving only the results for "Knesset Chairman" and "Knesset Speaker". It means that all of your results are partial and very deficient.
  • "Chairman of the Knesset" is a direct translation of "Yoshev-Rosh Ha'Knesset" in Hebrew. But while in English one can change the order of the words "Chairman" and "Knesset" and still get a valid expression ("Knesset Chairman"), attempting to do the same in Hebrew will produce a meaningless expression: "Knesset Yoshev-Rosh"/"Ha'Knesset Yoshev-Rosh" etc. make no sense in Hebrew. Why is it so important? Because when Hebrew speakers translate from Hebrew to English, they are very likely to both use "Chairman" and to use it in the direct translation "Chairman of the Knesset", yes, the one that you have excluded from your searches. So by excluding this term, you excluded the common and preferred one by Hebrew speakers.
Now, if we search Google for "Chairman of the Knesset" while excluding the words "Committee", "Caucus", "Lobby" and "Faction", although it will exclude cases in which the Chairman of the Knesset had something to do with any of them, we will still get 393,000 results. So, though it's not an accurate count, it still shows that the term "Chairman of the Knesset" is definitely common.
Finally, just because it was mentioned in your discussion with [[user:Ajnem], I must stress that for the vast majority of Israelis, the word "Speaker" means either a spokesperson or a loudspeaker. A very recent example will be the Hebrew subtitles for the film "Olympus has Fallen" (which is a pretty silly film, might I add). The official Hebrew subtitles used in cinemas all over Israel, refer to the Speaker of the House (Morgan Freeman) as "The spokesperson of the White house" throughout the film, including when he becomes the Acting President. And trust me, the people who translated the film understand English better than the average Israeli, and they still didn't think for a second that it is very unlikely that the White House Press Secretary becomes the Commander-in-Chief. Funny or ignorant as it may seem, the reason is that most Israelis have no idea the a "Speaker" might be the administrative head of a parliament. No "leftovers from the British Mandate" in this case. Virant (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's a situation where I think I would handle this differently in English Wikipedia and in Simple English Wikipedia. For fluent English speakers, "Speaker" is an established term for their parliaments, and it happens also to be an established usage for the presiding officer of the Knesset. There should surely be a redirect from variants of "Chair of the Knesset", but the established usage in English, per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, is Speaker. And with all due respect—I have a son in the Israel Air Force—this Wikipedia does not have to change standard usages because Hebrew-speaking Israelis would choose a different term. At Simple English Wikipedia, on the other hand, I would prefer a different usage because Simple is aimed at people whose English is not as fluent. There I would use something around "Chair" because it would make sense to people whose first language is not English and who are used to different terminology in this setting.

Honestly, though, Virant: If you feel really passionately about this change, I won't lose sleep if you change this (as long as there is a redirect from "Speaker").StevenJ81 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, let me first just say that this is imo a very good discussion. It's civil, it's consensus oriented, and it deals with something that is not worth arguing about, so let me argue. Personally, I think we should not bother with how the presidency of the Knesset is referred to in English speaking country media. As much as I like the New York Times as source or the Guardian for that matter, in this case it is imo not of interest, they would referred to it in the way that makes sense to their readers. So, I think what we have to look at is how is it referred to in English language Israeli sources. I already mentioned one, and I think it is an important one, see above, I'm going to mention another one, which I googled, "The Parliamentary System of Israel" by Samuel Sager, with a foreword by Abba Eban, Syracuse University Press, 1985 which has "The Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Knesset" on page 102. On the other hand "The Constitutional Law of Israel" by Suzi Navot, Kluwer Law International, 2007 has "The Speaker of the Knesset and His Deputies" on page 120. The Jerusalem Post has "Speaker". If I really got hooked on the matter, I would forward a hypothesis such as: "Chairman" is the older, more traditional, and "Speaker" is the younger, or more modern term, and would start checking the Jerusalem Post, assuming that it has "Chairman of the Knesset" in its older issues and eventually changed to "Speaker", and see if I can falsify it. Not having done that, I lean towards Chairman/Chairperson for the above mentioned reason, which is shared by Virant, that outside of the Anglo-Saxon world, we misunderstand the term "Speaker", because in our world, it's a "Spokesperson", wheras there cannot possibly be any misunderstanding, if it is called "Chairman/Chairperson of...", but I remain open minded. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the English language media in Israel is key, and as you can see from the table above, they strongly favour "Speaker" by a ratio of 13:1. Combined with the fact that this is how the Knesset describes the post, I cannot see how "chairman" can be considered a better option under Wikipedia policy. Number 57 08:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I just started to read what I referred to above ("The Parliamentary System of Israel" by Samuel Sager) and guess what I found? It's on page XI and goes like this: "Though popularly, as in the Jerusalem Post, the chairman of the Knesset is styled "speaker," let no one expect to see him ... But the difference between Knesset and Commons reach more deeply ... Israel's parliamentary system ... is to be traced back rather to continental European and republican traditions..." and is further explained on page 9. So, what it ammounts to is that "Speaker" in the British sense, and "Chairman/President" in the continental European sense is not the same thing, because the respective functions are not the same. That's interesting, but all the same, Suzi Navot calls it "Speaker", and she ought to know. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment Though there's been extensive discussion here, I see only four editors involved, essentially split on the issue. Another week of listing may be helpful before calling this as no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name in English and arguments cited above. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OpposeChairperson has always struck me as English at its ugliest. Chair is preferable, but unclear here. Speaker is just fine as a translation, and avoids importing an awkward non-sexist measure. Tony (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List formatting[edit]

As noted in the edit summary, I have reverted the recent changes to the format of the list per WP:BRD. My main issues with the change in formatting are:

  1. The introduction of an unnecessary key
  2. The introduction of unncessary information (Hebrew name and birth/death year of the officeholder).

Please explain why these are necessary. Thanks, Number 57 16:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything I added to this list is already part of List of Presidents of Israel and List of Prime Ministers of Israel, and nobody is complaining about it. Especially not about Hebrew name and birth/death year of the officeholder. All of this is meant to provide more information. --User:Sundostund (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Possibly because they weren't spotted - both lists are (frankly) awful, particularly the Prime Minister one. A recent discussion between myself and another user agreed that the format used in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Israel) was the best way forward (as the colours were felt to be a distraction), so I have slowly been implementing that on Israeli office holder lists, but hadn't got here yet. Number 57 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I truly can't understand how can you say that the format used in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Israel) can be better than presently user at other lists? That format is totally awful - it lacks party colors, pictures and some useful extra data like dates of birth and death of officeholders. As for Hebrew name, I think this lists looks better with it that without. Anyway, as for my version of the list of Knesset speakers which is reverted according to the WP:BRD, I'll post it here for other users to decide about it: User:Sundostund (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
A few reasons why the list on the Agriculture Ministry page is better:
  1. The rows are only one text row deep, meaning you can see larger parts of the list on one screen.
  2. The main reason the rows are smaller is because they don't have photos - these aren't necessary, and we don't have them for everyone anyway.
  3. Colour coding for political parties is not a good idea - both because some people are colour blind, but also because some colours are WP:Original research. Who knows what colour to use to represent Sephardim and Oriental Communities?
  4. It includes the dates for the term start and end, rather than just the year. This is actually useful for such lists, unlike;
  5. It doesn't include unnecessary information like when the office holder was born or died, except in cases when they died in office, which is relevant. The Hebrew names are also totally unnecessary, as you have been advised on WP:ANI
Number 57 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't even know from where to start talking about how awful the list on the Agriculture Ministry page is, so I'll just recommend you to see (pretty much any) list of officeholders on WP - almost all of them have: 1) Colour coding for political parties 3) Years of birth and death of officeholders and 3) Pictures (if they exist; if not, then usually coat of arms of a country in question is put in their place). You can't expect for real that lists of Israeli officeholders can be totally different from already established good practice on other lists on WP. Cheers --User:Sundostund (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspect (judging by your contribution history) that's because you've been going round 'standardising' them according to your own wishes. I fully expect that lists can be different in different areas as different countries have different political realities. Number 57 20:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing of this have anything to do with my wishes. A lot of editors (who are on WP much longer than me) already established through good practice that lists of officeholders must have some elements. They include colours for parties, years of birth and death and pictures (if pictures exist). The purpose of those elements is to put some additional information to lists. More information is always better than lesser. Again, your version looks graphically awful. --User:Sundostund (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If it has nothing to do with your wishes, then I'm sure you'll be ok to leave this alone then. As pointed out, using colours which we don't know if parties actually used is inappropriate. More information is not always better when that information is not relevant to the subject at hand. Number 57 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
As for my wishes, I always wish (as well as all other well-minded editors) to make articles better, not worse. I can't understand 'your wishes to 'standardise' articles in a far worse form than good practice so far implemented, in so much other articles. Franky, I don't see how I may agree to your table format. --User:Sundostund (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
My another wish is to be as much collaborative contributor as I can, so I'll ask you - what I must remove from my version of the table in order to make it acceptable to you? --User:Sundostund (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your co-operative approach :) The problem is (as above), we already have an agreed format for the Israeli politician lists (the one on the Agriculture Ministry page). What is so bad about that list (or what do you think needs to be added and why?). Number 57 21:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Everything agreed should be changed if its not in the service of quality of articles. The problem about that format is because it, frankly, looks like a chicken without feathers. Without party colours, dates of birth/death and pictures, its impossible for me to imagine a table format of good quality. If you thinks names in Hebrew are unnecessary, its easy to remove them, but not everything else I added. --User:Sundostund (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't solve the problem of the colours (original research/colour blindness) nor the fact that many pictures are missing (and even if they weren't having them makes it more difficult to read the table because you can only see six rows on a page). Birth and death dates are totally irrelevant to the whole point of the list. Number 57 22:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you talk about colour blindness then lets also talk about total blindness. Blind people can't read articles on WP at all, so we need to dismantle the whole project because of that? As I said, all the elements I want are part of almost all lists of officeholders here. Good practice put them in, and they should stay in. All that is meant to provide more information than just a plain simple list, and to make a list graphically better. We must find some compromise, you can't expect that I'll just back down on this. --User:Sundostund (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. The two things I think are possibilities for negotiation (not that I actually agree to them) are:
  1. Including colours in the numbering column where party colours are known (so not violating WP:OR)
  2. Including the picture where available
I would be more amenable to the first if properly implemented (i.e. not including it where the party colour is unknown, which is most of the parties that no longer exist). The second, in my view, would make lists unreasonably difficult to read - on the Ministry of Agriculture list I can see 27 rows on one screen - the entire list. If the pictures were added, I could see 6 or 7. This is a massive step backwards in terms of accessibility.
My main concern why we need to include this additional information - lists are meant to be compact and easy to navigate. Birth and death dates are totally irrelevant to the subject, so I cannot see any reason whatsoever to include them. Party colours perhaps, but for some parties we don't have them, so why include them? What does a reader get from having a red colour in a row with a Labor politician? And the pictures - this is a list - what purpose does a picture serve in a list? Number 57 22:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you're ready to include party colors and pictures. Of course, we can include them only if they exist, its impossible to do otherwise. Nothing of this is a step backwards in terms of accessibility. How can it be? Is it so important to see all the officeholders without moving the mouse for a few times? Its not so hard to do... After all, accessibility can't be imposed at the expense of graphical quality of the list. I'd always prefer more info than less, that include years of birth/death in my opinion. Again, just look all the other similar lists. I truly believe lists like this should be 'standardised' in a graphically good and information rich way. --User:Sundostund (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
And, I just don't want to get to my computer one day and see that lists of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Israel are remodeled after list at Ministry of Agriculture, I think I'd need to be rushed to the ER if I see that. --User:Sundostund (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(←) I think the revised table above is an improvement over the current version, both visually and in terms of the information it conveys. If someone were looking for a simple table of text data, there are obviously sources for that. Wikipedia can use images, formatting, and other graphical elements to make the information both interesting and helpful for readers. So we should. user:j (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

But as advised, the current version is not what has been agreed for lists of Israeli politicians (see above) - I just hadn't got round to converting it yet. To start with, I think we need to compare all possible options at Talk:List of Knesset speakers/Sandbox. Number 57 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
J, thank you very much for your support. I'm glad someone else beside me see the difference in terms of graphical quality and amount of information between proposed versions. Number 57, that 'agreement' would bring dramatic drop in both quality and in amount of information of lists of Israeli officeholders and I truly can't see how that 'agreement' could be implemented. Its just unacceptable. --User:Sundostund (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
After all, users can make 'agreements' only how to make WP better, not worse. --User:Sundostund (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This form of discussion is only poisoning the well (although I suppose it'a an improvement from reporting me to ANI as you did yesterday!). What is better or worse is completely subjective - i.e. an opinion, and certainly nothing is unacceptable unless in violation of Wikipedia policies. Your second assertion has no basis in fact. Could we please stick to discussing the content? Number 57 11:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not poisoning anything, Number 57. I just want to prevent this place and its articles going backwards in any way, including graphical quality and amount of information. I love this place, its part of my life for years and I'm sure you feel the same way. --User:Sundostund (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Going backwards is an opinion. To me, the list at Talk:List of Knesset speakers/Sandbox#Agreed format for lists of Israeli politicians is a huge improvement because the list is much clearer, easier to read etc. Colours and pictures are distractions that make lists more difficult to read, and thus less informative. I've given a long list of other reasons above. Number 57 11:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Your stance that your table format is 'a huge improvement' is also an opinion, unfounded in reality. Years of experience in editing on WP led editors to implement some elements which are a part of almost all lists of officeholders today. Party colours, pictures and years of birth/death are among those elements. They make lists graphically better and information richer, they are not at all a distraction. Difficult to read? Yeah, right... Less informative? Your format makes articles less informative. --User:Sundostund (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not "unfounded in reality" - I am clearly real. Please stop denigrating others' opinions, and use some proper arguments. What is "graphically better" is an opinion.
Anyway, back to the proper discussion - why is the agreed version "less informative"? The only information being removed is the birth and death dates, which are totally irrelevant to the list. The party colours and the pictures are not informative - they are merely decoration. And as I've pointed out, we cannot use party colours (because of WP:OR) and pictures (because they are missing) for some of the people in the list, so it becomes inconsistent.
Perhaps you could create an alternative version of this that includes party colours where known, and we'll see what it looks like. Number 57 12:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It is unfounded in reality to claim that something is good when it isn't. You have your opinion on this, and I totally respect that (my extensive participation in this discussion is a clear evidence of that respect). I have my opinion too - more information can never be irrelevant for an article. Whenever we have pictures, party colours and years of birth/death we should put them in. It makes a list graphically better and gives additional information, as I said countless times so far. I'm doubt you'd like my improvements of your table format; I already made format which I prefer. --User:Sundostund (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This isn't very constructive, is it... As you aren't willing to, I've created some alternatives at Talk:List of Knesset speakers/Sandbox including known party colours and pictures where available. Number 57 12:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't be constructive in a way to back down on my opinion and to accept yours. I don't expect you to do that, neither... I'm glad to see you accept many of my suggestions, especially at the format you titled 'Agreed format for lists of Israeli politicians (with colour and pictures)', but it still have many imperfections when compared to my format... For instance, Mapai, Alignment and the Labor Party have pretty much the same ideologies and background, so we can put the color for Labor at all of them. Same applies to One Israel coalition, which was formed around the Labor Party (its leader was Ehud Barak, Labor Party leader). I'd also put the coat of arms of Israel where pictures don't exist. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, please tell me about your intentions for lists of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Israel. As I said earlier, I think I'd need to be rushed to the ER if I sit at my computer one day and see they are remodeled after list at Ministry of Agriculture. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Re the colours for Mapai and the Alignment, that's pure original research. Unless there is evidence they used red (not all socialist parties do), then we cant include it. As for the One Israel alliance, it included two other parties - Meimad and Gesher. I believe Meimad are generally represented by Green. Gesher I have no idea (they are now defunct). I don't see the point of the coat of arms for people with no pictures
Re the Prime Minister and President lists, they would eventually be converted to the agreed format, but perhaps we can agree some compromise here.
What information does the party colour and the picture actually add to the list? Number 57 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, don't forget that the Labor Party was founded mostly as a merger of Mapai and Alignment so it would be appropriate to mark them with the colour of the Labor. As for the One Israel, it indeed included Meimad and Gesher, but the labor Party was a dominant party in that coalition. Labor leader, Ehud Barak, was the leader of the coalition. Coat of arms should be placed if picture don't exist to avoid empty space, its a solution implemented on countless other lists and looks very well. As for other stuff, again - pictures, colours, and other graphical elements are intended to make the information both interesting and helpful for readers. --User:Sundostund (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As for lists of Presidents and Prime Ministers, I can't even imagine them looking like the list at Ministry of Agriculture, that would just be awful. --User:Sundostund (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not appropriate if it's original research.
On what basis should the coat of arms replace pictures that don't exist?
Please don't go round changing the agreed format on other articles whilst we are still discussing this here. You don't seem to be making any attempt to compromise. I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of what information the party colour and the picture actually adds to the list. Number 57 13:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Coat of arms often replace missing pictures if they aren't uploaded. That's what good experience from many articles here says. As for the ministers list, I changed them to previous versions because your versions lacks any form of graphics and party colours. I already answered you - pictures, colours, and other graphical elements are intended to make the information both interesting and helpful for readers. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please define interesting and helpful. I cannot see how they are either. In a list, all you need is text. Number 57 13:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You need something more in a list than just a plain text. Graphics has important place in table formatting. They are intended to make lists visually better and more appealing to readers. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
That is completely subjective to the person reading - it is mere decoration that is not required as it adds no factual value to the list. Anyway, it's clear this is going nowhere, so I will start an RfC to get some more input. Number 57 13:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion which says: "Lists don't need any graphics and party colours, those elements are totally useless in lists" is definitely subjective to the person reading. Countless lists on WP says other users thinks otherwise. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: What is the best format for this list[edit]


Consensus supports Option 2, modified as follows:

  • Number box only is colored. All other background coloring removed from tables
  • Placeholders for absent pictures are to be removed, unless replacing with a picture is imminent
  • Final color scheme for parties to be provided by Number 57 (talk · contribs)
  • The following four lists only will be changed in line with this agreement: President, Prime Minister, Speaker of the Knesset, Leader of the Opposition (Israel)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a disagreement (see above) over how best to format this list. The current version is not approved of by either party, but there are two competing alternatives - Option 1 and Option 2. There are also a couple of hybrid versions on that page. There is no manual of style for this type of list.

I am in favour of option 1 - it is clear and simple, and can be viewed on a single page. The downsides of the alternative are that many of the party colours are original research; that several pictures are missing, that it includes a lot of unnecessary information (e.g. birth/death dates and Hebrew names), and is more difficult to navigate due to its expanded size.

Sundostund is in favour of option 2 as he believes that more information is always better, that graphics have an important place in table formatting and make lists more appealing to readers. He also believes the party colours can be assigned to defunct parties based on the parties they merged into, or which party dominated the alliance. Same applies to the parties of the same or similar ideologies. [Sundostund - please correct this if I'm wrong; I'm paraphrasing you from above]

Any outside input would be welcome, as it's clear there's an impasse here. Thanks, Number 57 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Number 57, you pretty much summarized everything what I said so far on this issue. I'd like to add that my opinion is, obviously, shared by many users here (many of whom are on WP much longer than myself), which can be seen just by looking at countless articles which contain lists of officeholders. I'd be here non-stop until tomorrow if I try to mention all such examples, so I'll list only few of them:
List of Presidents of the United States
List of Vice Presidents of the United States
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
List of Presidents of France
List of Prime Ministers of France
List of Prime Ministers of Spain
List of Presidents of Italy
List of Prime Ministers of Italy
List of Chancellors of Germany
List of heads of state of Poland
List of Prime Ministers of Poland
List of Prime Ministers of Canada
List of Prime Ministers of Australia
List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand
List of Prime Ministers of Japan
I think those articles speaks for themselves - they are examples of good editing, both in terms of valuable information and great graphics. According to Number 57, "lists don't need any graphics and party colours, those elements are totally useless in lists" (that's pretty much his stance on this issue). Without any doubt, he has any right to his opinion but I strongly disagree on it. I hope other users will recognize the right way to move forward. Cheers! --User:Sundostund (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As there is no manual of style, what happens elsewhere is not particularly relevant (people have probably copied formats from one article to anothers), and you neglect to mention that you have been heavily involved in developing some of those articles (Sundostund's contribution history is worth a look if anyone wants to find out why so many lists look the same). You are also ignoring the concerns about original research and the fact that many pictures are missing. I will only ask that users base their input on the merits of the respective designs, not on what happens elsewhere. Thanks, Number 57 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It certainly is relevant to show here examples of lists of officeholders elsewhere. Working on lists of officeholders really is one of my great interests on WP, but I definitely didn't formatted all those lists I mentioned here. It can be seen by histories of those lists. They are edited by many other users, and I greatly admire to their wonderful work. Their lists contains both valuable information and great graphics (which you, Number 57, consider absolutely irrelevant to lists of officeholders). I said before that, if pictures are missing, they can be replaced either by coat of arms of a country in question or in some other way. Original research and the fact that many pictures are missing certainly can't be excuse to completely cut off pictures and graphics from lists. I ask that users base their input on the merits of the respective designs by looking after great examples which, frankly, can be seen all over WP. There is no reason to left lists about Israeli officeholders out of great standards which are set on many other similar lists. Cheers! --User:Sundostund (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"Because other articles are the same" is one of the worst possible arguments, as it completely ignores the need to consider the quality of the material in question. I want the two tables to be judged on their merits, not how frequently they are repeated elsewhere. What is the problem with that? If you think your format is better, then there shouldn't be a problem to allow a direct comparison. Number 57 18:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, there's no doubt users will decide whether mine or yours format is better on their merits, the quality of the material in question etc. That is absolutely certain. I never asked users to make all lists to be the same, just to consider what is done so far on other lists (with great success, in my opinion). I never expected that all the lists of officeholders be the same, I expect them to have some common good characteristics - like party colors, pictures (if they are uploaded) and years of birth/death. I'm sure my format is better, and I want a direct comparison. I think we have that comparison here. --User:Sundostund (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


