text:
Talk:Circadian rhythm

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sshong94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

article
http://www.physorg.com/news174228584.html looks interesting and maybe relevant to this article. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps better at Suprachiasmatic nuclei. But anything this fresh needs be accepted by more research teams than the first one, to qualify for Wikipedia.  - Hordaland (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Circadian rhythm and genetics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKnO6l2GKXE Ignite talk by Adam Claridge Chang about the Pomace fly and circadian rhythm. Notjim (talk)

How proven is that picture anyway?
I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_clock_human.PNG

I have my doubts such a picture can be produced scientifically correct, without qualifiers 88.159.72.240 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The file description attributes the information to a source. I believe it is at least approximately correct, and I'm not sure it makes sense to ask for more from a picture of this type.  I also feel that the article is probably better for having the picture.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Looie this time :-)
 * The schedule shown is clearly that of a morning person (I do not have highest productivity at 10 a.m.!). The items/events chosen to illustrate the rhythm could have been other ones.  In some cases, the order of the items will not be correct.  (Evening people have their highest productivity in the afternoon.  Lowest body temperature varies widely individually.)
 * Such an illustration is just that: an illustration. It can't possibly be absolutely correct for any one person, and the reader will understand that. It presents the general idea very well, and it is attractive. - Hordaland (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that mean though? “just an illustration“? That it is useless? Then it should not look like it is, and not be shown. — 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn’t even state which dusk and dawn times it is based on, shows you how bad this picture is. Let alone that dusk and dawn take some time too. They can not be correct for any place that's not perfectly on the equator and doesn’t use a clock based on the very local true noon anyway. E.g. for my location, the sun can go down at 22:00 with daylight saving in summer, or at 16:30 PM in winter, and but true noon can be up to 45 minutes off from out official time zone. How do the times in that picture even relate to that reality? — 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A source?
Under Circadian_rhythm it reqiures a citation for people, average, having a slightly longer that 24h circadian rhythm. The following seems to be a valid source, cited in Psychology: Themes and Variations, a first year uni textbook for psych. Anybody with a bit more familiarity could add it.

Czeisler, C.A., Buxton, O.M., & Khalsa, S. (2005). The human circadian timing system and sleep-wake regulation. In M.H. Kryger, T. Roth, & W.C. Dement (Eds.), "Principles and practice of sleep medicine". Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-72-160797-7%2F50038-0 70.26.108.98 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have a suggestion for this page. I would just do it myself, but I am not well-versed in this field and would hate to mess things up. This page is written for scientists only in many places. While I support the use of technical language when it is necessary to use it, I think it's been significantly abused here. Take this for example: "Although circadian rhythms are endogenous, they are adjusted (entrained) to the environment by external cues called zeitgebers, the primary one of which is daylight".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.210 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not intended to be written for scientists only -- the goal is to say things in the simplest terminology that makes the statements fully correct. I think perhaps though we can at least use a more common word than "endogenous". Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ways to reset circadian rhythm
What do you guys think about a section on adjusting your circadian rhythm? Most people use light exposure, melatonin supplements, and more recently food exposure.

http://parentingsquad.com/easy-way-to-reset-your-sleep-cycle-stop-eating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.84.200 (talk • contribs)

