Talk:Stamp Act 1765: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:22, 30 January 2008 edit70.23.56.101 (talk) changes← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:42, 2 February 2008 edit undoNorth Shoreman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,519 edits opposition to proposed inappropriate mergersNext edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	The main effect of the changes are obviously more detail and the addition of sources and footnotes. The final "Later Effects" section of the article still needs to be rewritten and expanded on, and I intend to do that at some point. The only place that I am aware of where I changed the actual substance of the previous article involved the purpose of the Stamp Act -- I attempted to make it clear that while the British debt had been a prime factor in general British policy, the funds from the Stamp Act were to be earmarked strictly for expenses of the British military in America. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		The main effect of the changes are obviously more detail and the addition of sources and footnotes. The final "Later Effects" section of the article still needs to be rewritten and expanded on, and I intend to do that at some point. The only place that I am aware of where I changed the actual substance of the previous article involved the purpose of the Stamp Act -- I attempted to make it clear that while the British debt had been a prime factor in general British policy, the funds from the Stamp Act were to be earmarked strictly for expenses of the British military in America. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Wow, nice expansion! I'll try to copyedit and clean up the article, and maybe we can bring it to GA/FA status. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)		:Wow, nice expansion! I'll try to copyedit and clean up the article, and maybe we can bring it to GA/FA status. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

			==Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Stamp Act Congress==

			The current article on the Stamp Act, considering the importance of the subject and ], is of an appropriate size. The existing section on the Stamp Act Congress is an integral part of the existing article. The editor who tagged this section for elimination has provided no justification for his actions. If any changes are warranted, it would makes much more sense to eliminate the short, poorly written, largely undocumented, and non-encyclopedic article on the ] and merge it into the Stamp Act main article. ] makes this case when it says, “If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.” ] (]) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			==Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Sons of Liberty==

			The current article on the Stamp Act, considering the importance of the subject and ], is of an appropriate size. The editor tagging this section wants to do an end run around the guidelines of ] (which the editor opposes) in which the main article (Stamp Act) would retain some of the substance of the sub-article (Son’s of Liberty). ] contains four reasons why a merge should be contemplated -- none of them apply to this situation. It seems with all the room there is for improvement on the various articles relating to the origins of the American Revolution (including the article on the Son's of Liberty) that editors could make a better use of their time than by trying to dismantle this well-written, well-researched article (which I largely wrote). ] (]) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:42, 2 February 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

Shouldn't this be moved to Stamp Act, 1765 or some such? There were several Stamp Acts in Britain as the Inland Revenue website attests]. Other Commonwealth countries had their own ones too and the concept of passing a law to impose duties is pretty common. adamsan 22:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

You have a point. The title of this article reveals a US-centric viewpoint. I would support moving this to a more specific name, BUT... you would need a disambig page at Stamp Act to list all the acts, and all of this would ONLY be useful IF there ARE any other Stamp Act of xxx articles. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

tax difference source(s)

Would someone document the source for the taxation difference between the English and the colonists? SLM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.56.63.190 (talk • contribs) 4 December 2005.

Vandalism

"1765 Stamp Act

   Main articles: Stamp Act 1765, and ], and ], and ], and ]

supp prettiful??" i luv u marry me?

Thisadd seems wrong to me. I don't know how to fix vandalism, however. Hopefully this will call the attention of someone who does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.140.107 (talk • contribs) 24 January 2006.

repeal?

Why does the section on protest/repeal not talk about the repeal? something should be done about that, and unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to do it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.219.59 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006.

edit

Some idiot changed the page and i do not know what was there to begin with. Would whoever wrote this page please restore it to its original form? (note) i tried to guess at what it should have been, but I may be wrong Beefpelican 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Revision (9-24-2007)

The main effect of the changes are obviously more detail and the addition of sources and footnotes. The final "Later Effects" section of the article still needs to be rewritten and expanded on, and I intend to do that at some point. The only place that I am aware of where I changed the actual substance of the previous article involved the purpose of the Stamp Act -- I attempted to make it clear that while the British debt had been a prime factor in general British policy, the funds from the Stamp Act were to be earmarked strictly for expenses of the British military in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice expansion! I'll try to copyedit and clean up the article, and maybe we can bring it to GA/FA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Stamp Act Congress

The current article on the Stamp Act, considering the importance of the subject and WP:Article size, is of an appropriate size. The existing section on the Stamp Act Congress is an integral part of the existing article. The editor who tagged this section for elimination has provided no justification for his actions. If any changes are warranted, it would makes much more sense to eliminate the short, poorly written, largely undocumented, and non-encyclopedic article on the Stamp Act Congress and merge it into the Stamp Act main article. WP:MERGE makes this case when it says, “If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Sons of Liberty

The current article on the Stamp Act, considering the importance of the subject and WP:Article size, is of an appropriate size. The editor tagging this section wants to do an end run around the guidelines of WP:Summary style (which the editor opposes) in which the main article (Stamp Act) would retain some of the substance of the sub-article (Son’s of Liberty). WP:MERGE contains four reasons why a merge should be contemplated -- none of them apply to this situation. It seems with all the room there is for improvement on the various articles relating to the origins of the American Revolution (including the article on the Son's of Liberty) that editors could make a better use of their time than by trying to dismantle this well-written, well-researched article (which I largely wrote). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: