This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIsrael on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
I was wondering on consensus whether we should open up this template to include parties that have not reached the threshold but have become notable on their own. Most of these non-viable parties have their own articles that can be found onList of political parties in Israel. My ideas are: leave it as is, add the rest of the parties interspersed, or create two sections based on whether or not they are currently in the knesset. Or perhaps we should change the template's name to "Current Israeli political parties" or "Israeli political parties currently represented in Knesset". I would rather get a sense of consensus here rather than radically changing the template.Valley2city‽17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine as it is. There are far too many small parties, and for us to decide which ones are notable would not really be in line with NPOV. There are too many questions - are Tzomet still noteworthy for instance?Number5718:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Thanks for your help in updating this template. I am leaning towards removing "Islamic Movement" here. There appears to be a lot of confusion, in the media included, about this, probably due to the fact that the United Arab List and Ta'al had traditionally run together as one party. I am pretty sure that the United Arab List is simply the political arm of the Islamic Movement (and that mentioning the Islamic Movement is simply to distinguish it from the sister Ta'al faction). Seethis. In any case, the alliance is consistently referred to as an alliance of four parties. Thoughts?--Precision123 (talk)20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, the Islamic Movement is a factionwithin the UAL. Happy to be proved wrong though. Also, articles likethis do indeed state four parties, and then list them as "Balad, Ra’am-Ta’al, Hadash and the Islamic Movement", seemingly thinking UAL and Ta'al are one party and the IM is separate!Number5720:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources! I had to look into it, and I think we are both right. From what I can tell, I am not sure the Islamic Movement (IM) ever formed a political party; the UAL is a party formed by various organizations ([1][2][3][4]), and is now run by only one of them (IM).
I guess I'm not too opposed to including it but there has been confusion. UAL and Ta'al have canceled their alliance ("Tibi currently heads the secular Ta’al faction and is the only member of Knesset from its ranks. The members of Ra’am are all affiliated with the northern and southern branches of the Islamic Movement in Israel."[5]). In thisAl-Jazeera report and thisscholarly source, IM and UAL are equivalent. With Ta'al separated, it appears all UAL candidates are IMand vice-versa.[6][7] --Precision123 (talk)19:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to wonder whether the UAL still actually exists. From what I understand, it was effectively a vehicle of Sarsur and the southern branch of the Islamic Movement, allied with theArab Democratic Party. The ADP left in 2012, and now Sarsur has retired and the parties are all allied into one joint list, is the UAL still a thing? It would be interesting to see the CEC's official list of registered parties to see what's on there (it would also be good to see which minor parties are still around, as it's not clear whether the likes of Meimad or Shinui still exist). Is the list online anywhere?Number5719:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing, whether there was a list online somewhere. It would be cool if the official deal between the Joint List constituent parties were available online. (The Library of Congress site generally has links to official documents, but inthis case it was just a Reuters article.) As to your other question, I think Meimad doesexist but has chosen not to run. --Precision123 (talk)18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noooooo. I'm looking for israelian parties for writing no-existent article in german-spoken Wikipedia :) And in the english-spoken wikipedia I take minor edits because my english is to bad for writing an article. We have talk about yourTemplate:MKlink and the expanding for the other database of the Knesset in german-spoken Wikipedia for longer time ago. --Markus S. (talk)22:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you have wright a many of articles to israelian parties and politicans. And this isn't/wasn't an easy job. My intention for this request is that only 20 parties at this template listed. I doesn't want to criticises your work. --Markus S. (talk)22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Independent should be removed. Labor should not be replaced (Democrats are still caucusing under Labor, maybe its best to do something like Democrats (Labor) or Labor (Democrats)), Local political parties would be interesting but there's hardly any noteworthy ones on enwiki (we could go on a translation streak for parties like Hitorerut but otherwise the section is pointless), the Defunct section should definitely be divided by time period but i'm unsure exactly how we'd divide the parties.Totalstgamer (talk)16:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say trim most of the defunct ones out except notables like Labor Meretz Mapam Mapai Herut etc. That may end up a battle, but at least itll trim out a lot of fluff. Or maybe former parties that had at least one elected MK. Or we could just go with active parties.Metallurgist (talk)17:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist Or perhaps we have the defunct section be split into sub-segments. The major ones being an uncollapsed section, but other defunct parties with articles being a default-collapsed section? That way the nav-box is useful to navigating to all such parties, but is not overly-crowded for those only interested in the most-important parties.SecretName101 (talk)21:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A category can serve most of those. I can see a case for really notable former parties, but niche ones that served one term with one MK are questionable. And there is clear precedent for only active parties.Metallurgist (talk)21:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the threshold for the knesset is at 4 mandates, which is as good a filter as anything else. I propose that any party that never got more than 3 MKs and never had a member be Prime Minister doesn't need to be here.
I think the draft version above gives the confusing false impression that Labor was only a party of the 1970s, Meretz only a party of the 90s, etc. I know many parties were short enough lived that they can be confined to a single decade: but some defunct parties certainly cannotSecretName101 (talk)17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think it might be best to go with current parties and notable former parties. But even that you could argue it should just be current parties. I mean we could go survey every country, but it looks like most just use current parties.
I disagree with removing the defunct and extraparliamentary parties, and displaying defunct ones in decade-based rows as above (what about parties that spanned multiple decades). However, I would support making the defunct parties section collapsible, as is done in{{South Korean political parties}}.Number5700:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
