Talk:Qusra

February incidents
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)
 * 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)

SWP-stuff
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)

Robinson & Smith
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"permission to be in the land"
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.. 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)