Talk:Stamp Act

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2004.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

More information:
/
	This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This redirect 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 articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stamp act links for india[edit]

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC) What is the scenario for India ? Any links ?[reply]

I know of a link that describes stamp act of Karnataka(India) http://wiki.edeskonline.com/Karnataka_Stamp_Act

Stamp Act of 1765[edit]

Added "{{POV-section}}" tag, heavily biased/no sources. KKloepfer (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. the section is firmly based on leading scholars such as Pulitzer Prize winners Morgan, Wood and Foner. POV means that not all scholarly views are represented--so please cite the ones missing??? Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp(s) Act 1694[edit]

Is there any justification for referring to the 1694 act as the "Stamps Act" rather than "Stamp Act", or is it a longstanding typo? GrindtXX (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it's not as longstanding as all that: it was introduced in this edit by an IP in January 2014. It looks like a good faith edit, but I'd still like some reassurance from an external reliable source. GrindtXX (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google search (a few pages deep) only shows the no ending–s version. IMHO feel free to repair it.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I have now found several references to it as the Stamps Act, e.g. on The National Archives site, so I'm going to leave it. GrindtXX (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]