 * I think a section on that might be good, if the material is based on reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The article on Sleep architecture is not much more than a stub, and I think would be better off if it were merged into this article under the human health section. Sleep architecture seems to refer essentially to the makeup of one's sleep - the time spent in non-REM (NREM) and REM sleep stages, how much total sleep one gets in a 24 hr period, and how sleep is phased throughout that 24 hour period (ie. one long period of sleep, or two shorter ones, or a large number of much shorter periods). These parameters and the concept of bringing them together under the term "sleep architecture" is well within the scope of this article's discussion, and this (relatively minor) merger would benefit wikipedia in my opinion. Also, I noticed that before this article was made,the search term "Sleep architecture" would redirect you to the article "Sleep" into the section Stages of sleep. That might also be an appropriate place to merge "Sleep architecture"; I personally found it rather difficult to decide whether that location is more or less appropriate than this one - I am interested in what others may think. Spiral5800 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sleep architecture is a stub. If it were to be merged anywhere, Sleep would be the logical place, but that article is already 65 kilobytes long.  Sleep architecture is a fascinating topic with a short history.  The article should rather be built upon to include much of the sleep stage info from the article Sleep.
 * In any case, Circadian rhythm is not the place for sleep architecture! Sleep architecture is primarily about the sleep stages which are ultradian, not circadian.  Sleep is perhaps the most noticable circadian feature in animal life, but it is far from the only one. --Hordaland (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the argument that the Sleep article might be a better place for this information to be merged into is an argument with some merit. However, I disagree on your point about sleep architecture not being a term for a specific kind of circadian rhythm.  "circa-" means "around", and "-dian" is of course "day", and while indeed some people's sleep cycles may tend towards being ultradian, other peoples can also tend to be infradian - a circumstance that is best described as circadian.  Therefore, I think that sleep architecture at the very least deserves a mention on this page, if the sleep architecture stub is not merged here.  I think, perhaps, that sleep architecture deserves its own section on the article on human sleep, but that does not mean that the "architecture" of human sleep does not deserve some mention in the article on circadian rhythms.  Sleep is the most obvious and arguably most profound of circadian rhythms exhibited in human beings.  It is hard to find a system in the human body that does not follow a circadian rhythm; everything from blood pressure to cell division has a sinusoidal circadian cycle (in the case of cell division, this has allowed the development of chronotherapy - also known as chronochemotherapy - which is designed to deliver the highest doses of chemotherapeutic drugs when healthy cells are dividing the least and cancer cells, which due to various mutations are generally out of phase with the rest of the body, are dividing the most).  Nearly all of the healthy circadian rhythms observed in humans have a relationship to sleep; the body's biological clock is the clock these rhythms are tuned to follow - they are not directly "tuned" to the time of day except insofar as the person in question's sleep/wake cycle is "tuned" to daylight/darkness.  I point all of this out to emphasize the extreme importance of sleep cycles in modulating all the body's other circadian rhythms, which is my reasoning for suggesting that sleep architecture be merged into this article - or if not merged, then at least mentioned.  Spiral5800 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An even stronger reason for discussing sleep architecture in this article is that there is quite a bit of evidence that the transition to REM sleep is controlled by the circadian clock -- in many people with major depressive disorder, the onset of sleep is delayed but the transition to REM still occurs at roughly the usual time of night. However for a detailed account of sleep architecture I agree that the sleep article is a more appropriate home. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This very old proposal seems never to have been agreed - there are sound arguments against, including one at Talk:Sleep architecture, so I suggest we drop it now - I'm boldly removing the tag from the article. Happy to discuss if need be, but no point in leaving tags around indefinitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just have a title that refers to that sleep argument. Have it blank under, and send a link to it. then under it put {main|Sleep architecture}

Sleep Architecture Main Article: Sleep archecture       {main|Sleep architecture} Sidelight12 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yeah, good idea. Let's do that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I put it under see also instead. I have doubts. Sidelight12 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Let's leave it out, it has to do with phases of sleep rather than time of day, I linked it from see also, on the bottom instead.Sidelight12 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Sleeping code on a sleeping topic? Geniale, as the French say. I'd be for waking it up: it has to do with structure of sleep to which CR contributes: and it feels funny putting in a see also without saying why. ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that instead we merge ultradian rhythm here. Rather than being stand-alone concepts, ultradian and infradian hardly make sense except in relationhip together with circadian. The ultradian article (and infradian even more so) is presently just a stub anyway. Perhaps we should also talk more generally about the best ways to improve or restructure this encyclopedia's treatment of chronobiology? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * ? That seems to be a wholly separate question. How does that address the question of what to do with the merger of sleep architecture? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Non-issue. Sleep architecture only duplicated content already covered at the sleep article. The topic pertained specifically to the non-circadian periodicity in sleep, so there seemed to be a strong consensus above or at Talk:Sleep architecture that this would be a silly place to merge it - and the only opposing argument I've heard is that the sleep article is long (how is that a valid argument?). I think the horse is dead; the discussion is now several times longer than the stub ever was. How about we draw a line under it and move on to a question that hasn't already been answered? (Like, how can we best fix the high degree of scope-overlap creeping among this page, chronobiology and circadian clock?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Light Ethology navbox - footer or sidebar
Question at Template talk:Light Ethology that you might be able to help with, or give feedback/suggestions on. (please reply there) Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Overtirering?
It seems a bit odd, but I don't find anything on the page about being overtired? It seems fairly essential, and yets its missing? Unifoe (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the influence of the circadian cycle on sleepiness, I agree that the article ought to discuss it a bit more, although it isn't as simple a topic as one might think. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Explain why this is faulty
''Early research into circadian rhythms suggested that most people preferred a day closer to 25 hours when isolated from external stimuli like daylight and timekeeping. However, this research was faulty because it failed to shield the participants from artificial light. Although subjects were shielded from time cues (like clocks) and daylight, the researchers were not aware of the phase-delaying effects of indoor electric lights.[28] The subjects were allowed to turn on light when they were awake and to turn it off when they wanted to sleep. Electric light in the evening delayed their circadian phase. These results became well-known.[29]''

