Jump to content

Talk:Meretz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:New Movement-Meretz)

Name change

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It appears this party is called the New Movement-Meretz.[1] This is also how they are called in Haaretz.[2][3][4] I propose the name be changed. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Meretz and Yachad

[edit]

What does "Meretz" and "Yachad" mean? --Checco (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meretz Vitality and Yachad Together respectively, - C mon (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Movement

[edit]

We should get more information specifically on The New Movement (Hatnua haHadasha). Here are some links. A section should be made in the article describing their principles.

--Shamir1 (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


--Shamir1 (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far left label

[edit]

is trying to insert the claim that Meretz is "far left". To support this claim he brings four opinion pieces that used the label. Of these the ynet piece appeared in a general media outlet - the others in more or less biased outlets. Establishing whether a party should be labeled as left or far left is a tricky business and it not clear whether Wikiepdia should engage in it and what is the value of such a label. Just for comparison, in the Hebrew Wikipedia Meretz is characterized as "left". Mashkin (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now describes Meretz as "far left" and "social democratic". Rather contradictory as social democracy is an ideology leaning towards the centre.--Autospark (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources were provided by two non-partisan sources and two other sources that are nonetheless RS from Ynet (mainstream Israel), IsraelNationalNews (Jewish), CBN (Christian), and the National Post (mainstream Canada). I'm not trying to insert a label, and the sources are news articles not opinion pieces as you claim. Establishing the label is not the business of you or me, especially to construe that from the news, unless is it explicitly used as in the sources provided. --Shuki (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It is not your business to put labels on the party, but give the best possible description. Therefore source that are opinion pieces (that is exactly what they are) are not appropriate. Please do not insert the claim until the end of the discussion. Mashkin (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those four sources have a clear right-wing bias (INN is very right-wing). The real test is if left-leaning media sources also describe the party as far-left (this is the criteria I used for far-right parties - i.e. did a right-wing source (e.g. the Jerusalem Post) desrcribe them as far-right). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is a right-wing paper? I don't see too much weight for that right label in its article. If you are going to use the litmus test (your POV OR litmus test only) that only 'like' organizations can describe like-parties, then you will have to find right-wing sources for your 'far-right' claims as well since you brought that subject up. WP is about equal conventions. --Shuki (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Post is well-known to be right-wing in the same way that no-one with any sense of credibility could deny that Haaretz is left-wing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jpost is not well-known to be right-wing at all so I brought an additional source written by an Arab journalist. Are you going to claim that he is right-wing? --Shuki (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jpost is very well known to be right-wing; either you are deliberately lying to try and win an argument, or your clear rightist bias is showing through again. And are you seriously trying to claim all Arabs are left-wing. Anyway, I've asked for a couple of editors who are able to keep their POV in check to comment here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number57, how can you claim that I am lying. I don't think Jpost is a right-wing joint. I wish it were. I am not claiming that all Arabs are left-wing, why do you put words in my mouth? I am bringing multiple RS to source the article and it is YOU who is getting quite hyped up about your baby. How else is one to explain your abuse of your admin permissions to protect the page so quickly? Many pages that are suggested at WP:RFPP never get approved with much more frequent and on going vandalism. It's your POV that your are denying RS.--Shuki (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that you were definitely lying, I said lying or allowing your bias to show through.
As for accusing me of abusing my admin status, I suggest you actually look at the article logs.[5][6] I started semi-protecting the article a long-time ago (along with several other articles on left-wing parties like Hadash and Maki) because it is constantly attacked by sockpuppets of User:Runtshit if left unprotected. This article is not "my baby". Yes, I support Meretz, but I haven't really contributed much to this article beyond an expansion of its history section; I'm far more interested in historical parties and MKs than trying to fluff up this article.
Anyway, as noted in an edit summary, this far-left category looks like a pathetic response to my insistence that Kach et al are kept in the far-right parties category. There are a few far-left parties in Israeli political history (e.g. Progressive List for Peace and Meri), but Meretz is not amongst them (it's not even communist for a start). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "left wing" is probably the best description. Meretz is a Zionist party and is social-democrat. This makes it more centrist than radical. Hadash or Balad would be considered far left on the Israeli political spectrum. Citing op-eds on political labels is problematic. Also, those labels are not purely factual, but are partly analytical (WP:ASF). -- Nudve (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was asked to comment here by Number 57 after also being asked to do the same on the article about Likud. I have only read the most recent discussion (this section), so maybe some of the things said here are lost with me. Having said that, I would suppost saying that the party is left-wing in the lead/infobox, but with a clear explanation that it's also often considered far-left in the article (similarly to how it worked with Yisrael Beitenu).

