Talk:Woodhead Commission

message: The Cohen book has a map of Plan C on pp. 212, but as it's copyright I can't include it in the article. If someone wants to use it to draw a map to include in this article, let me know and I'll scan it in. Noel (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The last sentence  ("The recommendations were eventually rejected by both Zionists and Palestinian Arabs.")..is a bit unclear to me: is it this report (i.e. the Woodhead Commission) ..or was it the 1939 "Round Table" (=White Paper of 1939) that was "eventually rejected by both Zionists and Palestinian  Arabs"? Huldra 03:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unclear

message: I think that the following summary from the UNSCOP report  is better, in particular it exposes the differences between the commissioners more clearly:
: The Partition (Woodhead) Commission, 1938, rejected the partition plan of the Royal Commission upon finding that the Jewish State contemplated by that plan, after certain modifications of the proposed frontier which its security would necessitate, would contain an Arab minority amounting to 49 per cent of the total population. The four commissioners could not, however, agree on any other partition scheme. One concluded that no form of partition was practicable. The chairman and another member recommended a plan according to which the Jewish State would have consisted of a strip of territory in the northern part of the Maritime Plain, approximately 75 kilometres in length, but restricted by an Arab enclave at Jaffa and a corridor connecting with the Mediterranean a Jerusalem enclave under Mandate. The Arab State would consist of the remainder of Palestine except Galilee and the sub-district of Beersheba, which would be administered by the mandatory until the Arab and Jewish populations could agree on their final destination. An essential feature of the plan was a customs union of the Arab State, the Jewish State and the territories under Mandate. The fourth member of the commission recommended the addition to the Jewish State proposed by the chairman and another member of the valleys of Esdraelon and Jezreel with lakes Huleh and Tiberias. --Zero 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: majority opinion?

message: I removed these maps:  A   B  C, because they are completely different from the original maps as reproduced in .  I'll attempt to bring a scan of Map C. Zerotalk 13:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: I removed: "The Commission rejected Arab claims that the Jews had acquired the "best land" in Palestine: "That much of the land now in possession of Jews has become the best land is a truer statement...It was impossible not to be impressed when inspecting some of the bare rocky places where Jewish settlements have been or are in the course of being made. Such remarkable efforts may well disturb statistics. [The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps, Martin Gilbert, p. 29]" This appears in the "Note of reservations by Sir Alison Russell", not in the canonical report of the commission. Zerotalk 07:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a "minority report" either, since Russell signed the main report. Zerotalk 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal research counts for nothing. The source quotes it as a "Minority Report."--Geewhiz (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  A better source (the original) calls it a Note of Reservation and records that Russell signed the report. Zerotalk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Ditto. News reports and academic books give the date as Nov 8. And there is no mention whatsoever of this commission's report in the long-winded piece of nothing you linked to. -Geewhiz (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Seems to be variance between the sources, but after seeing Nov. 9 in a reliable source, I have changed it, as requested.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not refer just to Plan C. That is your interpretation, which again, counts for nothing.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  First sentence of Russell's reservations: "For the following reasons it seems to me that plan B is to be preferred to plan C."  The only words in Russell's reservations similar to the claim: "In my opinion, an offer to the Jews of a state of the size proposed in plan C does not comply with the obligations to them." Zerotalk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This is in quotes, in the cited source, and so it will remain.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original shows your source to be unreliable on this issue. Zerotalk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This is a conclusion that is valid, sourced, factual, and provides a succinct summary for the reader.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "tiny" is an opinion since it ignores the land quality.  There are plenty of other opinions including those of the report itself that should be represented. Zerotalk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This is what the sources say. Your belief that the plans are different requires qualification.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: All the information added to the article is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not based on quotes from plans, they are based on sources such as the books and articles I have cited. Are you planning to edit war over this article? Just wondering.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said before to someone else, the sourcing rules are designed to prevent OR, not to allow someone to wikilawyer in material known to be false. Zerotalk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: zero - what gives? i turn my head for a minute and you are taking geewhiz to task based on OR? i don't get it. not to mention gee's use of RS. some enlightenment might help us...  Soosim (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This page has been improved immeasurably since I worked on it. It is now a full-fledged article that conveys to the reader what this commission was, why it was appointed, some of the behind-the-scenes intrigues and what it led to. I have cited academic books & contemporary coverage of the commission's work by a respected news agency. Wikipedia is not based on primary sources, and Zero has been around long enough to know that. There is nothing suboptimal here, except Zero's attempts to scare me away.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mistakingly including false content is always suboptimal, even if content is compliant with policy. If the article says that "Commission rejected Arab claims that the Jews had acquired the best land" while the actual report by the commission does not, then the claim has to go, regardless whether a historian (Gilbert) supports it or not. We are here to present accurate information to the reader, not disinformation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

text: You obviously have not read the article and are taken in by the misleading arguments of O. This is quoted from a Minority Report submitted by the Commission, and it is as worthy of inclusion as any other part of the commission's findings. Another point worth mentioning is that the commission was made up of a total of 4 members, so that even a "minority" opinion is far from  trivial. In fact, before I touched the page, it stated that a "majority" of the members supported Plan C, whereas the truth (covered up by Zero's wording) is that two members out of four supported it with reservations.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact all four members signed the report, but it was me who correctly added the reservations of Russell and Reid (which you removed in the case of Russell, replacing it with a distortion of his position). Zerotalk 11:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect and biased claims 

