Jump to content

Talk:Opinion polling for the April 2019 Israeli legislative election/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Representing Mandelblit announcement and Gantz speech on the poll list

The list of polls should reference objectively major events in the campaign, not just formal deadlines and events to do with party primaries and lists. As it stands, the list omits things like Mandelblit's announcement regarding the Netanyahu investigation, and Gantz's speech, which had a large effect on the polling. I realize that the decision to omit these events was likely a result of editors collectively groping for an objective standard of what events to conclude. However, by omitting these major events, the quality of the page is compromised. Zekelayla (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Quality of the page" is just fine without edit wars regarding "major" events. Flayer (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Some people (such as myself) won't like it" isn't a great reason to make the page less informative or encyclopedic. Zekelayla (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
By keeping POV out the editors keep it more enyclopedic. Pushing in "major events" would only make it less encyclopedic because of the uncertainty what is major and what is not. Claiming that Mandelblit announcement was a major event is just a POV. Claiming that it had a large effect on the polling is another POV. Flayer (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with most of the above, except about including the announcement about the indictment. Virtually every RS mentions it in almost every election piece. It's most definitely a big deal. objectively speaking, the ag formally announcing that the incumbent is (allegedly) a crook is important. It was added and then edited a few times before it was removed. Hydromania (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Flayer: Legal proceedings against the incumbent are a major event. That is not POV by any stretch of the imagination. And to clarify, I was saying that Gantz's speech had a large effect on the polling, not the Mandelblit announcement. Zekelayla (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that Gantz's hacked smartphone had even larger effect on the polling, and Ben-Ari's ban as well. On the other hand, legal proceedings is nothing new in Israeli politics. So we can argue about it until April 9th or doomsday, whatever comes first. Flayer (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The way you are flinging out every argument and the kitchen sink, it doesn't come off as a good faith argument. But I'll respond to your points anyways. Legal proceedings against a PM in the middle of a campaign. That IS something new in Israeli politics. No reasonable observer would dispute that is one of the key events of the campaign. And I never said Mandelblit's announcement and Gantz's speech are the ONLY events that should be included. Probably the bans should be included as well, maybe even Gantz's cellphone. Zekelayla (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. The article is about polls, not about major events in Israeli politics. Flayer (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are the primary obstacle to consensus. And if the article is "just about polls", why not remove any references to events altogether? Zekelayla (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, events that don't alter the number of columns or their headers (such as mergers and withdrawals) are not necessary here either, but with primaries it is fair and simple - one event per list or party, without speculating how major it is, or how important it is, or how large was its effect on the polls. And, yes, I will never agree to a consensus that includes POV pushing and OR. Flayer (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
To avoid everyone adding their own important event, a good practice is to drive people towards recent history articles such as 2017 in Israel, 2018 in Israel, etc., which list dozens of newsworthy events, up to the amateur analyst to find correlations of his liking. However, 2019 in Israel is almost empty. Likewise, the main article 2019 Israeli legislative election does not have a campaign theme section, nor does it talk about the indictment, even though this is a major topic for at least the opposition, and some on the right-wing. So I agree with Zekelayla that something is missing, but not necessarily on this page.
P.S.: The custom on the U.K. polling page is to include only events related to party leader changes, government reshuffles and local and by-elections.
Kahlores (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that newsworthy events should be mentioned in a recent history article such as 2019 in Israel, but not on this page. And even if there is a consensus about important events, claiming that any important event had a large effect on the polling is clearly an original research. Flayer (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Totals don't give full picture

YB and Zehut will almost certainly be coalition partners with Netanyahu. Right now the sum total (C) implies a broad win by the anti-Netanyahu folks, and it's actually far closer than that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be right about YB, but Zehut has clearly stated that they will only join a government coalition that agrees to legalize cannabis, and prefer to head the ministries of finance and/or education. That could be either bloc, although it's more likely to be the right-wing bloc. Either way, we shouldn't make presumptions here. Please remove the "L" sum from the table. M . M 05:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly right but you are engaging in WP:OR so it can't added. ShimonChai (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A month ago, when Zehut was almost always beneath the threshold, I wondered why mention Zehut at all, but someone replied "Because that's what the polls do". Well, that's what the polls do - all of them (at least in Hebrew) blindly count YB and Zehut in a right-wing bloc and mention it accordingly, like "right wing 63, left-arabs 57". Is it still WP:OR? Flayer (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case than yes, but it would make sense to change coalition to "right-wing bloc", because at that point it's not representing the coalition but instead the right-wing bloc as a whole. ShimonChai (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this thread; I'm not attempting to editorialize here, but rather to convey the parties that will likely nominate Gantz to be PM to President Rivlin. I'm basing this on the following source https://knessetjeremy.com, which is actually run by a candidate on the New Right list (hardly someone who wants to make Gantz's chances look better than they are). I'm totally open to further discussion, but you're right, the current columns do give a false impression of polling indicating a likely Gantz win, when really it's more of a tossup based on current polling as to who Rivlin would pick to form the next government based on who would get 61 nominations. I think it's nearly impossible for us to know who would actually end up in the coalition at this point, so I'm simply trying to pick the total that most effectively indicates to the reader what the polling indicates as to who would be chosen by Rivlin to form the next government. comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


  • I found a source [1] reporting that YB leader Liberman says he "won't join Gantz-led coalition", so I'm inclined to agree that YB can be included in the "right-wing bloc". But just because many media outlets publish editorial speculations that Zehut is part of said bloc doesn't mean we should do the same. We need to reflect the official positions of each party. M . M 07:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of neutral sources put Zehut as part of the right-wing bloc... I think there is a difference between there being a right-wing bloc and editorial speculation about the future coalition, because there could technically be situations like a national unity govt in which parties within the right-wing bloc side with Gantz, well still being considered right-wing parties and part of the right-wing bloc. ShimonChai (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I do think the fact that both totals are below 61 for most polls accurately conveys the uncertainty about the outcome. It says to readers unfamiliar with Israeli politics "Neither Gantz nor Netanyahu has a guaranteed win at this point." With the polling uncertain about YB and Gesher and Kulanu making threshold, that's a useful understanding to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have two discussions on the same topic. See my remarks below, and let's keep the discussion there. Hydromania (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

L - Is a misleading number

Including The Arab Parties in a left leaning Coalition is most likely incorrect and an over simplification. An Arab party has not been part of the government of Israel since Ben-Gurion's Era. It is far more likely that a party in C (someone like Kolainu could just as easily join with Blue & White as Likud). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisefre (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

it doesn't necessarily represent a government but a bloc in parliament that could support a government, Rabin's government was supported by Hadash and Mada without them joining the government (or coalition).--Nngnna (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


orly levi says here https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001278598, that she want to be in the centre, to be the tip of the scale "right now it's very good that both sides know I'm not in their pocket, so that your [my] ability to maximise your benefits in the negotiations in far greater. That's the position I want to be in" so I'm not sure potting Gesher in L is correct.--Nngnna (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kolanu seems far more likely to nominate Netanyahu given their inclusion in the current coalition. Including them in the other column would convey the strong chance of a Gantz win, which is not consistent with how the press is currently reporting the contest (far more of a tossup). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The L is ultra misleading. If the people making it knew anything about Israeli politics, they would know that Labor and the centrists would never team up with the Arab parties, and that Shas and UTJ have the potential of teaming up with either side Emass100 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The category label is drawn from here: https://knessetjeremy.com, probably the most well-respect polling website in Israeli politics. It is the main aggregator, and the party division he uses (and labels Center-Left-Arab) is the relevant total, which I've copied here. I used L because C was already taken, but I'm open to another letter. But clearly, going by perhaps the best source on Israel polling, the numbers are absolutely relevant. I'm happy to discuss a more accurate label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Datapolitical I can't see this division in the source you provided. Please link me the page where he says this directly. Emass100 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries, you have to know the site a little bit. At the end of every poll (so just look at the one that's at the top of the page right now), there's a line that looks like this: 57 [54] Current Center-Left-Arab Opposition-Y.B. The number not in brackets is the same one I'm using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Datapolitical Ok, I see. This self-published blog adds Y.B. in the government coalition though, which we don't do. Overall, I think this way of categorising the parties is misleading because it implies grouping of parties in coalitions which are very unlikely. many different sources class these coalitions in many different ways, but the truth is that, for most of these parties, it is unclear who they will align themselves to after the elections. As such, I think we should only mention the total of the current government.Emass100 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the JPost using the same division. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Post-poll-shows-race-is-close-584237. Like, I'm absolutely open to a conversation about what the split should be, but in normal political reporting when you're talking about a future election you want to give people a summary of what it means. I get where you're coming from, but just reporting the current government coalition is worse because it implies things will stay the same, and as you just admitted, they likely won't. So I think we should work together to come up with a party split that reasonably represents the consensus in political reporting on the 2019 election, and I'm open to what that should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
And in regard to it being "self-published", we cite Jeremy's website as the source for a number of different polls we list in the table. If it's good enough to use as the source of the polling data, it's good enough to use for choosing our totals as well. He's also enough of an expert to have written perhaps the best explainer on the web on how the actual government formation process takes place: https://www.jns.org/israeli-politics-101-electing-a-prime-minister-and-forming-a-coalition/ It's legitimate to consider him an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I've updated this to O instead, hoping to better convey the alignment of parties in Opposition to Netanyahu. Thus why Zehut and YB are not included because they'd almost certainly nominate Netanyahu to be the next PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapolitical (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Counting Opposition MKs in the polls published throughout the 20th Knesset (2015-18) is a good idea, which I had made last year, and was eventually included in the major edit in January. During government's tenure, tallying up the opposition makes sense.
However, this is the campaign. Opposition parties are not united, the government has collapsed, and a handful of parties are ambivalent.
What's the sense of tallying up the "Left-Center-Arab bloc"? It may play in, let's say, the voting of fundamental laws, the President, or some particular topic, but in each case it is more as a negative of the right-wing bloc, than a positive platform policy. In practice, Israeli governments, be they left-wing, have never included Arab parties, except the case of Mapai's satellites a long time ago.
As far as I know, a coalition between Hadash, Ra'am, around Gantz and Ya'alon, isn't going to happen. So there is no sense in counting them in the same tally. Kahlores (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The current format makes no sense either way. Seems there are two options:

  • Have two columns for Right/Left blocs based on RS
  • count just current coalition parties (the way it was until now)

Having current coalition vs left leaning bloc is OR and conveys nothing. I personally support the first option. Hydromania (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Ps, @Datapolitical: Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) after your comments.

Agreed that having C and O (with O being non-coalition parties excluding Zehut and YB) doesn't make any sense.
I think the most value would be added by having left-center vs. right, or (to be more precise) Likud + smaller right wing parties vs. the rest. This addresses the question of whether Netanyahu can form a government with the help only of smaller parties, like his past few governments.
But this is hard to express in a few words in a Wikipedia article, and also leaves the question of Gesher and Kulanu open: Are they left or right for our purposes? Kulanu is generally identified as a centrist party, but was part of Netanyahu's last coalition, Gesher is new, but led by a former member of the right-wing Yisrael Beitenu. (I think the cases for Zehut and Yisrael Beitenu being right-wing are clearer).
Is there a consensus grouping in the Israeli media? Otherwise, I don't think this is tractable, and I'd continue simply noting the current coalition. --Rxtreme (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies on signing, it's been a little bit since I've edited a page. Here are the outlets that use the breakdown I've suggested:
These are the major English language Israeli newspapers. I think this demonstrates a strong consensus for the presentation of A Left/Right block using the division I suggested, With L as the Arab Parties, Meretz, Labor, Blue and White, and Gesher, and the R column updated to be Likud, Kulanu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Union of Right-Wing Parties (created in February 2019), and New Right (created in December 2018), Zehut and Yisrael Beiteinu. Btw, @Hydromania: @Rxtreme:, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. As more people pay attention over the next week or so I'd definitely like to make sure we're presenting the polling in the most informative way possible.Datapolitical (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, this convinced me that keeping the O column is fine. I'm in favour of re-adding it in the article. Emass100 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the most logical way to divide the parties into two blocs:

Zehut is a right-libertarian party that has expressed openness to serve in either a Likud- or Blue & White-led government, and is therefore not included in either bloc.

However, when future coalition prospects are taken into account, one can see that Blue & White is far more likely to team up with Kulanu than with any Arab-majority party (even though my above legend might imply the opposite). Honestly, the best option might be to just remove the legend altogether, or keep it as one bloc (current government parties). But if we must have two blocs, I will not accept any other legend than this one (with the possible exception of Gesher). M . M 09:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer this L-R division, except for Zehut which should be included in the right-religious block according to all sources. I haven't seen a single source that excludes Zehut from the right-religious block. Doing so is OR. Whether it considers joining a Gantz government is speculative and irrelevant. ערן117 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We could always have two blocs that are the parties that are guaranteed to go with B&W/Likud. The disadvantage is that we won't have majorities, but we would give actual information about the relative power of each group instead of one that is speculative. --Nngnna (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nngnna: I'm not sure that any party is guaranteed to run with B&W. Labor, Meretz, and Gesher (if it gets in) might prefer B&W, which is another story. The Arab-majority parties probably prefer B&W too, but I belive Gantz said he's not interested in forming a coalition with them. M . M 18:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

yeah that what I meant, they will definitely prefer one over the other and will recommend that he (gants of netanyahu) will be the first to try and construct a government. we the Arab parties should go with the center-left bloc only because they will definitely not recommend Netanyahu. Meretz Labor the new right and union of the right wing already declared who they are going to recommend if I'm not mistaken.--Nngnna (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Vote on proposed categories (based on Israeli media consensus)

I think using the division that's common in Israeli media (see below) makes the most sense. Can we get a vote on that option (L & R) blocks as follows:

Datapolitical (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Zehut is not part of the current government, so it better be mentioned after YB. Other than that I'm for. ערן117 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Updated Datapolitical (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I also agree. Flayer (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Datapolitical, ערן117, and Flayer: Ok, that's a copy of my proposal, but you added Zehut with the right-bloc. What if I add notes:

Note: Political blocs do not necessarily determine the excact makeup of post-election coalitions.

  1. ^ Kulanu is a centre-right party that has expressed openness to serve in either a Likud- or Blue & White-led government
  2. ^ Zehut is a right-libertarian party that has expressed openness to serve in either a Likud- or Blue & White-led government
  3. ^ Blue & White has expressed its intention not to form a coalition with Ra'am-Balad or Hadash-Ta'al
  4. ^ Gesher is a centre-left party that has expressed openness to serve in either a Likud- or Blue & White-led government

M . M 18:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Sources for each of the notes: Kulanu [2], Zehut [3], B&W [4], Gesher [5]. M . M 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Datapolitical (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit, it's also worth nothing the reason the press includes the Arab parties with the Left is that while they're not expected to be in the coalition, they are likely to nominate Gantz to be the PM. After the nominations are submitted President Rivlin chooses who should form a government, at which point Blue & White will likely negotiate an all-Jewish government. Datapolitical (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Perfect and nuanced. I support this. Emass100 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem with notes from my perspective, but keep in mind that there might be more notes, because more statements will be aired. And, sometimes, contradicting statements. Flayer (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's better to exclude Gesher and Kulanu at the center as they really likely to go either way, otherwise every time they will pass or not pass the threshold there will be a strong movement that indicate nothing.--Nngnna (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from but there's a reason almost all Israeli media includes them with Gantz. I think we should just follow their lead to avoid editorializing. Datapolitical (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok than I'm in favour.--Nngnna (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Works for me. This whole discussion has gone on long enough. I don't think we need all these statements in footnotes, the RS all use tgese divisions, and that's good enough. I would only suggest adding the word "Arab" when explaining the centre and left of centre bloc, once again, that's what the sources do. Also note that as (if?) gesher gains steam we might see some disagreement between the news agencies as to which bloc to include them in. Hydromania (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of Kulanu's political position, they continued to say they support Netanyahu, are right-wing, and were part of the last govt. ShimonChai (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
So the final split would be this? H-T B-R Mrtz Lab B&W Kool Gshr Y.B. Likud Zhut NR URWP Shas UTJ
Looks like an incoherence between the blocs and the arrangement... so I'd say: if we go forward, let's put it straight.
We could then use a header row spanning the left-center parties, and the right-haredi parties. It could go like this:
  1. "Right-Religious" with a footnote saying "Parties that declared their intent to join a Netanyahu government"
  2. "Left-Center" with a footnote saying "Parties that prefer a Gantz government, or are ambiguous"
Maybe there are even better formulations, but we don't need a consensus on that, as we say, "be bold and edit".
P.S.: It's high time to develop the main article, which still doesn't have a campaign paragraph. I'll use VwM.Mwv's four sources to shed light on pre-election speculations. Kahlores (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gibzit: Thanks for your edit, but please restore my ordering of the parties (each bloc's currently largest to smallest party; same order as the legend). The current ordering was seen by consensus as WP:OR earlier on this talk page. M . M 19:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The ordering you had felt a bit nonsensical and random, although I do understand why you ordered them like that, it was very confusing (anecdotally, some of my friends complained that the poll page was now "weird" and that they no longer understood the ordering) Having a left-right order, or a biggest to largest order(without blocs) if left-right qualifies as OR would be best, the combination of the two is quite confusing.Gibzit (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Gibzit. Flayer (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm with gizbit too. I'll state ftr that I like the current page and discourage any more changes without discussion here first. Hydromania (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Zehut's positioning

At the moment, Zehut is placed in between the Likud and the New Right in the polling section. I believe that it should instead be placed either between Kulanu and Yisrael Beitenu or between Gesher and Kulanu. The main reason is that Zehut has expressed willingness to serve under either the Likud or Blue and White, so it should be in between the two, as opposed to being to the right of the Likud. It can be somewhat confusing to the reader if Zehut appears to be firmly in the right-religious coalition, when in fact it is not. Also, I do not think it is accurate to imply that Zehut is to the right of the Likud ideologically, because of its cultural liberalism on issues like the legalization of marijuana. The reason I am asking here is that (a) I wanted to make sure there was consensus for this before I did it, and (b) I wanted to see if there is consensus regarding whether Zehut should be in between Kulanu and Yisrael Beitenu or between Gesher and Kulanu. Thanks. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Zehut is right-wing to far-right on the conflict which is what the Israeli political spectrum is defined by, the only reason he doesn't fully support Netanyhau is because to him, is he thinks Netanyahu supports the two state solution which he is against. ShimonChai (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Zehut is far right both on defense and on the economy. Besides, the order is meant to reflect splits and mergers, and Zehut split from Likud. Please leave it where it currently is. ערן117 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why I didn't want to base the table on the political left-right spectrum. Anyway,
@ShimonChai and ערן117: to summarize, Zehut is:

  • Social issues: libertarian
  • Economic issues: libertarian/far-right (basically synonymous in this context)
  • The conflict: right-wing to far-right

The reason for not having a preference between either Netanyahu or Gantz is because it's unclear which one is willing to implement most of Zehut's priorities, which are cannabis legalization and heading the economy and/or education ministries. The conflict is not a main issue for the party in this election, so long as no land is withdrawn from. More info & sources on Zehut (I've written most of the article). M . M 09:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jacoby531: I don't think you should move Zehut only, but I wouldn't mind if you (or anyone else) came up with a new table positioning system altogehter. M . M 09:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_April_2019_Israeli_legislative_election/Archive_2&oldid=899475529"