Talk:2015 Israeli legislative election

Likud gained 12 seats?

Where was this information obtained? Bibi had 31 seats in 2013 (as likud - yisrael beitenu) & 27 in 2009 (as likud). This would mean a gain of 3 (generous) or a loss of 1 (more realistic).. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Likud had 18 seats in the last Knesset – it wasn't "as likud - yisrael beitenu", it was with Yisrael Beiteinu, who had 13. The same calculation will be made if Labour and Hatnuah run separately in the next elections. Number 57 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

so even though bibi's party lost a seat, likud gains 12 seats at the expense of former ally yisrael beitenu (7 seat loss) & likud loyalist habayit hayehudi (4 seat loss). So the calculation represents party (likud) not bibi himself who actually lost a seat. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What? Likud–Yisrael Beiteinu was not "Bib's party". It was an alliance of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman. Number 57 07:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kahlon and Post Election Coalition Negotiations

user:Jeppiz has undid an edit I made detailing the extension given by Rivlin to Netanyahu (May 6) as well as a hurdle that Likud will have to overcome (distrust by Kulanu) in forming government. It is certainly more relevant than Kahlon saying he would reach a decision after the votes are counted, which Would be WP:NOTNEWS ..

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is never a reason for editing, but feel free to remove irrelevant speculations.Jeppiz (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clearly not applicable in this case for my edits as they directly affect the results of the election. Will readd until someone gives me a better reason for it to be deleted. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferociouslettuce, you need to learn to understand how Wikipedia works. You do not WP:OWN this article and don't get to decide what to add. That you can do it does not mean you're allowed to do it. You should also learn to place new discussions in their proper place, at the bottom of talkpages. Last but not least, you definitely need to read WP:BRD. After your edit has been reverted, you should 'never readd it unless there is a consensus to do so. In this case, there is no consensus. I already gave you a perfectly good reason, this is WP:NOTNEWS, it's an encyclopedia. What is more, it's not a crystal ball either, we don't insert speculations.Jeppiz (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

user:Jeppizz I waited for consensus twice on this article! Just as I was not the person to remove the "bibi is the presumptive pm" a 2nd time, I only undid your deletion after I began discussion with you and user:Number_57, who has more experience than both of us. After attempting to engage you in dialogue and asking why you deleted the post, you did not make a valid point, so unless you have someone else agreeing with you who has more experience than you, undoing your deletion makes sense.. user:Bondegezou, who also has more experience than both of us, thanked me for editing the article. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it. Not getting a consensus is no reason to readd your text. Neither I nor any other user has any obligation to you to be on your call 24/7, and in the absence of a consensus for your reverted contributions, you cannot just add them again saying there is no consensus. I've already told you several times to read up on Wikipedia's policies. You really need it.Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to join this discussion, but don't feel strongly either way. I am far more concerned that the text being added is written so poorly. Number 57 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidance, can I remind all editors that it can be more productive to focus on edits than on editors. Sentences beginning "You..." may not be very helpful. Rather focus on the edit under question: "This edit is..." Bondegezou (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

your edit makes sense to me.. I think a reference to the extension date given by Rivlin to Netanyahu in the top would be in order

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Including Kahlon party in the polling table

There is no confirmation yet whether Kahlon will launch a party, and it has only figured in three of the 30 or so polls used here. As a result, I think it should be removed for the time being, and maybe replaced if and when he does launch a party. Thoughts? Number 57 15:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's especially confusing given that those polls that don't include him list him as getting zero seats, and have very different results for all the other parties than when he is included. (Also, we should probably remove the recent polls that used the old threshold.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the potential for confusion; perhaps we need to use – instead of 0 for parties that are not mentioned in the poll cited - that way it makes it clear that it wasn't included or that we don't know if it was. Also pinging @Høst, 4idaho, and Gidonb:, who have been involved in adding poll results. Number 57 21:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is a page about opinion polls, and they've been included in opinion polls, and have scored significantly, I feel like they should be included in some way. I don't have strong opinions about the matter though.

I do agree that instead of 0 seats it should show an m dash or a n/a template. I can do that right away if no one objects?

