Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:Qusra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Palestine Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine , a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request

This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a restricted topic. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)


Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed }} and {{If administrator }}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: 
.ECR-edit-request-warning{
display:none;
}
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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
  • All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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 [1]. --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 ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /