Talk:Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
External links modified 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:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120709074415/http://inewp.com/?tag=law-for-prevention-of-damage-to-the-state-of-israel-through-boycott to http://inewp.com/?tag=law-for-prevention-of-damage-to-the-state-of-israel-through-boycott
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120713023253/http://inewp.com/ to http://inewp.com/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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)
What? edit
How was it criticized for being unconstitutional if Israel doesn't have a constitutional? ShimonChai (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
- 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 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)