Also, major thanks to Number 57 for cleaning up the table! --4idaho (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy for you to make the changes. Still not sure about Kahlon - he's appeared in so few polls, I'm not sure it's useful. Maybe there could be a short bit of text added to the campaign section about rumours about him forming a party and the results of the few polls it's been included in? Number 57 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good compromise. --4idaho (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

move to Israeli Legislative Election, 2015

Bibi just gave up. ALL the Israeli newspapers have announced that the Knesset will be dissolved next week.[1] If you want to change it next week after the vote (hey, you never know, right?), that's fine, but we've got to start working on the assumption that it's going to happen. Ericl (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They've reported that Likud support dissolving the Knesset, not that it will be dissolved. In all likelihood you are correct, but until the vote occurs and the Knesset is dissolved, the article should remain where it is. Number 57 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys you should have the latest election here too

Yup, basically in the polls there should always be a "last election" tab on the top for comparison. 105.155.8.214 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is already on there. Number 57 12:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Minimum seats

Okay, the following is rather blatantly WP:OR, but I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is in a case in which the media reports are obviously mathematically wrong. Because 3.25% is equal to 3.9 seats, it is *very* difficult for a party not to get four seats yet still make it into the Knesset. But it's easy to construct scenarios in which this happens. For instance: Party 1 gets 8126 votes. Party 2 gets 1549 votes. Party 3 gets 325 votes. The total number of votes is 10000, so it's trivial to determine that the threshold is 325 votes, meaning all three parties are in the Knesset. Under the seat allocation system, party 1 gets 99 seats, party 2 gets 18 seats, and party 3 gets 3 seats. Not 4. In fact, Party 3 wouldn't even be next in line to get a seat - Party 2 has 81.52 votes per seat were it to get 19 seats, and Party 1 has 81.26 votes per seat were it to get 100. Party 3's claim to its next seat is only 81.25 votes per seat.

I've constructed similar scenarios with up to 24 different parties. So the idea that the minimum number of seats is 4 is very obviously wrong. Kimpire (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't even need three parties. Two parties, one with 9675 votes and one with 325 votes. Total of 10000, so both cross the threshold, but Party 1 gets 117 seats and Party 2 gets only 3. In fact, were you to add seats to the Knesset, Party 1 would get 119 seats before Party 2 would get its fourth. Kimpire (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the above fall under "Routine calculations"? Addition and division are very routine, but verifying that these particular additions and divisions are correct under the D'Hondt voting system may not be. Kimpire (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple reliable sources have stated that the minimum possible number of seats is four, and I can't find any source stating that three is possible. Number 57 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Then at the very least can we remove the assertion from the article? If something is patently untrue, we shouldn't write it just because it is sourced. Kimpire (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the source for the current "four" assertion. It doesn't actually say that four is the minimum - it just says that four is *expected* to be the size of the smallest party. Which is perfectly consistent with what I am saying: it is possible, but rare, for a party to get in with three. Unless there is an objection by tomorrow, or a better source, I'll re-remove the statement. Kimpire (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I did say that there were multiple sources – not just the one in the article, but also the one I mentioned in the edit summary, and plenty more if you look. For example, taking one from each of these sources:

• Haaretz "The effect of the law, if passed, is that parties with fewer than four seats will not enter the Knesset."
• Jerusalem Post "It’s currently set at 3.25% (four of 120 Knesset seats)"
• Israel National News "Based on Israel's current population, that new electoral threshold requires even the smallest parties in the Knesset to have four seats"
• Yeshiva World "the minimum threshold to enter Knesset has risen from two to four seats"
• Knesset Jeremy "The future of the smaller parties has been cast in doubt with the raising of the new threshold to 3.25%/4 seats"

On a side note, giving 24-hour deadlines is hardly going to endear yourself to other editors, especially when you're doing so at a time of the year when a significant chunk of the world's population will be on holidays. Number 57 12:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. It's been some time since I was active on Wikipedia and I'm not aware of the expected response times.

My hairsplitting interpretation of the current source doesn't qualify for your new sources. I accept that, with three exceptions:

• The JPost article on your list is obviously wrong because "3.25% (four of 120 Knesset seats)" is clearly mathematically untrue. So it doesn't qualify as a source because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Routine_calculations.
• Your last source, Knesset Jeremy, is somebody I actually discussed this with last night over Twitter, and I won him over to my position: https://twitter.com/TheJeremyMan/status/548992364832768000 (not the entire conversation because of the branching nature of Twitter replies, but it's a good cross-section that gets the point across). Of course, this is no less WP:OR, not to mention that Knesset Jeremy is the weakest source on your list because it's a blog. But I will call your attention to the particular tweet in which he says that back when the threshold was 2%, equal to 2.4 seats, journalists were just as often claiming that 3 seats was the minimum, until they were proven wrong by Facts.
• The INN article is embarrassingly inaccurate. Look at the entirety of the sentence:

Based on Israel's current population, that new electoral threshold requires even the smallest parties in the Knesset to have four seats - and all the Arab parties in the plenum now have only three seats.