The reason for the 'left-wing' label is that it's more common, and also that Meretz is the only pure left-wing party in Israel—Avoda and Kadima are center-left, and Hadash is clearly far-left. Meretz's policies are all universally left-wing, and it claims to be the "true left", but it's hard to call it far-left today because its current members are Zionist, support military service, etc.

The reason that it should be explained clearly about the far-left opinion is that, firstly, there is a significant number of individuals and secondary sources calling it far-left (Shuki provided some sources, such as Ynetnews, which are not 'right-wing'), and secondly, because in the past the Meretz party was clearly far-left (especially with Shulamit Aloni as leader). Notably, it was against mandatory military service, which is widely considered far-left and anti-Zionist in Israel.

On a side note, The Jerusalem Post is not inherently right-wing like Haaretz is left-wing, and it's incorrect to say that it is. Haaretz is staffed by left-wingers and publishes only the columns of those who agree with a left or extreme-left point of view. On the other hand, JPost publishes columns from both sides of the spectrum. IIRC they even published an OpEd from the Hamas-affiliated Norwegian doctor who was accused of staging a medical treatment (along with a Palestinian doctor) to create sympathy for the Palestinians. It's also the only major English-language newspaper in Israel, so it has to be mainstream and can't really afford to take sides on most issues, while Haaretz (offline) is in Hebrew-only and has catered primarily for leftists in Israel for many years now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think Haaretz only publishes columns by left-wingers - today's has a piece by Moshe Arens, hardly a dove I'm sure you'll agree! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the term is used worldwide by different writers and editors. It can't be claimed that it was a slip up by a partisan source. --Shuki (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These opinions are not appropriate for the lead (where a succinct description of the party should be given) and do not deal with a significant enough issue to be included anywhere. Also in general these sources do not give reasons and hints as to how they diefne the term "far left". Mashkin (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor argument. Neither do the references for 'left' describe what makes Meretz 'left'. And we are not asking for your POV, the discussion is about RS describing the party with a certain term. Please provide a RS why Meretz is not left or far-left.--Shuki (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey, so if you want to be nitpicky, yan did remark that he thinks that Meretz was far-left. 3 against one? How come no one else you invited came to support you? --Shuki (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that I only invite editors I know will support me? Perhaps you should look at the Likud talk page, where Yan offered an opposing opinion to mine after I invited him. In fact I invite Nudve and Yan to discussions because they are amongst the few editors in this sphere who are knowledgeable and able to stick to NPOV. As I said on the WP Israel page, I'm fine with it being mentioned in the article, but not in the introduction as you seem to insist on. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, not suggesting that at all. There is a term for that on WP, and I did not mention that or even now. --Shuki (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think think that it is in place to discuss whether there are people who label Meretz "far left". As I sadi, such a discussion should entail the definitions of the terms and is just too long and unrelated to the article. In any case the "source" that Shuki is using are really not to the point, since they just mention it in passing and do not explain how they arrived at the claim. (Several of Shuki's edits suffer from this problem.) Mashkin (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using that opinion, we should remove all left/right adjectives from articles because it is rare to find an academic paper explicitly labeling as such and justifying it. So we are relegated to pulling this description from the way the party is referred to in the media and dependant on their POV. The discussion is definitely not suitable in the article, that is why there are articles for left, far-left, as well as ultra & radical left as well. I suggest you read them all. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are making it very difficult to discuss things with you. You asked for a general discussion in the Israeli page and I voiced my opinion. Now you want a repetition here? First, the purpose of the labels is to give a quick mapping of the views of the party and therefore there is little point in delving too much on the subject. Specifically in the Israeli case I described what I think is the separator between left and far left (Zionism). so when you write a sentence some ... are you saying that they are claiming that Meretz is non Zionist? Maybe there are some who claim that, but I doubt that there the sources you are trying to insert claim it (it is hard to tell, since they are mentioning it in passing). Mashkin (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A) the discussion there is meant to be general. B) You gave your opinion. So? I gave mine. I included sourced information that is relevant to describing the party. You disagree. I understand. Again, information from the international and local media no less is sourced, I am not making this up. Please stop removing it. --Shuki (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to insert it until the end of the discussion. This is pretty elementry. Please addres the points I raised. Mashkin (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't noticed, the discussion is over. I have inserted legitimate info that is directly relevant to giving a proper background to the article that is sourced to various different media from different countries and times. The info is not majority or the main item, yet significant enough nonetheless. If you insist on continuing to oppose this, please bring up the WP policies that you think might be relevant. In the meantime, the onus is on you now. Thank you. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not over and it is not clear why you suddenly make this claim. You are violating various guidelines for editing articles in your behavior. Please do not insert the disputed sentence until the end of the discussion. Mashkin (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't it kind of funny that even here, there are six sources (including the NYT) and you refuse to accept it, while on another article you are editing, a lone partisan Ynet source seems to be enough for you. Is this another one of the articles you have assumed WP:OWNERSHIP --Shuki (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have turned this into a personal issue and this is not helpful for Wikiepdia and point out that you edits are not good faith.
The reason that all these sources are not worthy of mentioning in this context is that there are off the cuff comemnts where the reasoning behind the label is not given.
We had a long discussion and all these points were made. Mashkin (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should secularism be added as an ideology

[edit]

Meretz, and their mythological leader Shulamit Aloni are known for their secularism, they even had a religious-secularist MK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfac3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Research Service includes its secular ideology as part of the party's basic platform, as well as the fact that it represents peace activists. I have added both. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Meretz" and keep it there

[edit]

All signs show they've completely forgot about "New Movement" (official site, facebook). There are no google news results for "New Movement – Meretz" (or any variation). I therefor propose that the page be moved to "Meretz". Furthermore, even if they should again rename themselves in the next election, the page should remain "Meretz" per (most likely) WP:COMMONNAME. Rami R 16:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. It seems to be their only consistent name. Number 57 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Autospark (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done it. Also I found that back in 2006 someone did a cut and paste move, so that history is no longer orphaned. Number 57 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meretz supporters abroad

[edit]

The organization Meretz USA is no longer affiliated with Meretz the political party in Israel. Meretz USA officially changed its name to "Partners for Progressive Israel" on August 11, 2011 [1] (Nhersh (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed reference to Meretz USA. Number 57 20:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://partners4israel.org/

Meretz supporters abroad

[edit]

In the section, "Meretz supporters abroad, the organization "Partners for Progressive Israel" should be added as the American affiliate of Meretz. Partners for Progressive Israel used to be known as "Meretz USA," and is still formally associated with the World Union of Meretz. Source: [1] Nhersh (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Nhersh (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't this mention of her tweet WP:NOTNEWS? Seems extremely trivial. The other items in this list are at least organizations, not particular people. But I could be wrong. --gejyspa (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-becoming-partners-progressive-israel

Page protected

[edit]

@Averysoda and Archwayh: Due to the slow motion edit warring, I have fully protected the article. The issue seems to be whether Meretz is socially liberal party. My own viewpoint is that this is a valid description of the party, as it is wholly unrelated to the party's economic policy (which is not liberal). However, no source was provided to back this up. Please provide/discuss. Thanks, Number 57 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

[edit]

I've removed this good-faith edit by someone I consider a very responsible editor. While I appreciate the use of scholarly sources, Meretz very clearly represents the left of Israel's political spectrum, and it is very consistently described as left-wing by both journalistic and scholarly sources alike. Indeed, the party has an extreme leftist image. [7][8] To address the sources used, the first briefly mentions Meretz and Labor in the same sentence as the center-left opposition. The second describes Meretz as "left of center" (which means just that, anything left of center) and the Zionist Union and Yesh Atid as "center-left." If anything, this source, by using a different descriptor for Meretz than for center-left parties, also puts Meretz to the left of center-left—i.e., left-wing. Scholarly sources describing Meretz as left-wing are far more plentiful and authoritative.

Furthermore, including such sources opens the door to the opposite problem—describing Meretz as far left or radical left—which editors have done in the past. Scholarly sources saying this do exist.[9][10] I oppose including this just as much as including the former. On balance, leaving it as left-wing is the best course action. --Precision123 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be described as simply "left-wing". The party also has no problem with this description - it ran under the banner of "Israel's left" in the most recent elections. Number 57 07:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough reasoning; can't really disagree.--Autospark (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't this mention of her tweet WP:NOTNEWS? Seems extremely trivial. The other items in this list are at least organizations, not particular people. But I could be wrong. --gejyspa (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

[edit]

Number 57 reverted here my edit where I added several references and changed the political position from left-wing to far-left. He cited previous discussions, but I want to say that the last discussion ended nine years ago. All of my sources were published after the last discussion on this talk page had ended. wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 is nine years ago? I overslept more than I thought. Number 57 08:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: that discussion focused on whether Meretz is left-wing at all. Far-left politics is a subset of left-wing politics so we're still saying that Meretz is left-wing. That discussion concluded that Meretz is in fact left-wing but didn't gain consensus that it isn't far-left. wumbolo ^^^ 08:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's get Autospark and Precision123 back here to continue the discussion. The fact that sources can be found referring to the party as centre-left and far-left suggest that it might be somewhere in between. I would put Hadash down as the far-left of Israeli politics, whilst I would say Meretz are roughly equivalent to the Green Party. Number 57 09:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: can you give me a source which says that Meretz is center-left? wumbolo ^^^ 10:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: "The opposition consisted of Labor and Meretz, centre-left parties, that had together only 25 seats". Here's an example of them being referred to as both "centre-left" and "far-left" by different contributors to the same journal. Number 57 10:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Thank you! Although the book was published in 2003, so prone to WP:RS AGE. wumbolo ^^^ 10:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But as I said, "left-wing" is probably the most accurate description of the party, and all these sources are from the Israeli media within the last year (most of them to do with the very recent leadership election):
Number 57 10:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I am still not convinced that we should refer to the party as left-wing when we have sources which say that it is far-left (and left-wing). wumbolo ^^^ 11:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: do you have any objection to me changing it back from left-wing to far-left? wumbolo ^^^ 12:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meretz is a party which is referenced as being primarily social-democratic, and is a member of transnational social-democratic organisations (PES, Progressive Alliance, Socialist International). Describing it as a "far left" party is factually inaccurate.--Autospark (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark: Meretz is a party which is referenced as being primarily social-democratic Meretz is also a party which is referenced as being primarily far-left.
and is a member of transnational social-democratic organisations (PES, Progressive Alliance, Socialist International) coalitions are formed with negotiation. If Meretz is far-left, it can still enter social-democratic organizations by compromising a bit to the right.
Describing it as a "far left" party is factually inaccurate. If you can't give me any source that explicitly denies that the party is far-left, it is WP:DUE coverage to say that it is far-left. Per WP:YESPOV policy, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Saying Meretz is left-wing doesn't contest the fact that it is far-left.
By your logic, "Nazis were a party which is referenced as being primarily national-socialist. Describing it as a 'far right' party is factually inaccurate." Yet there are many references in that case and here that we are talking about far-right and far-left parties, respectively. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have a problem with it being listed as far-left. I don't see how the sources I've presented above which describe it as simply "left-wing" can be ignored. Meretz is the type of party that would largely be referred to as far-left pejoratively by people on the right of politics seeking to delegitimise them (as the English Green Party is occasionally). Number 57 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: breaking it down for you. It is an uncontested fact that Meretz is left-wing, and it is an uncontested fact that Meretz is far-left. Per WP:YESPOV, Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Now that we know that Meretz is both far-left and left-wing, we should describe it as far-left, as it is more specific. Here's why: if we describe it as left-wing, people won't know that it is far-left; however, if we describe it as far-left, people will know it is left-wing. That is because far-left is a subset of left-wing, as evidenced by Category:Far-left politics being a subcategory of Category:Left-wing politics. Your last sentence is irrelevant and non-neutral, and I'm not going to respond to it. wumbolo ^^^ 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand that "far-left" is not usually a sub-set of "left-wing" in describing political parties. It's part of the spectrum that typically goes: far-right, right-wing, centre-right, centrist, centre-left, left-wing, far-left (for example in the UK, this would be BNP, UKIP, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Green Party, Communist Party); "right-wing" and "left-wing" are positions on the spectrum between the centrist and extreme versions of their respective wings. If you look at UKIP and Green Party, you'll note that the parties' positions are simply "right-wing" and "left-wing". Number 57 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: thank you, but we could've concluded this earlier. Far-left is absolutely not a defining political position for Meretz. Some RS have described it that and that can go elsewhere in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 15:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Described as far-left

[edit]

Vif12vf reverted here my edit where I added that Meretz is internationally described as far-left. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; and per WP:DUE, If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. so don't waste your time on doing that. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left revisited

[edit]

I still disagree with Number 57 that "far-left" is simply further left than "left-wing". There's a reason that Category:Far-left politics is a subcategory of Category:Left-wing politics. wumbolo ^^^ 15:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand a concept as basic as this difference, then I would suggest it may be best not to edit politics-related articles. Number 57 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 57 reverted here my change that Meretz is far-left, saying that there is no consensus on the talk page for the change. Do you think consensus is formed with the personal attack above, and the personal attack in the revert edit summary? I was following WP:BRD, which is an explanatory supplement to policy. wumbolo ^^^ 08:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You weren't following BRD, because we've already been through that cycle, resulting in the discussion above in which there was no consensus for your proposed change. This is why you were called out in the edit summary. Number 57 10:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because as anyone can see by scrolling up this page, we've had several discussion on whether the party should be described as far-left in the introduction or infobobx, and the consensus so far is that it shouldn't be. Of course, consensus can change, but until we have a clear consensus, then the status quo remains in place. Number 57 19:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Zionism????

[edit]

This is not what the source says. The question of whether a party that includes non-Jews can be called Zionism is part of an internal debate in the party, but no one claims that Meretz is a post-Zionist or anti-Zionist party--E.F Edits (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

I was too quick when reading a tweet which said Meretz was not allowed to use mem-resh-tsade as they used the Labour symbol in 2020. They use it for local elections, thus it is allowed. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:D15:C000:914:F7AB:3EAA:3A91 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic?

[edit]

The party is Democratic socialist. or at least that's what they state. יונתן שושן (talk)

Third party descriptions are more reliable than self-descriptions. Cheers, Number 57 10:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology in Infobox

[edit]

If anyone does not object, I will reduce the eight Ideologies listed in the Infobox to just three. The eight currently listed is overkill, and contains vague philosophies and policy platform goals, or simply redundant ("secularism" is clearly redundant when describing a social-democratic party). The three "social democracy", "green politics" and "Labor Zionism". Anything else can be described in the Ideology section.--Autospark (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Number 57 16:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this move, although I would prefer if "progressivism" stays in the infobox since they are noted for their egalitarian and socially progressive views. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I would find it a bit redundant to list "progressivism", given that that's generally a generic term for centre-left politics, and we already would have social democracy and green politics as broad ideological terms. I'm not completely objecting, just bringing up that issue. Perhaps list "social democracy", "green politics" and "Labor Zionism", and describe in the article lede that the party is known for its strong socially progressive views – what do you think, Vacant0?--Autospark (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that can do too. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: At this moment, the infobox seems to be bloated with "ideologies", should I clean it up to only include ideologies that we agreed on in this discussion above? --Vacant0 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: Go for it! Cheers, Number 57 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Vacant0 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: @Number 57: I notice that the two-state solution appears in the ideology inbox of the following parties: Labour, Yesh Atid, Hadash, Mada, Ta'al, Joint List, Ra'am.
5.102.204.143 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: thanks for reducing it down to that core three. TBH, the articles for most Israeli parties list too many ideologies in their Infoboxes (we don't need six to eight listed per article, as seems to be the usual).--Autospark (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be even better if we could reach consensus for other parties. Vacant0 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Position-far left

[edit]

Why isn't this party to be considered as a party, representing a fringe group on the political sphere, whose positions and policies have shifted to extremism 2A0D:6FC7:212:7F94:76B5:531:1E0E:C90D (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they might be the furthest party on the left but this doesnt make them far-left Braganza (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadash is arguably far-left - Meretz certainly isn't. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In July 2022 the Meretz logo was rebranded by Re-Lavant studio and they made a switch with the party colors:

  1.  #162066  r22 g32 b102, Pantone 2746c
  2.   white
  3.  #23e164  r35 g225 b100, Pantone 7479c

They explained it with: In order to graphically express the great change that took place when Meretz entered the government, and the change we want to take place in the way Meretz voters perceive the party as a result, we will perform a "reversal" in the party's colors. From the lead of the green color, which is traditionally associated with Meretz, to the entry of green into surfaces of "state blue" (Meretz itself is the bright and strong green that entered the system) I updated the article with the new logo, but I think, according to this, that we should also update the main meta color of the party accordingly Sokuya (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the party color was updated by PLATEL, thanks. Sokuya (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I just figure out the change in the moudle also changed and override all the past use of the party logo. So now Meretz color in article of Israeli general election (infoboxes) is not matching the color of Knesset results diagram images. Sokuya (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meretz&oldid=1215089168"