To me, this sounds contradictory. Circadian rhythm is described as an internal master clock. The article then goes on to say, however, that one's activity pattern can be influenced by the presence of light. This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist, since activity is driven by light as well, and not the supposed internal master clock. The quoted passage appears to be starting with the conclusion (that a 24hr circadian rhythm exists) and then faults the study for not corroborating it. Working merely from the evidence, and using available light as a control factor, the study seems to show that there is no 24hr internal clock. Shielding subjects from artificial light, as the passage puts it, would invalidate the control variable. If the study had done that, it would set the amount of light available during the day to the same amount assumed by the circadian rhythm theory, and would not prove that the 24hr cycle was driven internally as opposed to being driven by the availability of light. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Let me try to explain in a different way. Consider these three conditions:  (1) the lights are on all the time; (2) the lights are off all the time; (3) subjects can turn the lights on or off whenever they want to.  None of those conditions impose a circadian rhythmicity, but subjects in all of them nevertheless show rhythms of approximately 24 hours.  However, each of the conditions gives a slightly different period.  Which of them is the truecircadian period?  The question really doesn't have an answer. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 * To say "This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist" is reading too much into the research. It's quite clear that a circadian rhythm does exist - even if it can be interfered with through the use of natural or artificial light. The quoted paragraph doesn't address what the period of the natural circadian rhythm actually is, it only explains how researchers came to conclude that it was 25 hours. I really don't think this is contradictory. Ben Aveling 11:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
 * hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
 * JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
 * REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
 * http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
 * SEE ALSO:
 * http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
 * http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com

CITEVAR, MEDRS, and primary sources
I'm alarmed at the state of this article. Please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. This is not an uncommon topic; secondary reviews are available. Recent secondary reviews should be used. There is no reason for blog sourcing here. Per WP:CITEVAR, the earliest cited versions of this article show that the citation format used was the one generated by the Diberri BogHog PMID citation filling template. When I started working here, I found citation formatting all over the place, and made them consistent to the original citation format. Please follow. Also, there is an outdated list in Further reading that could probably be pruned, and the link farm in See also should be pruned or worked into the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The extremely poor sourcing in this article makes no sense; PubMed shows dozens of recent secondary reviews, and quite a few with free full-text available. Why are they not used?  This article contains numerous strings of primary sources yielding [{WP:OR|original research]] or giving undue weight to certain aspects, when there are gobs of good secondary reviews that could be used.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * QUESTION: So, a year and a half later, is the sourcing better now? Just asking, AstroU (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for collaboration: paragraph on align school schedules with adolescents' circadian rhythms and sleep needs
From the current issue of the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. --SvenAERTS (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "If we more closely align school schedules with adolescents' circadian rhythms and sleep needs, we will have students who are more alert, happier, better prepared to learn, and aren't dependent on caffeine and energy drinks just to stay awake in class."
 * "Most teenagers undergo a biological shift to a later sleep-wake cycle, which can make early school start times particularly challenging. In this study, we looked at whether a relatively modest, temporary delay in school start time would change students' sleep patterns, sleepiness, mood and caffeine use."
 * "Later School Start Time is Associated with Improved Sleep and Daytime Functioning in Adolescents,"

 * Have you seen Start School Later movement? Hordaland (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Under the heading "Origin"
This is suggested by the maintenance (heritability) of circadian rhythms in fruit flies after several hundred generations in constant laboratory conditions,[13] as well as in creatures in constant darkness in the wild, and by the experimental elimination of behavioural but not physiological circadian rhythms in quail. -This sentence should be made into two sentences. It is too lengthy which can get confusing when reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabadura (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Endocrine Reviews
Review about circadian metabolism 10.1210/er.2015-1007 JFW | T@lk  22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

heart rate changes - citation
I believe this is a citation for the following sentence: "Other physiological changes that occur according to a circadian rhythm include heart rate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.110.26 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does "mesor" redirect here?
What does it mean? Equinox (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 * According to the Dictionary of Circadian Physiology, the mesor is "An estimate of central tendency of the distribution of values of an oscillating variable (the average value around which the variable oscillates). The mesor is a circadian rhythm-adjusted mean based on the parameters of a cosine function fitted to the raw data. Note: When a process is known to be rhythmic, and the data points are not equidistant or the sample size is small, the Mesor often provides a more appropriate unbiased estimator of central tendency than does the arithmetic mean of the raw data." We should probably have a short article about that concept rather than a redirect to this article, but I wouldn't be capable of writing one without more research than I feel like doing. Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
Caffine at bedtime pushes back the body's circadian clock. Headline-1: Caffeine at Night Does More Than Keep You Up Late QUOTE: "SCIENTISTS FIND THAT ESPRESSO 3 HOURS BEFORE BEDTIME DELAYS THE CIRCADIAN CLOCK ... caffeine has another physiological impact on sleep by delaying the body's natural surge in the production of the sleep hormone melatonin, which in turn pushes back the body's circadian clock. "To our surprise, no one had really tested this question," one of the researchers tells NPR. "What we're seeing here now is another way that caffeine impacts our physiology that we didn't know about before in humans." The problem in this case is that the circadian clock is "present in cells throughout our entire body," says the researcher. "It's in your fat cells; it's in your muscle cells." Messing with it appears to play a role in a wide range of health problems, from obesity to cancer. Many studies have recently suggested that bright light at night, especially the blue light emanating from our screens, impedes melatonin production." -- AstroU (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: For future editing.
 * http://www.newser.com/story/212954/caffeine-at-night-does-more-than-keep-you-up-late.html

Bill Nye for National Science Foundation
Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Suggest we do not add it. --Hordaland (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * It might be helpful to say a word or two about why it shouldn't be added. Looie496 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 * They probably believe that the truth of statements is based on if the person has been cancelled or shown virtue. ;) … Yes, certain people seriously “think” like this. — 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-primary source needed?
I'm noticing a lot of tags in the Reference section that say, "non-primary source needed." Primary sources are sometimes the only sources available, and there's no rule against them. Instead, they need to be used "with care." I've always understood that to mean that when poking around on Google Scholar, if I find something that seems useful and informative, I'll first check to see if it reflects the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For example, a single research paper is nothing, but if it's been frequently cited that's better. My next question is: has the research been independently corroborated? If so, do the experts in the field take it seriously, or are they just ignoring it? Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but it is usually easier to see whether something reflects mainstream opinion by looking at how it is covered in authoritative review articles. Using review articles as sources whenever possible makes our articles easier to maintain. Looie496 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Endocrine Reviews
Impact on sleep 10.1210/er.2016-1083 JFW | T@lk  14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Illegible to Common Readers
Who opens an article with that phrase for an encyclopedia? 173.15.73.108 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Yeah, we should probably fix that. PriceDL (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A clockwork Wiki: This article was featured in an academic paper on Wikipedia
Hello, My name is Omer, and I'm a journalist and young researcher based in Israel. Over the past two years, me and Rona Aviram, a clock biologist from the Weizmann Institute of Science, have studied this article and the one for Circadian Rhythms to try to understand how science and Wikipedia interact. What began as an argument between two friends from two different worlds - me from the history and philosophy of science, and Rona from biology - turned into a full on study of how scientific knowledge is collectively created on Wikipedia.

I am super excited to say the paper is now out on the peer-reviewed Journal of Biological Rhythms. In the paper, we trace how certain ideas permeated from academic literature into these articles and also focused on who edited and contributed content. Specifically, we focused on how people like Hordaland who had personal knowledge despite having no official academic training, were able to contribute in way that in the past was impossible.

For the next few weeks that article will be free to download from the SAGE website (you just need to create a SAGE user name, which is free... I hope to put in on some preprint archive once I figure out which version I can legally do this for)

I'm having some technical difficulties uploading the figures, which I would love to share with you, and will try to do so soon

We would love to hear your feedback Omer Benjakob and Rona Avira --Omer Benjakob (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your analysis and fascinating insights into the edits and evolution of the Circadian clock and Circadian rhythm articles. I find most interesting is the evidence that you provide that Wikipedia is also influencing the scientific community, even though Wikipedia's target audience is the general public. The WP:Signpost highlight academic studies on Wikipedia, so I think this paper should be highlighted there. Thanks again for providing such an interesting read. Boghog (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice writeup on your work here!
See
 * Published April 17, 2018.

I was going to add this to the boxes above but that is built from newspapers or the like. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Useless times throughout the article.
In the article, in many place, times for certain events are noted. Example:

 * “[…] the daily body temperature minimum occurred at about 04:00 (4 a.m.) for morning types, but at about 06:00 (6 a.m.) for evening types.”

But it is never mentioned in relation to what they were meant. The actual time of sunrise or sunset isn’t mentioned. The time zone isn’t mentioned. The time of year and latitude aren’t mentioned. '''Meaning those times are pretty much useless. They could be off from the true local time (based on the sun) by literal hours.''' Most of the time, not even if this was still based on studies using artificial light was mentioned. Can we fix this? — 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circadian rhythm


text:
White Paper of 1939

The White Paper of 1939 was a policy paper issued by the British government, led by Neville Chamberlain, in response to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. After its formal approval in the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, it acted as the governing policy for Mandatory Palestine from 1939 to the 1948 British departure. After the war, the Mandate was referred to the United Nations.

The policy, first drafted in March 1939, was prepared by the British government unilaterally as a result of the failure of the Arab–Zionist London Conference. The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the Peel Commission's idea of partitioning Palestine. It also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for five years and ruled that further immigration would then be determined by the Arab majority (section II). Jews were restricted from buying Arab land in all but 5% of the Mandate (section III).

The proposal did not meet the political demands proposed by Arab representatives during the London Conference and was officially rejected by the representatives of Palestine Arab parties, who were acting under the influence of Haj Amin Effendi al-Husseini, but the more moderate Arab opinion that was represented by the National Defence Party was prepared to accept the White Paper.

Zionist groups in Palestine immediately rejected the White Paper and led a campaign of attacks on government property that lasted for several months. On 18 May, a Jewish general strike was called.

Regulations on land transfers and clauses restricting immigration were implemented, but at the end of the five years in 1944, only 51,000 of the 75,000 immigration certificates provided for had been used. In light of this, the British offered to allow immigration to continue beyond the cutoff date of 1944, at a rate of 1,500 per month, until the remaining quota was filled. From December 1945 to the 1948 end of the Mandate, 1,500 additional certificates for Jewish immigrants were allocated each month. Key provisions were ultimately never to be implemented, initially because of cabinet opposition after the change in government and later because of preoccupation with World War II.

Background

During World War I, the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the Hashemite governors of Arabia, through Lawrence of Arabia and the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, independence for a united Arab country in Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Caliphate had declared a military jihad for the Germans, and the British hoped that an alliance with the Arabs would quell chances of a general Muslim uprising in British-held territories in Africa, India and the Far East. Britain had also negotiated the Sykes–Picot Agreement to partition the Middle East between Britain and France.