There are two problems with this. First of all, what does Israel's population have to do with anything? The number of seats won by a party in the Knesset is based entirely on what percent of valid votes they get. Israel could have 50 billion or 50 people in it, all that matters is how many vote and how many seats are available.

Secondly, "All the Arab parties in the plenum now have only three seats" is true, except for two out of three of them, who have four seats. That's just embarrassingly wrong. There's no way an article like that can be considered a reliable source.

The Haaretz and Yeshiva World articles I can't easily dismiss. They contradict my assertion without basing it on an obviously false mathematical statement, and as I said before I don't know if this falls under Routine Calculations or not. I really don't know where to go from here.

I think we skipped over an obvious question, however. Do you agree with my actual calculations, and are objecting solely on the basis of sourcing? Or do you think I've made a mistake somewhere and the journalists stating 4 is the minimum are actually correct? Kimpire (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've read a number of Wikipedia policies on truth vs. verifiability. From what I understand, there are two possibilities:

• If my calculations fall under "Routine calculations", then we are allowed to indicate 3 is the minimum size of a political party.
• If my calculations do not fall under "Routine calculations", then we are *not* allowed to indicate 3 as the minimum size of a political party, until and unless I kidnap a journalist, lock him in the basement until he agrees to read my calculations, and then free him to write his next article correctly :p

So does anybody want to offer an opinion on whether these calculations are routine? Kimpire (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Four minimum is obviously wrong and should be removed from the article, or at least rephrased as to not be presented as fact (i.e. "Expected to be"). Rami R 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not obviously wrong. Kimpire is correct in their calculations – using the d'Hondt method it is possible for a party to win three seats (I've also worked that out myself). However, Israel uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff system (or the Bader-Ofer method as it is known in Israel), which is slightly different. Under this system, the total number of votes cast for parties crossing the threshold is divided by 120 (the number of seats) to work out how many votes entitles each party to a seat. When decimals are involved, the party with the highest number of excess votes gets the next seat.

Following this through based on your example above: Party A gets 8,126 votes, Party B gets 1,549 and Party C gets 325. The total number of votes cast for the parties crossing the threshold is 10,000, which equals 83.3 votes per seat. Dividing the vote totals by the seat qualifier (83.3), Party A has 97.5 seats (i.e. 97 seats), Party B has 18.6 seats (18) and Party C has 3.9 (3). The total number of seats allocated so far is 118 (97+18+3). Therefore two more seats need to be distributed. Parties B and C have the highest remainders (0.6 and 0.9), so get an extra one each, bringing the totals up to Party A 97, Party B 19 and Party C 4. I haven't tried this for other combinations, but you might be wrong in your assertions above. Number 57 21:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

N57, the system you're describing is not the Hagenbach-Bischoff (which gives identical results as D'Hondt). Rather, what you are describing the Largest remainder method, which is not used for national elections in Israel. Rami R 21:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It is according to the Knesset website:

The lists that have passed the qualifying threshold receive a number of Knesset seats which is propotional to their electoral strength. This is done by the division of valid votes given to the lists which passed the qualifying threshold, by 120, in order to determine how many votes entitle a list to a single seat... the excess votes are distributed to the lists with the largest number of voters per seat - a method known in the world as Hagenbach-Bischoff (de-Hondt), and is known in Israel as the Bader-Ofer method - named after MKs Yohanan Bader (Gahal) and Avraham Ofer (Alignment) who proposed its adoption.

Number 57 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are correct about my calculations – I got a bit confused by their description and based my calculations above on the older method used (which was the Hare/largest remainder). However, the current method (as quoted above) gives the same outcome: Party A has 83.7 votes per seat, Party B has 86.1 votes per seat and Party C has 108.3 votes per seat, so the two extra seats still go to parties B and C (so we end up with 97, 19 and 4 again). Number 57 22:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual method is this. If Party A were to get an extra seat, it would be at 8126/98=82.918 votes per seat. If Party B were to get an extra seat, it would be at 1549/19=81.526 votes per seat. If Party C were to get an extra seat, it would be at 325/4=81.25 votes per seat. So the first extra seat goes to Party A.

Now, if Party A were to get *another* extra seat it would be at 8126/99=82.081 votes per seat. The other two divisions remain unchanged. So the second extra seat goes to Party A as well.

That is the idea behind the Bader-Ofer method. It favors the larger parties over the smaller ones at the margins, which is why it was controversial when first passed. Kimpire (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because the quote you bring isn't quite accurate. It should be "largest number of voters per would be seat" (that is number of seats + 1). I'll find the actual election law tomorrow. Rami R 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't fully read your subsequent edit. In any case, Rami is right. Future seats are allocated based on how many votes each party would have per seat if they were given that seat. Whoever can "pay" the most for another seat gets that seat. I also have an easier scenario to address: two parties, one with 325 votes and one with 9675 votes. Total votes 10,000, threshold is 325. The result is 3 seats to 117 seats. Kimpire (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My conversation with Haviv Rettig Gur of the Times of Israel. He agrees that 3 seats are the real minimum and says that he writes 4 as a matter of journalistic expediency: https://twitter.com/Aliyaist/status/549290689322696704 Kimpire (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's the law[2]. Specifically note 81.d.1: For each list a "list index" will be determined by dividing the number of valid ballots the list received by the number of mandates it won according to subsection c plus one. (translation and emphasis mine). So the minimum seats is, in fact, 3. However, given that it is widely expected to be 4, we can choose a phrasing that reflects this: "The smallest seat-winning party is expected to win no less than four seats"; this clarifies it is an expectation, not a mathematical fact. Rami R 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a decent compromise. Number 57 23:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if the formulation I used looks good to you.

I do want to address, though, the continued misconception about how the system works. You do not divide a party's votes by their current number of seats in order to discover who gets an additional seat. You find out how many votes per seat each party is "offering" in exchange for the seat and give it to the highest "bidder".

Everywhere you read about Bader-Ofer, you'll see that it deliberately favors the larger parties over the smaller ones. The system you are describing would favor the smaller parties. Kimpire (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I like Rami R's wording too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I created a simulator program (available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-9LT-D7RH0UUw4UnZDZGxNSTQ/view) that randomly selects 10 parties' vote totals and gives an 11th party anywhere between 3.25% and 3.33% of the vote. (11 parties are expected to make it into the Knesset, with one of those being the at-the-threshold Yachad party. 3.25% is the threshold; 3.33% gives you a fourth seat no matter what. In between those two is where the dispute arises.)

After running several million simulations, it seems that a party that crosses the threshold but doesn't outright deserve a fourth seat gets the fourth seat anyway ~99.98336% of the time. ~0.01664% of the time it stays at three seats. So the three-seat minimum really is very theoretical - only one out of 6000 parties that qualify for it will actually get it, and the rest will get four seats. Kimpire (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I had no life ;) I commend your commitment though! Number 57 16:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If as many as 2.5% of the votes end up going to lists which don't pass the threashhold, then a party just barely passing would get 4 seats. Between the fact that the number of votes to such parties will undoubtedly be over double that number, and the fact that all Israelli sources say 4 seats, I think we can also say so without being OR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While you are technically correct that votes going to lists under the threshold raise the likelihood of a party just over the threshold getting 4 seats, I object to your analysis for five reasons:

1) The most high-profile parties that received close to the threshold last time are either not running or are running as part of parties that are crossing it.

2) There are far fewer spurious parties this time around thanks to the higher threshold.

3) The higher threshold will depress the votes to spurious parties. I don't think, therefore, that it's at all clear that the number of votes going to below-the-threshold parties will be at anywhere near the levels observed in previous elections.

4) Your analysis does not fall under the "simple mathematics" exception to OR, dependent as it is on an advance prediction of Israeli voting patterns.

5) Most importantly, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is to happen, it doesn't change the definition of the word "minimum". Kimpire (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015

A very interesting discussion from several perspectives, including the effect(s) of WP policy. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

infobox

Why we don´t make a normal infobox83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Because unlike some other countries, the results of Israeli elections are not counted until the election has taken place ;) Seriously though, the infobox will be made after the election, in March.Jeppiz (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion of the struggles with infoboxes: Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#New_infobox_proposal. Bondegezou (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I Don't mean that. Now we have this:

Elections for the 20th Knesset

17 March 2015

And why not this:

Israeli legislative election, 2012

4 September 2012
All 120 seats of the Knesset 61 seats needed for a majority.
Leader Benjamin Netanyahu Avigdor Lieberman Shaul Mofaz Party Likud Yisrael Beiteinu Kadima Last election 27 15 28
Incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Likud

Because of the way the electoral system works in Israel, there is no clear way of deciding which parties to put in the infobox, hence we put all of them in after the results are announced. Number 57 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding minor parties/size of party lists

The parties submitted their full lists to the Central Election Committee. (http://bechirot.gov.il/election/Candidates/Pages/default.aspx) Should we add the full lists for each party? Which minor parties should we highlight?

Perhaps it might be better to create a Party lists for the Israeli legislative election, 2015 article? Number 57 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a Full Likud list for Israeli legislative election, 2015 page. Once I (or other people) have finished making full list pages for the other parties, we can combine them into one page.

Having the full 120 list is not a good idea - below a certain level, the people will not be in any way notable. Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~ Cheers, Number 57 12:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Current poles state the approximate number of seats the party would ber likely to get. While we should go a little beyond there, there's a clear limit beyond which the chances of getting in are slim. While determining the specific point is OR and CRYSTAL, we should make a plausable guess (currently, I would be surprized if anyone passed 30, although I definitely think that Likud and Zionist Camp should go that far; Yachad, OTOH, 8 is plenty, as thery're currently close to the threashhold - which is effectively 4 seats). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding an electoral compass

Kieskompas has come out with an electoral compass of the parties competing in this year's election. I've seen Kieskompas compasses on other election and party entries on Wikipedia. Can anyone help with adding it? It is available here. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What is an electoral compass?? Number 57 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be another term for political compass. I'm not sure if that is a wise addition, as those tend to be rather subjective in their construction, if carried out by non-scholarly sources.--Autospark (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Autospark:. If the issue is reliability, Kieskompas should qualify as a scholarly source. At least the last compass it made for the Israeli elections was in collaboration with the Israel Democracy Institute, a prominent think tank.[3] I've seen the Dutch one used or referenced here too.[4][5] It is up to the rest of you though. I think it could be helpful.

If you want to check it out, you don't need to write your location, gender, etc., on the start page. You can click "Continue" and skip to "Results" on the top right. Also, if you wish to see their other works/compasses, you can check them them out here. --Precision123 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand. TBH, I agree with Autospark that it may not be a particularly useful addition – Israeli politics is rather unique due to the emphasis on security and religion/secularism that are not present in most political systems – a simple two axis graph on social and economic issues isn't particularly illustrative as far as Israel is concerned, as I think it's fair to say that the security aspect is the main issue in domestic politics (and the respective policies of the main parties mean that voting habits are opposite to most other countries, in that the less wealthy tend to vote for right-wing parties and vice versa). Number 57 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, guys. Thanks for your input! --Precision123 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"A simple two axis graph on social and economic issues isn't particularly illustrative." – True, but this compass does take that into account: "The horizontal axis relates to policy positions on national security, territories, peace, foreign affairs, and religion. It intersects with a vertical axis that represents policy positions on economy, welfare, human rights, law, and governability." I'm not totally convinced of having religion and peace/security on the same axis, and indeed the result is that the parties line up in a row as if they were compared on just a single axis. However the questions/answers are very interesting and IMHO relevant. --PanchoS (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Election hours

So does the section referring to when polls are open refer to Israel time or UTC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.50.103 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The polls open at 1am Eastern Time Zone, less than an hour from right now. Hence the "Current Election" template on the main page. (It is March 17 in Israel, while still March 16 in North America.) Juneau Mike (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Results

I'm just going to leave this here in preparation. The media reports that the Likud has 30 seats are incorrect; they're not applying Bader-Ofer correctly. The Likud has 29 and UTJ has 7. My source for this is the spreadsheet I created calculating the results, confirmed by Project 61, neither of which are good for Wikipedia however.

