Jump to content

Talk:Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott

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


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott. 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) 15:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?

[edit]

How was it criticized for being unconstitutional if Israel doesn't have a constitutional? ShimonChai (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR and use of PRIMARY sources

[edit]

ahmm, @13zmz13: you blanket reverted a version using your WP:OR citing a WP:PRIMARY court ruling. There is no support in the reliable secondary sources, I can see, to call this routine challenge and ruling a landmark ruling. Worse, your OR, contradicts sources that say the law was mostly upheld, save for one clause.Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. I left your version of no primary sources in the lede intact. But whenever the supreme court of a jurisdiction strikes down a law, it is—by definition—a landmark case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13zmz13 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source for that. In Israel many would say it has become MILL for the high court to intervene.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies our definition of a landmark case, but if no reliable sources call it that we can't either. I don't think it really matters. Zerotalk 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Lawsuit

[edit]

I inserted a mention of the the activists saying they wouldn't pay, but haven't found any articles discussing whether the case ever got any traction in New Zealand.Hamster Drink (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]