  • Just one thought: you both have very strong opinions about which format works best, and I don't think you're going to convince one another to change that position.  :) That being said, I believe the second option conveys more relevant information in a more interesting fashion. It's also more with the style that's been adopted with success in many other articles (such as here). user:j (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you advise what extra relevant information it conveys? (or to pre-empt a possible answer, why birth and death dates are relevant?) Thanks, Number 57 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, J. Obviously, I agree with both of your statements.  :) Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Both styles have their advantages (minimalist function vs visually appealing form), but I think option 2 is the better choice. I don't find the pictures or colors distracting at all. Options 3 and 4 are both perfectly acceptable compromise solutions, if the involved editors were willing to support those. Despite my preference for minimalism, option 1 looks way too much like a color-blind engineer designed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate! As it can be seen from all above discussion, I truly believe Option 2 should be implemented, and I don't think Options 3 and 4 are in any way better than my preferred version. I totally agree with you that Option 1 looks way too much like a color-blind engineer designed it. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The main issue is not that the colours or pictures are distracting, but rather that some of the colours are original research and many pictures are missing. No-one actually seems to be addressing these concerns, but instead concentrating on the aesthetics. Number 57 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, I'll repeat what I said earlier: Original research certainly can't be excuse to completely cut off colours and pictures and graphics in general from lists. Aesthetics are important part of these lists, as well as information. Your preferred version is drastically oversimplified, and I'm glad to see other users agree with me. I think Option 2 should be implemented here as soon as possible, and that your preferred version should be reverted on other lists of Israeli officeholders. I'll do that myself, if other users agree. --Sundostund (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Colours cannot be used if they are original research – WP:OR is one of Wikipedia's core policies. You will not be reinstating any colours to any articles unless you have verifiable evidence to show they were the party colours. Number 57 19:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Again: Original research can't be reason to completely cut off colours, pictures and graphics from lists. Next, consensus of users and majority is definitely one of Wikipedia's core policies, I'm sure you know that. Majority rules on Wikipedia, and I will do what majority of users think is the best thing to do. Cheers. --Sundostund (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
If consensus is to use colours, then I accept they should be used, but only where they are not original research. This is why I produced the hybrid versions - to show how your preferred versions would look if policies were properly applied to them. Local consensus does not override core policy. If you reinstate any versions using colours, I will remove the colours that are not verified to be those of the parties in question. You may also want to re-read Wikipedia policies like WP:DEMOCRACY if you believe that majority rules - that is not how Wikipedia works. Number 57 20:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The colors do seem a bit controversial for the early leaders. Like you say, the table would have to be fixed to be policy compliant, but isn't that understood to always be the case? If I need to be more explicit, then I agree with User:Number 57's issues, but I still think the table could use a bit of color. I don't see the missing images as being a big issue, but the place-holder images do seem problematic. I don't see a strong reason to include or exclude the birth/death dates. It's too minor of a detail to argue over. I would also like to reiterate that the compromise solutions are perfectly acceptable to me, and I think some discussion should occur over their use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The colors for early leaders aren't really controversial, because early leaders mostly belong to Mapai and Alingment - parties which later formed the Labor Party, so they are politically and ideologically similar to the present Labor Party. We can mark Mapai and Alingment with Labor colors... Pictures should be placed if they are uploaded. Years of birth/death are meant to provide a bit more information about an officeholder. As for the hybrid versions, I said before, I don't think they are in any way better than my preferred version. Next, if there is a consensus of editors over a issue, there will be an implementation of the result of that consensus. Period. We have a talk page discussion, we have a RfC thread - all of that is meant to produce a clear consensus, and I will implement its results as soon as possible. So far, 3 users (J, NinjaRobotPirate and myself) voted for Option 2; one user (User:Number 57) voted for Option 1. If I count correctly, it seems a consensus is pretty near. --Sundostund (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
(a) The colours are controversial - that's why they are being debated. You cannot assign historical party colours based on modern parties. The Labour Party was originally a merger of three parties, and more have merged into it since. It's a clear WP:OR violation, nothing less, nothing more.
(b) More importantly that's not how things work. What matters in a debate is the quality of the arguments. If one side argues in line with Wikipedia policy and the other doesn't, then the number on each side is irrelevant. As a long-time Wikipedia editor, you should be well aware of that (and you are also ignoring the fact that one of the editors you list agreeing with you has pointed out that the colours and placeholder images are problematic). Number 57 11:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The colours are not controversial at all. WP:OR can not be a reason to eliminate all the graphics from the list of officeholders (that's what you want to do). There is only a question whether Mapai and Alignment should be marked with the same colour as the Labour Party, or we should find some different shade to mark them (but not too different, as Mapai, Alignment and the Labour Party has pretty much same ideologies). Next, consensus of editors is a cornerstone of activity on WP, it is the ultimate goal of all discussions on talk page, RfC thread, etc. When its reached, the result of it will be implemented. As a long-time Wikipedia editor, I'm sure you are well aware of that. --Sundostund (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR can be a reason to eliminate anything - that's why it's a core policy. If you don't know the party colours you cannot make them up to make your tables look nice. And discussions are judged by the closing admin based on the strength of the arguments, not on numbers - that's why WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Number 57 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it can not be a reason because WP:OR does not provide for colours, pictures and other graphics to be excluded from the lists. If that's the case, those elements would be removed from all other, countless lists of officeholders (some of them I listed above). None of them looks like your preferred version, which is awful and oversimplified. Those elements, clearly, has its place in the lists as well as valuable information, and they should be a part of it. I'm glad to see other users agree with me, not only those who voted here but also those who formatted all the great lists which I listed above. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but one of its foundations is consensus. Its results will be implemented. None of us own this project, and other users will decide outcome of this. --Sundostund (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it can be a reason, and the colours should be removed from those other lists if you've inserted them against policy. It's probably just that no-one'e realised those lists are full of WP:OR that no-one's bothered to challenge it. You cannot ignore core policies. Some other users agree with you, but at least one has also agreed that the colours are a problem. Number 57 12:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it can not be the reason because colours and graphics in general are not against WP:OR. There is no Manual of Style for those lists, and there is no core policy which ban colours and pictures to be part of lists. They certainly should not be removed, and your awful, oversimplified, preferred version speaks enough for itself. Other users so far said what they think about it. --Sundostund (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes they are - if you are claiming a party used a particular colour, that is a verifiable fact. If you can't verify it, it's original research. Number 57 12:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No they are not. It can easily be verified - if parties like Mapai, Alignment and the Labor Party are ideologically part of a wider Labor Zionism political movement, they should be marked with the same or similar colours. --Sundostund (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you can the party verify colours, then I'd be perfectly happy. However, as pointed out numerous times, you cannot assume colours based on similar ideologies – not all socialist parties use red. Number 57 12:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Its perfectly clear and logical that parties of same or similar ideologies have the same or similar colours. Majority of socialist parties use red, not blue or something else. Again, you are trying to eliminate all the colours, pictures and graphics in general from lists by claiming that all of them are against WP:OR, and that argument is awful as well as your preferred, ugly, oversimplified table format. --Sundostund (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not claim "all of them" are against WP:OR - I only pointed out that some of them are, and those ones cannot be used. Number 57 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Its not important what you claim, its important what you're trying to do - you want to eliminate all colours, pictures and graphics from lists because some of them may be against WP:OR. That is completely wrong approach. --Sundostund (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to raise the issue of the specific colors in WP:NOR/N. There doesn't really seem to be any end in sight for the debate here. Alternatively, User:Sundostund could provide a citation that presents the parties as a unified front that later merged into a single party. That could be used as an explanatory footnote and citation that justifies that use of a single color for multiple parties. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I myself hope that this RfC thread will eventually help us to resolve this issue. I totally agree that there doesn't really seem to be any end in sight for the debate between Number 57 and myself. Some users already said their opinion, hopefully others will follow suit. As for the party colours, historical facts are well known - Mapai, Alignment and some other parties merged and founded the Labor Party. All of them are ideologically part of a wider Labor Zionism political movement, so I see no reason to don't mark them with the same or similar party colour. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What a party's ideology is, or what it merged into is completely irrelevant. What we need is a verifiable record of what a party's colours were. If we don't have one, then we can't use one. Number 57 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not irrelevant, ideology is a central point of a party's character. If we know history and ideological background of a party, we can use logic and mark it with colour which is appropriate to its position in political spectrum. --Sundostund (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you think a party's colour can be determined by its place in the political spectrum, then there is little point continuing the discussion - it's impossible to reason with this kind of attitude. Number 57 14:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Party history, ideology and place in the political spectrum can determine its colour. Especially if there is some wider political movement with similar ideology (its Labor Zionism in this case). I must say, Number 57, this is your first statement in the past two weeks with which I agree 100% - There is little point continuing the discussion. I said my opinion, you said yours. Can we now let this RfC thread to go ahead, and allow other users to vote on it? --Sundostund (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gosh, you guys are just talking past each other! Let me suggest, since you have solicited opinions at WikiProject Israel, that you both sit tight and let others respond without jumping in to answer each and every response. I support Option 2. But let me explain my reasoning with respect to each of your issues:

  1. I guess an earlier version of these included dates of birth and death. Except in cases of "died in office", these dates are not relevant.
  2. I am in favor of both pictures and Hebrew versions of names. Neither is absolutely essential, but both of them add to the usability of the list. (I would note that the Hebrew is actually the legal name of these individuals, so from that perspective its inclusion is appropriate.) On an office like Knesset speaker, I could actually go either way on pictures. But for Prime Minister or President, I would absolutely, positively want them. And I see no reason not to include them here if they are available.
  3. Colors. To be honest, 57, I doubt that in the other lists shown here, list makers have gone out of their way to research historical party colors. (I'm sure they haven't if you want to be accurate to RGB values or Pantones.) I think in general terms the point has been simply to use colors to easily show differences between competing parties. It is convenient to use today's party colors for today's parties, of course, but the purpose of this exercise is clarity, not historical accuracy. I can tell when Federalists have been President and when Democrat-Republicans have just by looking at the changing colors.
    • Honestly, the consistent identification of Republicans with red and Democrats with blue at the national level only goes back to about Reagan's presidency. Both parties have been inclined to use red, white and blue historically, for obvious reasons. And to be honest with you, at the local politics level, when I was a child (say 40 years ago), it seemed that one side would make up its lawn signs red and the other blue with no particular consistency to the matter. (It was probably driven as much by whether the county party organization supported candidate A, using red, or candidate B, using blue, at the top of the primary ballot.) But I wouldn't question letting Republicans be red as far back as they go, and Democrats blue. What would be the point of that?
    • How to handle evolving parties is trickier. But the Canadian and UK lists both make historical Conservative or Tory parties blue, just a different shade from that of the current party. That seems reasonable to me: It shows with some clarity that the party that was once "Tory" is now "Conservative". The party evolution is not WP:OR, and probably can even be considered WP:BLUE. But in Israel's case, add a reference if you'd like.
If you are going to try to enforce some sort of historical accuracy standard on such lists, then every single list for every single country is going to have to be changed. And the functionality of being able to look at the list and quickly see power shifting from one party to the next will be gone—at great loss to the lists, in my view. And I'm pretty sure you would not have Wikipedia-wide consensus to do that, as far as it goes.

I would suggest the following:

  • If you can find historical sources for party colors early in Israel's history and want to use them, you should certainly do that.
  • If not, keep everything that evolved into today's Labor "reddish", and everything that evolved into today's Likud "blueish". If you feel there should be different shades representing different predecessor parties, do that. But this will show graphically that parties generally associated with today's Labor dominated Israel's politics until the late '70's, and that Likud only started sharing power at that point. And that's an important and compelling picture. The colors only show the evolution, they are not intended to represent parties in historical purity.

57, I don't know why this bothers you so much, but Option 2 is a better presentation of the lists.StevenJ81 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for my preferred version, Steven! I'd also like to thank you for your effort to elaborate your views on these issues. I'd just say that, as you can see from above, all this discussion started when Number 57 reverted my version of this list, claiming it was "awful", that "lists don't need any colours, pictures and graphics in general, that it should be just plain text" etc and that he'll remodel all lists of Israeli officeholders to look like lists he made at some Israeli ministries (you can see it at the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs etc)... He even planed to remodel lists of Israeli Presidents and PMs in that way, and that horrified me. It would grossly degrade those lists, striping them down of any graphics, colours and pictures and I just wanted to prevent that from happening. --Sundostund (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just can't understand someone's desire to eliminate colours, pictures and all graphics from lists, and I'll never support that. I'm positive that my preferred version is the best for this list, that previous lists of Israeli ministers which Number 57 remodeled should be reverted, and that lists of Israeli Presidents and PMs should remain in their current form. --Sundostund (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Sundostund, I really asked for both of you to stay out of the discussion and let other people talk. Please do that. The editorializing will get in the way of the rest of us having a productive discussion. We all know your opinion already, as well as Number57's. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right, Steven. I'm sorry. I'll definitely listen to your advice. Cheers. --Sundostund (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Continuation, moved from User talk:StevenJ81[edit]

Moved at 19:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As you asked me not to respond to your comment on the talk page, I thought I could do so here (* * *). The reason the colours bother me so much is that they are original research. Your idea of using "ish" colours to represent past parties doesn't solve the problem. Likud was formed by some very different parties - Herut and the Liberal Party. One of the three parties that formed the Labour Party was also formed as a deliberate alternative to Mapai (which with it eventually remerged). There are also several instances of alliances (such as One Israel) which combined different parties with different colours.

Aside from that, my other main concern is usability. The coloured/pictured lists are very difficult to actually read because there are so few rows on every page (six compared to close to 30 for the alternative). And why do we need a key if the party name is displayed in the rows?

But thank you for actually bothering to respond to my concerns about original research rather than just stating that you think ones looks better than the other. Number 57 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for not cluttering up the RfC page. (* * *)
Again, I'll say that the colors are only original research if you think they represent some official representation of something. Otherwise, they're not research at all, just a graphic representation. It's convenient for people to make Democrats blue and Republicans red, but (a) there's nothing formal/legal/official about those colors, and (b) for the purpose of what the colors are trying to accomplish here, they could be green and gold. It's really, really not about whether the colors are "right".
As to usability, and I am simplifying a complex point here, some people are verbal learners, some are visual learners, and some (as far as it goes) are audio learners. For some people, the fact that the party names are there makes the colors redundant or even irrelevant. You clearly fall in this camp. My wife and one of my sons would find a text-only table to be very, very difficult to use, and would get much more meaning out of a colorful table. So why not allow for both, even if you have to scroll around a little more?
I do take your point that the splits and mergers of Israeli parties are not always so obvious. I'm not sure what to suggest on that. Again, my take is that the colors are intended to tell a story, rather than being "official". The problem boils down to what story you are telling, and whether colors help or hurt that.
At the level of President, PM and Speaker, the high-level story is a relatively straightforward one, and the colors should reflect same:
  • Coalitions of the left, whose leadership has been Mapai, which evolved into Labor (which fact, at a very high level, is WP:BLUE, IMO)
  • Coalitions of the right, whose leadership has been (Herut, which evolved into) Likud (same)
  • One coalition of the center, led by Kadima
  • Governments of National Unity, where that fact should be noted, but where single or rotating leadership is itself significant
To tell that story, you only really need three colors (or -ish variants of three colors).
At the level of individual Ministries, however, with Ministers coming from many different parties, how to tell that story with colors is far less clear. Center and religious parties have been part of many kinds of coalitions; what to do about that? Very tricky. I'd support trying to find a way to do that in color, but not if it is more confusing than enlightening.
Anyway, my two cents. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Preceisely, I look forward to finding out from Sundostund what party colours Sephardim and Oriental Communities, the Progressive Party, Gesher – Zionist Religious Centre and the New Liberal Party used if he gets his way, as all of them had ministers. Number 57 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, all the parties you listed above already had its party colors before you remodeled lists of ministers into your ugly, oversimplified preferred version. I look forward to see them reverted to their previous versions, which I think were great... Anyway, my main concerns are well known:
Keeping the lists of Israeli Presidents and Prime Ministers in their current form;
Implementing Option 2 for list of Knesset speakers.
I'd strongly agree with Steven that lists of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Knesset speakers tells a relatively straightforward story, and that can be far more tricky when it comes to individual ministries. So, the solution for lists of ministers can go either way, as far as I'm concerned... I'd also totally agree with Steven when he says: The colors are only original research if you think they represent some official representation of something. Otherwise, they're not research at all, just a graphic representation. That explanation is perfectly acceptable to me. I'd also repeat that party colors can certainly be determined by a party's ideology, history and place in political spectrum. --Sundostund (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
So, can you give me the sources for those colours? And if you really believe the last part, then I do not think you should be editing political articles on Wikipedia. Number 57 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no intention to turn Steven's talk page into yet another battleground for our futile discussions, Number 57. I never claimed those colors were the official party colors, they were meant to be a graphic representation of succession of various ministers. Yes, I definitely believe the last part of my statement, and you'll certainly not tell me what I should or shouldn't do on Wikipedia. --Sundostund (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You are misleading readers into thinking those parties were represented by those colours. And if you really think you can define colour by ideology, then I suggest you look at Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) for a start. Number 57 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not misleading anyone, Number 57. I said my opinion, and that's how things usually work on other lists here. I repeat - usually, not always. --Sundostund (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are. If you are inserting colours into articles to represent parties, and those colours were not in fact used by those parties, then you are misleading readers. It doesn't matter how things work - if things are wrong, they should be corrected. Number 57 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Things can work like that, but not in all cases. Definitely not in cases of all Israeli parties, formed since 1948 to this day. --Sundostund (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sundostund, concerning "colors by ideology [etc.]," I think you are really over the line on that. I do not agree with that at all.
You would need reliable sources as to whether Party A was to the right or left of party B, and at that I'm not sure you would have much outright consensus between sources. I think you could probably get away with loosely dividing parties into categories of "generally left" (say, red), "generally center" (say, green) and "generally right" (say, blue) and then make different parties of those categories be different shades of the base color. And at that, at least in Israel, "generally religious" parties don't really live in that spectrum at all, and would need a fourth color. Certainly earlier in Israel's history they didn't. But trying to micro-fit each party into a specific color? Really?
If you start pushing this too hard, I might have to change my mind about the whole enterprise of colors. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Steven, I hope you saw that I agreed with you that marking parties of various ministers with colors can be way trickier than doing the same thing on lists of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Knesset speakers. Those lists are of my great concern, lists of ministers can go either way. --Sundostund (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're only bothered about Prime Ministers and Presidents, then why are you fighting so hard on List of Knesset speakers? Number 57 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I did see that. I'm just encouraging you not to make this too complex.
Let's decide on the first three first. After that, we can have a separate discussion. For my information, I assume that lists concerning other ministries always include the Prime Minister served under, right? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, I clearly stated that I'm bothered not only about Presidents and Prime Ministers, but also about Knesset speakers. I wouldn't even look into lists of Israeli ministers if you, Number 57, didn't tell me that you plan to remodel all lists of Israeli officeholders (including Presidents, PMs and Speakers) to look like lists on articles about ministries. Again - lists of ministers can go either way, keep Presidents and PMs in their current form and implement Option 2 for Speakers. --Sundostund (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you differentiating between them? Why is a Knesset Speaker equivalent to the Prime Minister of President but a Minister isn't? Number 57 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd advise you to look what Steven said on that. Heads of state, heads of government and heads of legislature certainly aren't the same as heads of various ministries. --Sundostund (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, cool it, guys. Let's sit tight for a while and see what (if anything) happens over at the RfC. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with that, Steven. If you take a look above, you'll see that I didn't started this discussion on your talk page in the first place. As for the RfC, if I saw it correctly, 4 users so far (including you and me) supported Option 2. 1 user (Number 57) supported Option 1. It pretty much looks like a consensus to me, doesn't it? --Sundostund (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
My last response on this topic today, as I will need to start getting ready for Shabbat soon.
  1. Sundostund, Number 57 came here to talk because I had asked the two of you to stop arguing at the RfC itself—and you kept talking. He and I were having a calm conversation until you turned up the temperature. So, please: stop feeling a need to answer absolutely everything.
  2. I want to leave the RfC open until next Wednesday, which is one week after you solicited input at WikiProject Israel.
  3. Unless things change from present, Option 2 will prevail here. HOWEVER: This applies only to Speaker, and I think Prime Minister and President. As things now stand I would not support this option for a broad set of ministries, and even if everyone else absolutely stayed the same 3-2 doth not a consensus make. I have a proposal in mind for the other ministries, but let's just wait until this RfC is done.
With that, Shabbat Shalom, and a good weekend to all. Why don't we plan on reconvening here (or better, at the RfC), next Wednesday?
StevenJ81 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

end of moved discussion StevenJ81 (talk)


Re colours, the argument about including Rafi in the same group of colours as Mapai etc just shows how weak the general argument for colours is. Rafi may have been formed as a breakaway from Mapai, but it ended up considering forming a "center-right" alliance with Herut (see here). I can't see how assigning the party to a red colour can be done with integrity. Number 57 19:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I intended that only as an example. They broke away from Mapai, and were eventually reabsorbed into Labor. You want to call them "centrist"? Fine. In any event, Rafi doesn't appear on any of these four lists (President, PM, Opposition, Speaker).
What I would suggest is: Look through the four lists I mentioned. Tell me if you think there are actually any parties there where there is a real question. I don't think there are. Meretz is lefist, Shinui is centrist, and everything else is quite evident. That's why we're limiting it to these four, not more. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support your recommendation for closure, Steven. Any solution which will keep Presidents, Prime Ministers and Opposition leaders in their current look, and which will implement Option 2 for Speakers, is perfectly acceptable to me. I have no problem to support removal of placeholders for missing pictures, too. As for Rafi, you're right, Steven - Rafi doesn't appear on any of the four lists in question (President, PM, Opposition, Speaker). --Sundostund (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Colour-wise, Kadima is incorrect - they should be royal blue, not purple. I also note that three of the lists colour all cells, not just the party colours one on the right, and Kadima is marked as pale yellow for some reason. If we are going with option 2 here, then the colouring of the other cells (not just the left-hand one) needs removing from the other three articles in question. Number 57 19:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, these need to be brought in line with each other. I'd prefer more cells, rather than fewer, to be colored, as on the Prime Minister list. However, I'm willing to settle for the number and party boxes only.
As for which color ... We haven't decided on those. They should be consistent with each other. But in general, leftist parties are always in "reddish", while rightist parties are always in "blueish". If so, then Kadima and Shinui have to be something markedly different from those—say, yellow or green. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe navy-blue would be better for Kadima... As for coloring of all cells, it can be removed as far as I'm concerned. I'm not really bothered about that. We need coloring for sure in the cell where is the number of a officeholder (1st Speaker, 3rd President, etc), and maybe party box too... As can be seen, my Option 2 doesn't color all cells in the list. --Sundostund (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. I think we're up to: Coloring only in the "number" and "party" boxes. Coloring removed from all other boxes on all four lists. Only question left on this is: What color for Kadima and Shinui. I deem Kadima to be centrist, so I wouldn't make it any variety of blue. Do you guys disagree with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to use colours, then they should be the proper colours of the party, not made up ones. Shinui is a light/pale blue (from what I recall of its electoral material in the early 2000s) and Kadima is definitely darkish blue. Number 57 20:11, 17 July::::::2013 (UTC)
57, we have been saying all along that the colors are telling a general story, they do not have to represent the party's historical colors. If you want to make centrist parties blue, since they both use that color, do you want rightist parties to be green? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Guys, please, don't argue too much over this. I'm really ready to accept any solution for colors of Kadima and Shinui. They can stay as they are now, as far as I'm concerned. --Sundostund (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Shinui is ok as it stands, but I think Kadima needs tweaking from purple to dark blue. Steven - I don't want to argue, but I believe that telling a story in this way is misleading readers - the majority of readers would automatically assume that the colour a party is marked by is those it used. Similarly, using red to mark the left-wing Meretz would be jarring considering the party's colours are widely recognised to be green. Number 57 20:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────57, I just don't agree that readers would automatically assume that the color a party is marked is necessary official. But frankly, I don't care much. If you guys are willing to agree on a color scheme, I won't argue.
I do think if you are going to use blues for Kadima and Shinui, as well as Likud, you need to distinguish the colors from each other a bit, even if that takes the colors a little off their "official" shade. And as Likud is the most important of the three parties, keeping Likud closer to its shade should probably take highest priority. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The three shades are fairly different - Shinui is pale, Kadima is royal and Likud is somewhere in the middle. You can see the difference in the colours of the party logos on their respective pages. Number 57 20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll accept any solution on which you two can agree. I just don't want any of us to waste too much energy on this. --Sundostund (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I am now prepared to close with the following modified proposal:
Is this ok? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely! Except for the final color scheme part. Steven, I'd really like to see you and Number 57 agreeing on this. As I said, I'm not really bothered about that, so I wouldn't like to be one of the decision-makers on that issue. --Sundostund (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't care. Number 57 obviously cares a lot. So it's all his. You both ok with this now? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its fine as far as I'm concerned. --Sundostund (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As long as the application of colours is limited to the four articles in question, then that's fine. Number 57 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Only the four articles in question. Other lists of Israeli officeholders (ministers) will be formatted in some other way... Anyway, I just implemented Option 2 for Speakers (minus placeholders for missing pictures, as agreed). I think I'll leave it up to you, guys, to bring in line other lists, according to our agreement. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC follow-up[edit]

OK. As you see, I closed it. Sundostund, just make sure you get the right color for Kadima on this one ... or Number 57, go ahead and make the color what you want.

I'm not a whiz on tables. One of you has to bring the other three into line with this one.

As for other ministries ...

Based on the way this RfC closed, I only see two ways to handle other ministries:

  1. Remove all color, even where it exists now
  2. Let Number 57 provide historical party colors, where possible, for every single party that ever received a ministry

I had planned to propose coloring based on who the PM was in the particular term, but it seems clear that such an approach is not what either of you was interested in. So unless Number 57 (or someone else, not me) is willing to provide historical party colors, I suggest removing the colors entirely from the rest of the ministries.