A variety of strategic factors, such as securing Jewish support in Eastern Europe while the Russian front collapsed, culminated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration in which Britain promised to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. The broad delineations of territory and goals for both the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and Arab self-determination were approved in the San Remo Conference.

In June 1922, the League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate, effective September 1923, an explicit document on Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine, including 'secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home', and 'safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine'. In September 1922, the British government presented the Trans-Jordan memorandum to the League of Nations that stated that the Emirate of Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate. The memorandum was approved on 23 September. Stiff Arab opposition and pressure against Jewish immigration made Britain redefine Jewish immigration by restricting its flow according to the country's economic capacity to absorb the immigrants. In effect, annual quotas were put in place as to how many Jews could immigrate, but Jews possessing a large sum of money (£500) were allowed to enter the country freely.

Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, European Jews were increasingly prepared to spend the money necessary to enter Palestine. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped the 500,000 German Jews of their citizenship. Jewish migration was impeded by Nazi restrictions on the transfer of finances abroad (departing Jews had to abandon their property), but the Jewish Agency for Israel was able to negotiate an agreement that allowed Jews resident in Germany to buy German goods for export to Palestine, thus circumventing the restrictions.

The large numbers of Jews entering Palestine was a cause of the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Britain responded to the revolt by appointing a royal commission, the Peel Commission, which went to Palestine and undertook a thorough study of the issues. The Peel Commission recommended in 1937 for Palestine to be partitioned into two states: one Arab the other Jewish. The proposal was rejected by the Arabs while the Zionist response was "neither positive nor negative" and the Peel Commission failed to stem the violence. In January 1938, the Woodhead Commission explored the practicalities of partition and considered three different plans, one of which was based on the Peel Plan. Reporting in 1938, the Woodhead Commission rejected the plan, primarily on the grounds that it could not be implemented without a massive forced transfer of Arabs, an option that the British government had already ruled out. With dissent from some of its members, the Commission instead recommended a plan that would leave the Galilee under British mandate, but it emphasised serious problems with it such as a lack of financial self-sufficiency of the proposed Arab state. The British government accompanied the publication of the Woodhead Report by a statement of policy rejecting partition as impracticable for "political, administrative and financial difficulties". It proposed a substantially smaller Jewish state, including the coastal plain only. The Évian Conference, convened by the United States in July 1938, failed to find any agreement to deal with the rapidly growing number of Jewish refugees, increasing pressure on the British to find a solution to the problem of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

London Conference
In February 1939, the British called the London Conference to negotiate an agreement between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The Arab delegates attended on the condition that they would not meet directly with the Jewish representatives, which would constitute recognition of Jewish claims over Palestine. The British government, therefore, held separate meetings with the two sides. The conference ended in failure on 17 March.

In the wake of World War II, the British believed that Jewish support was either guaranteed or unimportant. However, the government feared hostility from the Arab world. That geopolitical consideration was, in Raul Hilberg's word, "decisive" to British policies since Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were independent and allied with Britain.

Content
These were the main points of the White Paper:
 * Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met, and it also called for an independent Palestine to be established within 10 years and to be governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [ ... ] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

"The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

 * Section II. Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate was to be limited to 75,000 over the next five years and then would depend on Arab consent:

"His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [ ... ] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East."

Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next four years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five-year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

 * Section III. Land: No restriction had been imposed on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews, but the White Paper now stated:

"The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land."

Parliamentary approval
On 22 May 1939, the House of Commons debated a motion that the White Paper was inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate, but it was defeated by 268 votes to 179. The following day, the House of Lords accepted the new policy without a vote.

During the debate, Lloyd George called the White Paper an "act of perfidy", and Winston Churchill voted against his party although it was in the government. The Liberal MP James Rothschild stated during the parliamentary debate that "for the majority of the Jews who go to Palestine it is a question of migration or of physical extinction".

Some supporters of the government were opposed to the policy on the grounds that it appeared in their view to contradict the Balfour Declaration. Several government MPs voted against the proposals or abstained, including Cabinet Ministers such as the illustrious Jewish Secretary of State for War Leslie Hore-Belisha.

