Talk:Uganda Scheme

Programme

Why is it "program" as opposed to "programme"? Is there a reason for this? In the 20th century, I believe "programme" was the accepted form. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

is it still spelled that way in the UK? It seems to me that the reason it is spelled "program" is simply that this is how it is spelled today in most of the English speaking world. It should be irrelevant how it was spelled in the early 20th century. Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the early 20th century, I said the 20th century. This word is spelled "programme" in the UK and in most of the English speaking world. Previous to the 20th century, I think "program" may have been the accepted spelling wordlwide, hence my comment above, but as you say archaic forms are not particularly relevant. Today, "Program" is only used as a term in computing. Badgerpatrol (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The accepted usage is "programme" in the UK, and if anything, this is a UK topic (more or less). The above comment raised little discussion in several months, so I have gone ahead and moved the page. If a noun, the title of the page should be "British Uganda Programme", and I think this is most accurate and appropriate here. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is of EXTREME importance, both because its content is so little known, and because it throws new light on the whole Arab-Israel conflict. The article makes clear that the existence of a "Jewish Homeland" as a (probably necessary) sanctuary from Jewish persecution need not be conflated with an obsession for a particular piece of real estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweinber (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of what relevance is your opinion to improving the article ... which is the purpose of this page? And FWIW, you have misinterpreted the page -- Uganda was always seen as, at best, a temporary location. As for whether Zionism is an "obsession", the page does not and should not make any claim. -- 98.108.198.144 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to the immediate above individual, the Uganda plan as it was written was not supposedly going to be only a "temporary" plan it would have foreseeable been the conclusion. As the writer above you noted, although I will put my own analysis on it, this British Uganda Programme is very interesting and often not well known. It shows to many thinkers that along with the involvement of the powerful Rothschild bankers of Europe that Zionism clearly grew out of the contemporary European colonialism of that time and also again with the Rothschild banker backers (Rothschild family) Zionism's relative "successes" were clearly owed largely to powerful connections the Zionists had with in particular the British elite (that the Rothschild bankers themselves were members of).Historylover4 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor source

The Jewish Virtual Library article, which is very poor and doesn't even have an author indicated, should be replaced by something better. Zero^talk 12:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Since your post the JVL citation had been moved to the Kishinev mention. As there are 4 other citations there and it doesn't add much I deleted it. Mcljlm (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Zionism and the Roads Not Taken 1880-1948

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 February 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camel Intellectual (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 21FUN21, Discreetalmonds.

— Assignment last updated by Dolly City (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Is there anything in the Jewish Virtual Library article on Herzl which isn't in the other sources cited next to it? If the JVL is cited at all perhaps https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-uganda-proposal-1903 would be better. Mcljlm (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)