Talk:Anti-BDS laws

Edit request 21 March 2025

Description of suggested change: Please change all occurrences of "anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism", "anti-Semitic" to "antisemitic", etc., except in quotes or titles. AndyBloch (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndyBloch (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (I hope I got all of them correctly) Lova Falk (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Boycott Act of 2018

The article states that no anti-BDS federal laws have been passed, and I'm wondering if the Anti-Boycott Act was considered when making that statement.

"Enacted on August 13, 2018, as part of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, Part II of the ECRA, Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat." (From Office of Antiboycott Compliance - Bureau of Industry and Security) 2601:404:CD00:B60:91A1:7A90:2DB9:1CFA (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about Spain is not true

It is not true that "the Spanish Supreme Court declared the BDS movement is discriminatory and "infringes on basic rights"" as stated on the article, but rather that it was not lawful for a specific city council (Reinosa, Cantabria) to issue a specific item within a specific BDS declaration. It did not declare the whole BDS discriminatory nor it made a statement on private BDS initiatives, not even on state/council initiatives more widely (although the ruling could be used to argue against BDS in other rulings, the extent to which it can will be very nuanced). Unfortunately, all news reports on the matter that I could find in English are from sites that support ANTI-BDS legislation. In Spanish, you can find this non-partisan article by one of the major news agencies in Spain. I wanted to correct the record but the article is protected. I'd appreciate it if someone with more editing rights or experience could make the changes as at the moment the information is misleading at best and a blatant lie at worst. Askateth (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling appears to be in relation to a specific city court. Sources do say it creates a nation-wide precedent that pro-BDS resolutions are illegal. It seems unclear as to whether this is just opinion or whether it has legal standing. We probably should be clearer about the nature of the decision. However, according to our article the Supreme Court's decision was made in September 2022. The article you provided was from 2020, so cannot be used to comment on the Supreme Court decision. Burrobert (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had many articles opened when writing my reply and linked the wrong one. I meant to link this one from 4th October 2022.
I think I wasn't clear in my first post.
There are two issues:
First, this decision applies only to a specific declaration by a specific council. While aspects of it are likely to establish jurisprudence on similar declarations by other councils, it is a stretch to declare that this would apply to all public institutions, e.g. to decisions by regional, national parliaments or governments.
Secondly, and this is not debatable, the court didn't declare the BDS movement discriminatory. It declared certain aspect of the council declaration discriminatory. In particular, private citizens and organisations re
till following BDS, as any Internetsearch will demonstrate. Askateth (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right-ho. I had a try at rewriting the Spanish section to align it with your source as well as the Times of Israel source. Burrobert (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Most of it looks fair. However, I am not sure it is worth publishing ACOM's opinion. I've never heard of this group before, so I went to read a bit about them. Sure, they do have a very professionally-looking website but when you go into it, there is not much to show that they actually exist beyond the website. They don't have spokespeople, a headquarters or even a telephone number. Just a contact form and a difficult-to-find email address. I note Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policy says we must include "all majority and significant minority views". It is certainly not a majority view (or there would be more relevant statements) and I am not sure it accounts as significant minority view either, on account of the above.
I don't think it satisfies the Wikipedia:Relevance policy either. The article is about Anti-BDS laws. There is no such law in Spain, but a ruling by its judiciary system (Spain's legal system follows Roman law, not case law, so decisions by its judges are not considered 'law', they only interpret the law, in this case a law about discrimination, not about BDS). Fine, that is medium relevance ('once removed'). Now, we have the opinion, about an institution (supposedly, in practice a website) over what this ruling means (thrice removed from laws). It feels like a stretch but it makes a reader that is not aware of the above, start thinking in terms of jurisprudence.
It is worth saying that ACOM keeps on its website a list of judiciary decisions favourable to their views on BDS (they don't mention the ones that were unfavourable, but this is irrelevant) and this one on Reinosa is number 70 of 85, with the last update in 2022. I presume they are chronologically listed. If the Reinosa decision set a legal precedent, there would not be a need for so many subsequent actions. I am not saying we should decide here if it sets a legal precedent or not, but we certainly should look critically into the claim to decide whether to include it or not
So in summary, I am doubtful that the claim is true, I am not sure ACOM is a reliable source and even if these two objections were not an issue, I am not sure the sentence is relevant enough to Anti-BDS laws to be included. If there was an article about ACOM, for instance, it would make sense to put it there.
Please, do not take the above as criticism to your work. I really appreciate the adaptation and I think we are making progress. I just want to get it right. Askateth (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2025

Remove the following text due to racialized generalization, racial bias, and content that was tampered with or taken out of context in regard to the cited source:

Most organized boycotts of Israel have been led by Palestinians and other Arabs with support from much of the Muslim world. Since the Second Intifada in particular, these efforts have primarily been coordinated at an international level by the Palestinian-led BDS movement, which seeks to mount as much economic pressure on Israel as possible until the Israeli government allows an independent Palestinian state to be established. 2601:8C3:8602:7CB0:AE05:E168:F810:63DC (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I don't see how the text displays any racial bias whatsoever, nor does it appear to misrepresent the source. Day Creature (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 17 October 2025

I think the map featured is inaccurate. It marks Oregon as having passed a law, but while there have been past legislative attempts and a symbolic resolution, Oregon has not enacted a statewide anti-BDS law.


Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Enidgrey (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The map cannot be edited directly, and we would also need a reliable source to support your claim. Day Creature (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-BDS_laws