Talk:Tanganyika groundnut scheme

Vis-à-vis the dispute tag

1. The article says, ".. peanuts will not grow in Tanganyika". I doubt this statement. It could be that groundnuts didnt grow in the specific farms or areas where the scheme was attempted, but Tanzania is 945,090 km², with a variety of climatic ^[1] and agro-ecological zones^[2]. A google search tells that groundnuts are being grown, sold and eaten in Tanzania ^[3].
2. The article says that "the project was a brainchild of the British Labour government of Clement Attlee", and that Frank Samuel of United Africa Company/Unilever came up with the idea. That is an equivocal statement. --Ezeu 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, the first part is contradictory compared to the rest of the article
• 1) Peanuts/Groundnuts do grow in Tanzania and locals had cultivated them in that very area. However, they did not grow in such quantities that British could have used them in industrial production. (They also used European methods that may not actually work in Africa).
• 2) Unclear at the very least, yes. As far as I know, Samuel originated the idea and the Labour government adopted, endorsed and organized it. - Skysmith 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Support the Merge

I've just added a paragraph about the scheme to the Mtwara Region article. Reading the two "Groundnut Scheme" articles, this one is by far the most complete and correct, although both pages fail utterly to even mention the town of Mtwara which was to have been the principal export facility, and was the administrative and commercial base for most of the scheme. BTW, my father was one of the Shell sales reps in the area in the early '50s and had many (only semi-humorous) tales of the absolute incompetence shown by the principals. Yes, it is true that the final killer was the impossibility of harvesting the crop from rock-hard dry clay!  Gordon | Talk, 03:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto: support. This is definitely the better account. Probably needs a little work on sourcing. Tearlach 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --Ezeu 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think with some slight rewording this could be a great standup comedy routine. Just stand there and read this stuff out-loud, about the rhinos and the bees and the flash floods. It's gold :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Main reason it failed

The article doesn't actually mention the main reason the scheme failed. Groundnuts require lots of water, so the British government settled on an area which was subject to drought. This should be in there somewhere. HairyWombat (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. HairyWombat (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

This article is on an interesting subject but was marred by two problems: terrible references (I like to follow references when studying in more depth) and a repeated use of "the Labour government" as a pejorative. I've removed the latter (possibly too much) but the former is beyond me at the moment as I'm new to the subject. Help would be appreciated in making this article useful. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One might add the unencyclopaedic language (‘terrible drought’) and the ironic asides (‘half London’) which give it the tone of an article in Punch (magazine), circa 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3020:1C00:956B:929C:B2D:C8EB (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ground Nuts Order

I've suggested merging Ground Nuts Order here, to the "Cultural references" section. There is one good reference [4] in that article, but this seems like a very old meme and nothing more. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. There is no way that Ground Nuts Order merits a self-standing article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Vic Park (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Not necessary. 1.127.18.41 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support the merge for reasons of short text and context; it's an amusing aside, but this Private Eye (?!) concoction doesn't warrant separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge is done. Feeling a strange urge for some peanut butter cookies. Joyous! | Talk 02:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I read this once in The Guinness Book of Records, a judge had supposedly submitted is as an example of the most inexplicable statute. However there was no mention of it being connected with the Tanganyika scheme. Without better confirmation I suggest we delete it. PatGallacher (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)