And, FWIW, I think the variety of colors that would be present, without any context of how the minister's party fit into the particular coalition, wouldn't add anything to the table, except perhaps confusion. So I think I would prefer no colors on those lists myself. In any event, I'd really like to step back from this and let you guys work it out, consistent with what we decided in this RfC. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. As you said, there are so many minor parties that have had ministerial posts, it's unlikely we would be able to find colours for all of them. Number 57 10:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess it would be really hard to provide colors for all minor parties which had ministers since 1948 (many of those parties don't even exist, some of them are defunct for 20 years or more), so maybe it would be better to just remove color from lists of ministers. --Sundostund (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
And, if I understood our agreement correctly, we now only need to ensure that only number box and party box are colored, at all four lists. Nothing else is to be changed at those four lists, right? If that's the case, its pretty easy to make that change (to color number box and party box). --Sundostund (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that's the agreement. Granting that Dr. Weizmann stays gray (which is customary in these lists for "no party"), I think only the following parties appear:
  • Labor (including Mapai, Achdut Haavodah, Alignment, etc.—all of those look legitimately tied to Labor, unless Number 57 wants to put, say, Achdut Haavodah in a different red)
  • Likud (including Likud Yisrael Beiteinu)
  • Meretz
  • Shinui
  • Kadima
Number 57 should provide an appropriate RGB code for all the blue ones (Likud, Shinui, Kadima).
Sundostund, if you are going around fixing these, drop a note on the other three talk pages saying the formatting was changed based on the discussion on this talk page.
Question for you guys: Do we need an actual color key/legend on these pages if the party box is also colored? I'm ok either way on that question; just asking.
StevenJ81 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit: one part of me thinks that the Knesset column of the Prime Minister list—a column appearing on none of the other lists—should get color, too. But I don't feel strongly about that. Just thought I'd put it out there. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly how I understood our agreement: Ensuring that number box and party box are colored, without any further changes to the four lists in question, without any removal of data, etc. We should do that in the way its already done at List of heads of state of Mongolia. Only number box and party box are colored there, as you can see it. I'd like to keep color key/legend, I don't really see the reason to remove it. Maybe the Knesset column should stay as its now, in grey, but I also don't feel strongly about that. --Sundostund (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
As I understood, only the left-most column will be coloured as per option 2, and the other cell colouring will be removed from the other three lists. I also don't see the need for a key, as the table is self-explanatory. Number 57 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, we decided the cell for "party" should also be colored. And that certainly provides the key. But yes, the other cell coloring will be eliminated. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually missed that (about the party cell being coloured). Do we really need to do this? It wasn't part of the proposed Option 2. Number 57 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think we need either that or a legend. Frankly, I think coloring the party cell keeps it more compact, and helps show why we colored the left-most column in the first place. If the two of you are happy doing this with a legend instead, I won't object. But the closing agreed to doing it this way. I'm sorry you missed that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Guys, don't argue over this. I'm perfectly happy if we both color the party cell and keep legend, but I'll accept anything on which you two can agree. As for party cell color, what to do with Kadima? In the Prime Minister list, so far its color was pale yellow, I guess that would be changed. If we change pale yellow, which color can we use instead to color party box for Kadima officeholders? --Sundostund (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Who's arguing? I'm a little frustrated that Number 57 didn't follow that bit of the discussion. However, I'm going to draw a line on this: coloring the party box was in the agreed close, and we should do that. I don't care whether there is also a legend.
Go ahead and work with Number 57 directly on color codes. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK then. Coloring the party box certainly was in the agreed close, and we'll do it as its done in List of heads of state of Mongolia - left-most column (number box) and party box are colored. Legend should stay, in my opinion. I'll just wait for Number 57 to tell his opinion what color to use instead of pale yellow for party box of Kadima officeholders. --Sundostund (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I apologise for missing that, but it was a very long discussion and the idea was never discussed - only suggested once by Steven. I would rather have a legend than a second coloured column if we have to have either. Number 57 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Look, I jumped into this as a moderator. I don't really care much, except that I'm frustrated that this appeared in the close and you didn't notice.
I personally don't care that much if the party box is colored, if neither of you cares. But I think it's up to Sundostund at this point. If he's willing to live without the party box colored, then I'm willing to revise the close accordingly. If he wants the party box colored, he has a formally agreed to close to rely on, and I think you'll have to live with it, 57.
I think there ought to be at least a legend; most of these lists with more than two parties have a legend, at minimum. (I happen to like the ones at the Chancellors of Germany list, myself.)
57, do please provide Sundostund with the RGB's for the different parties.
Once you guys have decided on this, I'm going to unfollow this, and move on to other things, with your kind permission. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, discussion was very long indeed and its totally possible to miss out something. But, coloring the party box was a part of closing agreement, to which all of us agreed. If you are so troubled by that, 57, then maybe it would be better to color only the number box (if Steven can support that). I definitely think we should keep the legend (its already part of all four lists). As for coloring the party box, it was a part of closing agreement, and that can be changed only if we all agree on that. For me, it is only important not to remove any present data from those four lists (especially from the list of Prime Ministers) --Sundostund (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just the moderator. But OK: I agree. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Great! So, only left-most column (number box) will be colored, all other cells will be without colors, legend will stay on all four lists and every data present at the moment at those four lists will remain (especially at the list of Prime Ministers). Is that OK? --Sundostund (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Number 57, if this is acceptable to you, and if Steven is willing to revise the close accordingly, then we're pretty much done here. I'll remove colors from all the boxes on four lists in question, except from left-most column (number box), and hopefully I'll move on to other things... --Sundostund (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have modified the close accordingly. We have not discussed removing any other content from the Prime Minister list, and I don't know why one would think to do that.
May I share three closing thoughts:
Sundostund (talk · contribs): I appreciate your enthusiasm. But the fact that you responded to every last comment in the RfC substantially slowed the process, in my view. When you have solicited outside opinions, by all means ask clarifying questions if you need to. Otherwise, let the discussion play itself out naturally.
Number 57 (talk · contribs): I appreciate that the discussion was long. But we could have avoided this last bit if you had been more careful in reading the close. Please don't forget to give the Sundostund the color information he needs.
Me as moderator: I need to be more diligent about distilling the key points and concerns from the discussion earlier on—and about not being so quick to insert my interpretations. At the end of the day, Sundostund mostly only cared about having the first column colored, and having pictures. He didn't care what the colors were, or what they represented. Number 57 wanted neither one, of course. But at the end of the day, what he mostly cared about was (a) only official party colors were acceptable, no matter what, (b) that that should not be construed somehow as WP:OR, and (c) that there should be as little of it as possible. I'm not sure all of that was obvious at the beginning. But if I had been quicker at figuring that out, this might not have taken so long, either. My apologies to you both.
I am hereby unfollowing the page. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Steven, I think you're a great moderator. You stepped into this discussion, and you did a really great job in finding a compromise here. Without you, all of this would last much longer, with many more heated arguing etc... I'm really grateful to you for your role in this discussion. I fully accept that my frequent responding slowed the RfC process, and I'll try to avoid doing that in the future... Lets just say in the end that I really love Wikipedia, and everything I did here in the past 3 years was only intended to make this place better, not worse. I'll try to continue doing things here in that way in the future. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. See you around ... StevenJ81 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, Steven! See you around. Just for record, I modified Prime Ministers and Opposition leaders according to our agreement - only left-most column (number box) is colored, all other cells are without colors, legend is staying. That's the case on all four lists from now on. Also, all data present at the moment at those four lists is intact, and I expect it to remain so. With that, I'd say that our job is done here. --Sundostund (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)