Of course, it's likely if not certain that the Likud will get that 30th seat when the soldiers' votes come in. But right now, the 30 is simply wrong. Kimpire (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the seat figures should be included until the CEC confirms them. Number 57 11:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel we should quote what reliable sources say on seat numbers, while noting clearly that these results are preliminary, unless there is a clear case that the reports of reliable sources are wrong. A quick review of the latest reports had several saying 30 for Likud, one saying "at least 29" and [6] saying "29-30". Given that variety, I think it would be wrong to report Likud being on 30 seats, but it would be acceptable to report them being on 29-30 seats. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that the "reports of reliable sources" are wrong in this case, but unlike the Three Seats scenario I agitated about earlier this doesn't fall under the simple mathematics exception to WP:OR. In any case, I agree with User:Number 57; the seat numbers should probably not be here until confirmed. Kimpire (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the seats from the table (as it's sourced to the CEC, who haven't reported them yet), but left them in the text. If the media can't agree on how many seats parties have won, it seems silly to be putting it in the table. Number 57 12:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the Results section to say 29-30 for Likud and to note that these results are preliminary. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, we have overlapped. I would suggest the reverse, User:Number 57. That is, you blank the infobox table, but leave the Results section as was. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it as it is - the results table is the official results, whereas the infobox is a more informal presentation. Number 57 12:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The infobox is the first thing anybody sees when they open the article, and if anything shouldn't be wrong it's that. Kimpire (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So let's take it out of both, and leave it in the text, where it can be explained properly in context? Number 57 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Kimpire (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I love how media reports today are saying "the new results have brought the Likud up to 30" without any acknowledgement of the fact that the Likud was already at "30" yesterday. Even when they're wrong, they pretend they're right. Sad. Kimpire (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Kulanu's 10 seats really be shown as "+10"? Since Kulanu inherited Kadima, I think they should be counted as having started with two, making for a net gain of 8. 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.72.175 (talk)

I think since the Kadima party dissolved the 10 Kulanu seats should be counted as separate after the fresh election.121.214.23.67 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be marked as new (as it is in the results table), but it appears the infobox doesn't allow for this. Perhaps @TheCuriousGnome: can amend the code? Number 57 12:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The main result of the election goes first in the article.

Jeppiz indicated that I needed to review other election articles. I did not need to do this, but just to make sure, I did. The results confirmed my edits. The US Presidential election article starts with the fact that Obama defeated Romney. See Here: [[7]] The US 2008 election. See here: [[8]]. The US 2004 election. See here: [[9]]. Ok, enough about the States. Let's look at Israel. 2013: [[10]], just as I proposed a short little summary in the lede. 2009: [[11]], just as I proposed a short little summary in the lede. Your editor was incorrect.--MaverickLittle (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, once the results are official that is; and then we add it "up there" short and to the point w/o using such colorful language.--TMCk (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. Until the results are "official" the article should be a total incoherent mess. That makes total sense. Also, it should give the impression that the Zionist Union coalition really had a chance to govern, right? No. But I am moving on, it is only one more day until it is official and all of the hogwash in the summary paragraph will be removed and the sloppiness will go down. But right now the introduction is misleading (written in a POV manner) and full of irrelevant information that is notable but should be in the main article, not in the introduction. My comment toward Jeppiz is still correct and my edit is still correct but the unnecessary aggressive tone (not substance) of the response to my edit and comment make me believe that I will just wait until the results are official to fix the POV, the misleading language, and the irrelevant information added into the intro.--MaverickLittle (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Joint List seats

This is the first time the Arab parties have run on the same slate. Shouldn't the Joint List be counted as a new party in the infobox? David O. Johnson (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's an alliance of existing parties that all won seats previously. Just like the Zionist Union. Number 57 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel the main results table (when we have the confirmed results) needs to be appropriately annotated so that people understand what the change numbers mean, i.e. that we're comparing the Joint List to a sum of three separate parties previously, Zionist Union to a sum of two separate parties, that Likud and Yisrael Beteinu stood as one party last time. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Party and list aren't identical. In fact, in the 1992 elections, Meretz wasn't a party - it was a 3 party list; they became a single party in 1997. These alliance are not uncommon - in fact, both United Torah Judaism (Yahadut HaTorah) and oine of the old 3 arab lists (United Arab List/Ta'al) are both such alliances. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The assumed count for the previous election

In all places where we have indications of the difference between the previous Knesset and the current one, where do the numbers for the previous one come from? Obviously not from the results at the end of the Knesset, because Shas only had 10 seats (since Eli Yishai left it, leaving them with only 10); and it cn't be the immediate results of the previous election, since it uses separate numbers for Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We should compare figures to the actual result of the last election (i.e. the number of seats on day 1 of the Knesset). Re Yishai, he was actually still technically a Shas MK at the end of the 19th Knesset, as he did not establish a separate faction. Number 57 16:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at other electoral pages - in the US, for instance, if somebody switches parties or there are special elections, the post-electoral numbers are compared to the immediate pre-electoral numbers. Plus, through resignations along the Likud Beytenu list, the Likud and Yisrael Beytenu numbers have traded between themselves a bit, which also misleads.

Everything should go be compared to what it was immediately prior to the election. Chetboun and Yishai should be removed from BY and Shas and put under Yachad. Kimpire (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen both approaches taken, either comparing with the previous results or with the situation just before the election. Indeed, I've occasionally seen the use of two columns to incorporate both. I don't think there's a right answer here, both approaches have their merits, but it is important that we are clear to the reader which we are doing. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kimpire: I've seen thousands of electoral articles on Wikipedia, pretty much all of which go on the previous election results. Perhaps it's because I don't look at US election articles that I haven't seen the alternative you mention, but that is not the standard way of presenting the changes. I think comparing to the situation directly before the elections is a really bad representation of seat changes, especially in a proportional system like Israel's. And as I stated earlier, Yishai was still a Shas MK (and Chetboun was still a Jewish Home one) prior to the elections – showing that change would not just be misleading, but also wrong. Number 57 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Zionist Union leader

Narbit has repeatedly tried to add Livni to the infobox as leader of the Zionist Union despite the fact that Herzog was #1 on the Zionist Union list. Of course, it was an alliance of Labor and Hatnuah, but we do not list Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel as joint leaders of the Jewish Home, despite the fact that both are leaders of parties on the list. Similarly, we only listed Netanyahu as leader of the joined Likud Yisrael Beiteinu list in the 2013 elections. Any comments to stop this brewing edit war would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57 and @Narbit: I strongly suggest you guys work out your differences here, instead of reverting each other back and forth.

By the way, I know that one can make a case either way on this one. But for what it's worth, the article Zionist Union has two leaders listed. So it seems to me that having two leaders listed needs to be the starting point here. Beyond that, I'm not going to stay in the middle of this, except to offer my services as mediator. (Note, Number 57: I truly don't have a preference. But the status quo ante is that the party article has two leaders.) Instead, please work it out, perhaps with the help of editors from WikiProject Israel. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I have tried to reason with Narbit on their talk page. And as pointed out above, we have precedent for how to present this. Number 57 20:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel, The Zionist Union had a joint campaign with two candidates for prime minister and the party is officially called "Zionist Union led by Herzog and Livni." This was the entire campaign of joint leadership. It's not about the joint list. It's about the joint leadership. Livni and Herzog both lead the party, together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys, please try to ask for some help on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely why I started this section and asked for comments. This page has plenty of watchers. Number 57 20:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's just leave it like it is. Two names for a party with a Dual leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I just explicitly asked for help at WikiProject Israel. Let's give people a day or two to weigh in. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57. Regardless of how the party styles itself, Wikipedia should present it as one-party-one-leader. Otherwise the arguments about edge cases will be never-ending. Kimpire (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree because it doesn't reflect the truth of the situation which is that the party has two leaders and not just one. Most parties have one leader around the world. But the founders of Wikipedia did not found this site so custom and streamline-ness could override accuracy. If readers come to this page and want a full view of what happened during the elections and who were the major players and only Herzog's name was there, well they wouldn't get the full picture of what Netanyahu was up against, now would they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Narbit, we know what you think already. We have asked you to wait and let other people weigh in. PLEASE hold off on making any further substantive argument here for 24 hours and give other people a chance to express an opinion. I promise that your opinion will get a fair hearing at the end of the process. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeez I'm allowed to respond to people... No reason to get all hyped up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As there is clearly no consensus in favour of this change (or indeed any support for it apart from from Narbit), I have reverted to the original infobox format – i.e. only one leader. Number 57 08:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I believe this is the correct resolution. I would add this: each Wikipedia is technically free to do whatever it wants. But the overwhelming majority of other Wikipedias—most notably Hebrew Wikipedia, but also others—named only one leader in the infobox of this article. That suggests to me that one leader is the right way to go here.

Narbit, I would strongly encourage you to add the dual-leader concept to the text of the article in the section on "Zionist Union". I think the case you articulated above—that readers "wouldn't get the full picture of what Netanyahu was up against"—is correct. But the article text is the place to do that, not the infobox. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The Hebrew actually originally had Livni's name too. I guess someone changed it. The party page has the dual names as well. I have reverted it to add Livni's name. I'm not sure why this is a huge issue for you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) also. Steven u had been saying that u believed the starting point is listing two leaders. Not sure why u changed ur tune but I'm not moving on this as I believe this is the right way to go and anything else would detract and make the article incomplete and remiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you are "not moving"; you have to accept that there is no consensus for your change. Number 57 08:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a change. The article was written originally with the two and then someone changed it wrongly. There is not a consensus for your vision either. Give it up. This is what needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted. I told you above: Address the issue in the body text of the article, not the infobox. If you change this again, we will request a subject block. And it doesn't matter why it's a big deal to everyone else: consensus is not in your favor now, and you need to live with that and understand it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll just say one more thing on the matter. The official registered name of the party in the central elections committee and the official name of the faction in the knesset is המחנה הציוני בראשות יצחק הרצוג וציפי לבני. ie. The Zionist Union led by Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni. You can see this here in the official elections page link. Also, 13/22 of the articles list Livni as a co-leader of the party. this is a majority. http://www.bechirot20.gov.il/election/Candidates/Pages/OneListCandidates.aspx?LPF=Search&WebId=6adadc15-e476-480b-9746-04490aedeb0f&ListID=ba72a662-765c-45af-9d48-fb68080956af&ItemID=8&FieldID=ListNickname_GxS_Text -narbit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Narbit, I must say that I wish I had a friend as devoted to me as Mrs. Livni has in you. Truly. Yes, it is true that the majority of the articles that have infoboxes now shows the dual leadership. I counted six that you personally changed overnight (my time, anyway). (Do you actually speak the language of the Faroe Islands?)

Among the people who have weighed in here so far, there is no consensus to make the change you want. You are welcome to go to the WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and ask people who are active there to comment on this talk page. You are welcome to go to WP:Dispute resolution if you feel you have been treated unjustly here. At this point, those are your only remedies available. StevenJ81 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing the Yachad-Shas accusation

I don't have a problem with mentioning Yachad's accusations against Shas if somebody wants to add them, but the paragraph that was added has a huge number of problems with it:

• The 5,000-vote figure is contradicted by a 10,000-vote figure appearing in one of the two cited articles. It's also simply wrong; Yachad missed the threshold by 11,697 votes (136853.73 threshold, 125158 votes for Yachad), and because adding votes to Yachad would also raise the threshold, they actually needed 12,089 more votes to cross it.
• Neither of the invalidated-ballots figures added by the anonymous user appeared in either listed source.
• Use of weasel words like "many".
• Takes Yachad's claims at face value, e.g., "the main suspect is Shas", as though it's widely accepted that the election actually was stolen from them and the only question is by whom.
• Claims that "Shas activists attacked Yachad voters", doesn't appear in either article.
• The articles are highly outdated, and thus there is no source for "the electoral commission never investigated"
• Even the sources themselves say that the results become official after a week, so either Yachad never issued an official complaint or the complaint was investigated and then closed
• Strongly violates NPOV; nobody takes Yachad's claims seriously.
• Was put in the "Campaign" rather than the "Aftermath" section.

Major contradictory source: http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/296445. Only 311 Yachad ballots were invalidated, far less than the unsourced "40% of invalidated ballots" claim in the added paragraph.

So it's absurd to take this at face value. For context, Yachad has also claimed that the "Netz Perach" party was deliberately created by Shas activists so people would vote for them instead of Yachad (I can't find the article where I read this). The party did get 823 votes (more than almost any other nonsense party), so it's possible people did get confused - but there's no evidence backing up the claim that it was done deliberately, and 823 votes is a lot less than 11,697. If somebody wants to add "Yachad accuses Shas of electoral tampering", they can do so - but mention all the evidence invalidating the accusation as well. Kimpire (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli legislative election, 2015. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622000845/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/03/shas.jail/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/03/shas.jail/

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Result table

Hello, Number 57 please explain why did you revert my edit. Sokuya (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the user means "why did you revert" his/her edit? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you. Sokuya (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Because the table you created was awful on many different levels. Unnecessarily large (both too wide and rows forced over two lines), pointless level of detail (e.g. % of seats), illogical ordering of columns (logical order is colour, party, votes, %, seats, seat change), as well as a huge number of blank cells. Cheers, Number 57 21:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)