League of Nations
The Permanent Mandates Commission unanimously held that the White Paper was in conflict with the interpretation that the Mandatory Government, with the concurrence of the organs of the League, had put upon the mandate in the past. Four of the members felt that the policy was not in harmony with the terms of the Mandate, and the other three held that existing circumstances would justify the policy if the Council of the League of Nations did not oppose it. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations.

Arab reactions
The Arab Higher Committee initially argued that the independence of a future Palestine government would prove to be illusory since the Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case, real authority would still be in the hands of British officials. The limitations on Jewish immigration were also held to be insufficient since there was no guarantee immigration would not resume after five years. In place of the policy enunciated in the White Paper, the Arab Higher Committee called for "a complete and final prohibition" of Jewish immigration and a repudiation of the Jewish national home policy altogether.

In June 1939, Hajj Amin al-Husayni initially "astonished" the other members of the Arab Higher Committee by turning down the White Paper. According to Benny Morris, the reason that the advantageous proposal was turned down was entirely selfish: "it did not place him at the helm of the future Palestinian state."

In July 1940, after two weeks of meetings with the British representative, S. F. Newcombe, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference, Jamal al-Husseini and fellow delegate Musa al-Alami, agreed to the terms of the White Paper, and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri as-Said.

Zionists
Zionist groups in Palestine immediately rejected the White Paper and began a campaign of attacks on government property and Arab civilians, which lasted for several months. On 18 May, a Jewish general strike was called.

On 27 February 1939, in response to enthusiastic Arab demonstrations after reports that the British were proposing to allow independence to Palestine on the same terms as Iraq, a co-ordinated Irgun bombing campaign across the country killed 38 Arabs and wounded 44.

In response to the White Paper, the right-wing Zionist militant group Irgun began formulating plans for a rebellion to evict the British and to establish an independent Jewish state. Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Irgun, who had been exiled from Palestine by the British, proposed a plan for a revolt to take place in October 1939, which he sent to the Irgun High Command in six coded letters. Jabotinsky's plan, he and other "illegals" would start by arriving in Palestine by boat. Then, the Irgun would help him and the other passengers escape. Next, the Irgun would raid and occupy Government House and other British centres of power in Palestine, raise the Jewish national flag and hold them for at least 24 hours, even at a heavy cost. Simultaneously, Zionist leaders in Western Europe and the United States would proclaim an independent Jewish state in Palestine and function as a government-in-exile. Irgun seriously considered carrying out the plan but was concerned over the heavy losses that would be inevitable. Irgun leader Avraham Stern, who would later break from Irgun to form Lehi, formed a plan for 40,000 armed Jewish fighters recruited in Europe to sail to Palestine and join the rebellion. The Polish government supported his plan and began training Jews and setting aside weaponry for them. However, the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 quickly put an end to those plans.

After the outbreak of war in September 1939, the head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, David Ben-Gurion declared, "We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper."

Aftermath
On 13 July, the authorities announced the suspension of all Jewish immigration into Palestine until March 1940. The reason given was the increase in the number of illegal immigrants.

In March 1940, the British High Commissioner for Palestine issued an edict dividing Palestine into three zones:

"In Zone A, consisting of about 63 percent of the country including the stony hills, land transfers save to a Palestinian Arab were in general forbidden. In Zone B. consisting of about 32 percent of the country, transfers from a Palestinian Arab save to another Palestinian Arab were severely restricted at the discretion of the High Commissioner. In the remainder of Palestine, consisting of about five percent of the country-which, however, includes the most fertile areas—land sales remained unrestricted."

In December 1942, when the extermination of the Jews became public knowledge, there were 34,000 immigration certificates remaining. In February 1943, the British government announced that the remaining certificates could be used as soon as practicable to rescue Jewish children from Southeastern Europe, particularly Bulgaria. This plan was partly successful, but many of those who received certificates were not able to emigrate although those in Bulgaria survived. In July, it was announced that any Jewish refugee who reached a neutral country in transit would be given clearance for Palestine. During 1943 about half the remaining certificates were distributed, and by the end of the war, there were 3,000 certificates left.

At the end of World War II, the British Labour Party conference voted to rescind the White Paper and to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, but the party's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, persisted with the policy, which remained in effect until the May 1948 British departure from Palestine.

After the war, the determination of Holocaust survivors to reach Palestine led to large scale illegal Jewish migration to Palestine. British efforts to block the migration led to violent resistance by the Zionist underground.

Illegal immigrants detained by the British Government were interned in camps on Cyprus. The immigrants had no citizenship and could not be returned to any country. Those interned included a large number of children and orphans.

Immigration statistics compiled in December 1945 indicated that the White Paper allowance had been exceeded by 790 persons when illegal immigrants were included. On 31 January 1946, the High Commissioner announced: It will be recalled that in the Statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of 13 November 1945, it was made clear that His Majesty's Government could not divest themselves of the duties and responsibilities under the Mandate while the Mandate continued. They therefore proposed that they would consult with the Arabs with a view to an arrangement which would ensure that pending the receipt of the interim recommendations of the [Anglo-American] Committee of Inquiry there would be no interruption of Jewish immigration at the present monthly rate. These consultations with the Arabs have been proceeding over a long period and have reached no conclusive result.

In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have now decided for cogent reasons that they must allow immigration to continue provisionally at the proposed rate of 1,500 a month. Preference will be given to those European Jews who have a special claim such as those to whom the Palestine Government have already undertaken obligations, and relatives in Europe of Jews already established in Palestine. Illegal immigrants will of course, continue to be deducted from quotas. The quota of 1,500 certificates for Jewish immigrants per month continued until the end of the mandate.

The Provisional Council of Israel's first constitutional act was a Proclamation that "All legislation resulting from the British Government's White Paper of May 1939, will at midnight tonight become null and void. This includes the immigration provisions as well as the land transfer regulations of February 1940."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: White Paper of 1939


text:
Cervical plexus

The cervical plexus is a nerve plexus of the anterior rami of the first (i.e. upper-most) four cervical spinal nerves C1-C4. The cervical plexus provides motor innervation to some muscles of the neck, and the diaphragm; it provides sensory innervation to parts of the head, neck, and chest.

Anatomy
They are located laterally to the transverse processes between prevertebral muscles from the medial side and vertebral (m. scalenus, m. levator scapulae, m. splenius cervicis) from lateral side. There is anastomosis with accessory nerve, hypoglossal nerve and sympathetic trunk. It is located in the neck, deep to the sternocleidomastoid muscle.

The branches of the cervical plexus emerge from the posterior triangle at the nerve point, a point which lies midway on the posterior border of the sternocleidomastoid.

Relations
The cervical plexus is situated deep to the sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, and deep cervical fascia.

It is situated anterior to the middle scalene muscle, and levator scapulae muscle.

Branches
The cervical plexus has two types of branches: cutaneous and muscular.
 * Cutaneous (4 branches):
 * Lesser occipital nerve - innervates the skin and the scalp posterosuperior to the auricle (C2)
 * Great auricular nerve - innervates skin near concha auricle (outer ear) and external acoustic meatus (ear canal) (C2-C3)
 * Transverse cervical nerve - innervates anterior region of neck (C2 and C3)
 * Supraclavicular nerves - innervate the skin above and below the clavicle (C3-C4)
 * Muscular
 * Ansa cervicalis - a loop formed by C1-C3 that supplies most infrahyoid (a.k.a. "strap") muscles (sternothyroid, sternohyoid, omohyoid muscles) etc.
 * Nerve to thyrohyoid - fibres from C1 that run with the hypoglossal nerve (cranial nerve XII) and do not participate in the formation of the superior root of ansa cervicalis, instead continuing for some further distance to reach and innervate the thyrohyoid muscle and the geniohyoid muscle.
 * Phrenic (C3-C5, but mostly C4) - innervates thoracic diaphragm and the pericardium.
 * Segmental branches (C1-C4) - innervate anterior and middle scalene muscles
 * Levator scapulae muscle (C3-C4) (also innervated by dorsal scapular nerve (C5) of the brachial plexus)

title: Cervical plexus