message: I have been reading the Peel and Woodhead reports, and I am trying to better understand the economic difficulties mentioned here.  Going by the Peel report, it seem like its a reference to Jewish and British Subvention. It appears that Jewish per capita revenue contributions were higher, which allowed better public services for the Arabs, so partition would mean that Arabs would no longer profit from the taxable capacity of the Jewish, and thus the Jewish state would have to pay the Arabs state?! Take half of the debt total debt, while the Arabs will get additional grants from British(source. This seems weird. Does anyone have any WP:RS that covers this topic.--PLNR (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economical aspect 

message: Ykantor, I suggested before that you read para 484; here it is for your convenience (my emphasis):
: In chapters XI, XIII and XIV, we have described, under the title of plan C, the best plan of partition which we have been able to devise. We will now summarize, under different heads, the chief points which in our opinion His Majesty's Government will have to take into account in deciding whether this plan can be regarded as equitable and practicable or not, and will indicate our views on each.
So the Chapter itself says it is about Plan C.  Then the chapter has 7 sections, each considering one aspect of Plan C, saying so explicitly multiple times and referring for its data back to the earlier chapters about Plan C.  The words you quote "we found that it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend" are prefixed by "In chapter XVIII", which is a detailed economic analysis of Plan C.  The figures like 610,000 quoted just below come from the tables in chapter XVIII about Plan C. Compare the text in this paragraph with that in Para 383 of Chapter XVIII:
: The situation under plan C is, therefore, that as a result of partition, and leaving out of account the cost of defence, while the Jewish State will enjoy a surplus of nearly £P.600,000 per annum, the Arab State will be faced with a deficit of about £P.550,000, or £P.610,000 if Trans-Jordan is united...
It is almost verbatim, the same numbers, proving beyond doubt that this paragraph is about Plan C. Zerotalk 09:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Chapter XXII about?

message: These is the differences between Zero and myself:
title                                                                                        	Zero                                                                                               	ykantor
The present text (see also note A,B,C,D above)                                               	Support; Have not referred yet to claims of mistaken text.                                         	Oppose. Includes mistakes (see note A,B,C,D above)
My edit compared to the previous text                                                        	Zero removed my edit while claiming: removed massive distortion                                    	Support: The text is a quote of the relevant chapter, so it can not be wrong. My edit replaced a clearly wrong text, hence it is an improvement.
Ykantor (past) version-1                                                                     	Oppose: Your text tries to blame the whole failure on the Arab economy, it is highly misleading and	" . see above
Ykantor (past) version-2                                                                     	Oppose: not a correct summary of Woodhead's case                                                   	Support: It is correct. It is agreed to add whatever is supposedly missing,
What is Chapter XXII about?                                                                  	Chapter itself says it is about Plan C                                                             	This last chapter's title speaks for itself: "CHAPTER XXII.—SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION "(p. 232). The chapter apparently does not mention plans A,B because the commission decided that it should not be in the conclusions. Moreover,  it is agreed to add this info to the article.
My editing of multiple articles                                                              	Oppose: Ykantor wrote in 17 articles (a highly antisocial action)                                  	Support: My edit improved those articles, hence it is a positive act.
"the partition plan was rejected because there could not be a financially viable Arab State;"	'that is simply a false summary.".                                                                 	This is not written in my text. My text is a direct quote that the report text, and says that the commission propose a  partition plan which is satisfactory if the U.K will pay "the very considerable financial"... (annual payment to the Arab state).
                                                                                             	                                                                                                   	
If you do not agree with the table presentation of your views, I'll appreciate if you modify it accordingly.
Will you cooperate if I'll refer the discussion to wp:drn? Ykantor (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am on the road from tomorrow for a week and won't have time to do more than look in occasionally.  I don't necessarily support the previous text and indeed it has problems.  But your "summary" was worse.  For one thing, it is essential to mention that the WC rejected the Peel plan outright and why; it wasn't economics!  The rest was hardly even within the terms of reference, as the WC report openly admits.  DRN is too drastic at the moment. Zerotalk 07:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit ( The Diff page ) <P>-replaced a mistaken text 1: "It published its conclusions on November 9, 1938, ultimately rejecting partition as unfeasible on administrative and financial grounds."<P>- and mistaken text 2: "concluded that no plan of partition could be evolved within the terms of reference which would, in the view of the members of the Commission, offer much hope of success, for eventual establishment of self-supporting Arab and Jewish states"<P>- with the correct text: "and found that "it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting". It proposed "a modification of partition which, ...seems, subject to certain reservations, to form a satisfactory basis of settlement", if the U.K is prepared to provide a "sufficient assistance to enable the Arab State to balance its budget".<P>- Hence my edit clearly improved the article. <P>- As to your comment: "to mention that the WC rejected the Peel plan outright and why", please go ahead. As said previously, if in your opinion a text from the report body  is sufficiently important than it could be added to the conclusions. Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodhead commission 2

message: == External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Woodhead Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Woodhead Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified