Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Qusra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Icewhiz in topic "permission to be in the land"

February incidents

[edit]

Who wrote this? I never write or edit in Wikipedia but these lies are infuriating. Even reading about this from Israeli media sources in Hebrew, this seems totally far from anything resembling a concensus of what happened, citing a far-right pro-settler newspaper as its only source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.194 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I have removed it. Besides horrible English, Arutz Sheva is not WP:RS for such controversial claims. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

SWP-stuff

[edit]

The reason that I have not linked to SWP p.402, is that for some reason the archive.org version missed about a dozen pages around there. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Robinson & Smith

[edit]

Back in March 2013, this edit added that "In 1838 Qusra (spelled Kausara) was classified as a Muslim village in the subdistrict of el-Beitawi." Ref was Robinson and Smith, 1841, p. 128. vol 3. Alas, I cannot find it on 128 in vol 3 (nor on p. 128 in vol 2, ....and vol 1 is down on Sinai.) Typo...for which ref? Huldra (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I just checked it is in volume 3 on page 128. The title is Biblical researches in Palestine, mount Sinai and Arabia Petrea. See the following link . --Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ah, thanks. I was looking at the "normal" p. 128, alas, it is in the second appendix, p. 128. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

"permission to be in the land"

[edit]

@TheGracefulSlick: This is expanded on here down the paragraph - The Israeli army claimed that the hikers did not coordinate their hike with them, however the hikers dispute this and have presented an e-mail requesting authorization and claim they received a verbal confirmation.[1]. Permission is not required to move in the West Bank - coordination of hikes is something the army requests (however it is not a criminal offense not to do so) - and in this case it is disputed whether this coordination took place. The current text you entered ; the group needed permission to be on the land, but had not applied for it. in a BLP violation (as the BLPs claim (and actually produced an e-mail copy) that they did request) in addition to being factually inaccurate (the so called permission is in regards to coordination for safety of hikes). Please self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

References