Talk:Stamp Act 1765

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed Merger Involving Stamp Act Congress

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


After over a month only two opposing opinions have been expressed nd there have been no comments in almost four weeks. Closed w/oconsensus to merge. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

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)

[edit] Support

This section and the Stamp Act Congress article concern the identical subject. The Stamp Act Congress article has content which is not in this article and this article contains content which is not in the Stamp Act Congress article. The Stamp Act Congress article would substantially benefit from the addition of content from this article. With the additional of this additional content the Stamp Act Congress would become a substantial article. To avoid needless duplication of content the size of the section in this article could be reduced. BradMajors (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing in the Stamp Act Congress not in the main article is a complete list of delegates. This can easily be added to the main article without any significant increase in size, and the balance of the Congress article can simply be made into a "redirect" page. Snce you have not made an argument that the Stamp Act article, by Wikipedia standards, is too long, there is no reason why material needs to be removed from it. You have also not made the case about why a separate article is even needed for the Congress when all of the material from that article can easily be included in the reasonably sized main article. Keeping the article "as is" helps to provide a more complete picture of American reaction to the Stamp Act-- the Congress section provides needed context and contrast to the immediately preceding section "Protest in the streets". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No argument is being made that the article should be split based upon the current size of this article. Also, the Stamp Act Congress article is of substantial size and content and there is no reason it should be eliminated based upon its size. A common technique used when two articles discuss the same topic is for one article to be the "main" article and the referring article to contain a summary of the "main" article. BradMajors (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to make it clear exactly what your goal is here. The "common technique" you refer to has nothing to do with WP:MERGE and everything to do with WP:SUMMARY. You have proposed a merge -- this would involve elimination of the entire section. If this is not your goal, then the merge tag should be removed IMMEDIATELY. if this IS your goal, then defend it. What you still fail to make the case for is why ANYTHING should be removed from the current article. You now acknowledge that this has nothing to do with size.
I have referred you to WP:SUMMARY before. In the section titled “Rationale” this article provides:
“The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information."
Since size is NOT the issue, it seems clear based on the above that if the Congress article did not already exist, there would be no reason for creating it. The issue that needs to be addressed, since you decided to make a point of it, is whether maintaining that article serves any real purpose. As I stated earlier and you have not contested, there is only a small amount of material in the Congress article that is not already in the main article. WP:MERGE clearly states as a reason to merge is when “There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.” This is exactly the situation we face here-- there is no reason for a separate article since ALL of the substance from that article can be incorporated into the main article -- the only thing not in the main article is the list of delegates. You said earlier “ To avoid needless duplication of content the size of the section in this article could be reduced.” In fact, the easiest way to “avoid needless duplication” is to eliminate the article Stamp Act Congress in its entirety. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Opposition to Proposed Merger Involving Sons of Liberty

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


After over a month only two opposing opinions have been expressed nd there have been no comments in almost four weeks. Closed w/oconsensus to merge. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

No explanation was offered at the time that this proposed merger was made, and no response has been made to my above objections even though the editor involved has responded to the other proposed merger. I will remove the proposed merger in the near future unless someone cares to defend the merger proposal. In particular, which of the four conditions for merger exist.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Origin of Sons of Liberty

The article uses one citation which states that the use of "Sons of Liberty" precedes 1765, while I am aware of more than one reliable source which states that the use of "Sons of Liberty" started after February 1765. BradMajors (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You misstate the issue. The Pauline Maier reference addresses the use of “sons of liberty” as a generic term -- I have now eliminated the capital letters to make this consistent. You had attempted to delete this fully sourced statement, and I have further clarified its accuracy by expanding the footnote information.
You had replaced the deletion with the following claim, “The term "Sons of Liberty" originated with with Barre's speech in February 1765.” You referenced this to page 130 in the Miller book. In fact, Miller DOES NOT say that the term originated with Barre, but rather says that Barre’s use of the term led to groups adopting this name. Barre’s use of the term was not original but, as Maier also notes, used by him “in the same rhetorical, descriptive sense” that was already common in the colonies. I have put the Miller information back in the article (as I had invited you to do) using the proper context. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
New version of the article in relation to "Sons of Liberty" is much improved. No objection to the new version. BradMajors (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of 3-15-2008

Material had been changed with the edit summary "I believe the "necessity" of that tax was - shall we say - hotly contested, and in fact was what makes the Act notable at all." However the reference to necessity was not intended to be to the Stamp Act, but to the overall economic program of which the Stamp Act was just a part. The Stamp Act was not intended, as the edit sugested, to "alleviate Britain’s greatly increased national debt" but to pay for current and future expenses. While the body of the article makes this clear, the lede did not so I have rewritten it so that the point cannot be missed.

I removed the reference to an increased border size because I'm not sure it is accurate. The border size between French Canada and British North America had been totally eliminated, and I don't think that this reduction was offset by new borders that the British had acquired. In any event, the article is fully sourced and the sources used don't make the claim that total border area was a separate factor from the total size of the newly acquired. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Adams

[[Image:[[[[['''Born-October 30, 1725 Died-July 4, 1826 (age 90) Went to harvard- Age 16, 1751 Graduated- 1755 Got Married- 1755 (Abigail Adams)''']]]]]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.146.43 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the stamp act, the Boston massacure& the boston teaparty

the stamp act took place in 1765.the stamp act was when the british tried to inforce taxes on the colonies.The colonies did not want taxes so they had a meeting about the problems that the taxes had caused. that is when they asked that the people of the colonies will sop buying stamped products.Then king Georage III made a law that the colonies could not keep their law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.11.202.116 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)