Talk:Navigation Acts

message: This is very similar to the other page and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpanko (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merge they are both relatively short and on the same topic. Maestlin 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Under the description in this article for the result of the first Anglo-Dutch War it reads:
"This led to the First Anglo-Dutch War, in which eventual naval victory forced the Dutch to acknowledge the Act in the Treaty of Westminster (1674)."
However, the article for the Anglo-Dutch Wars states:
"As both nations were by now exhausted, peace negotiations were started. The war ended on 1654-04-05 with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster, but the commercial rivalry was not resolved, the British having failed to replace the Dutch as the world's dominant trade nation."
Which one is it? (either the English "won" or they didn't)
BTW, this article *should* merged with the article "Navigation acts" (lower-case 'a' starting second word).
Critic9328 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it's of course the treaty of 1654 that is relevant :o). Secondly, there is no real contradiction. In the second half of the war the English were clearly on the upper hand and in that they won the last three major battles the war could certainly be described as a naval victory for them. But they couldn't prevent the Dutch from coming back each time. The British elite was less motivated to invest much of its money into a possible gain than the Dutch elite was willing to use all of its (superior) resources in preventing a certain loss. So from a political point of view the war ended in a draw. It's usual to call them the Navigation Acts. --MWAK 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Anglo-Dutch War an English victory or draw? 

message: Should somebody remove the merge tag because when I clicked on the article that the tag said it would be merged with, it gave me the exact same article that I was on. I would remove the tag, but I don't know how. Isabella123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.121.79 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Question 

message: Why is there so much information on the other acts in this article?  It makes it look like they are all part of the navigation acts.  If they are, then it needs to be more clear on that.  I just don't see what the Molasses Act is on this page for, along with all of the other things on the bottom. Chkiss 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important?

message: I think that these are all seperate Navigation acts.  I think it is perfectly clear because it says above it "Navigation Acts" and then it list the acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun4evrr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate acts

message: I have reorganised this article into chronological order.  In doing so, I've lost the section tile "Restoration Acts" which, at least to me, doesn't really make sense.  Can anyone explain what was intended? --Red King 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English History the term 'Restoration' always refers to the Restoration of Charles II at the end of the Commonwealth.  I have amended the section in various ways, which i hope make it clearer.  The system was a rational one from the English point of view, designed to ensure that England (later Britain) and its shipping benefited from trade with its colonies.  It was not intended as a dastardly plot to damage the interests of colonials.  I have tried to present a more neutral point of view (see WP:POV).  I am well aware that the subject is an immotive one in terms of the cuases of the American Revolution.  I have also separated the basic code as established in the 1660s from  later amending legislation.  In doing so, I have removed the reference to 'four acts', asd there were a number of other amending acts, but few others making significant differences.  Peterkingiron 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guessed that (see Restoration comedies), but couldn't see a connection.  It really is essential to avoid such coded phrases for an international encyclopedia.  (I'm not aware of using PPOV, but I'll look at your edit). --Red King 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  However sometimes one uses language that is familiar in ones own context, but needs explainign to others.  The solution is to rewrite to include the explanation.  Peterkingiron 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronogical order and "Restoration Acts" 

message: I have reinstated something like the structure of headings which existed a few weeks back.  The legislation of the 1660s did NOT amend the 1651 Navigation Ordinance; it replaced it.  The 1651 ordinance was an Act of the Interregnum ceased to have effect upon the Restoration of Charles II.  This was not a judical proceeding and was thus not saved by the Act for the Confirmation of Judical Proceedings, which ratified what the courts had done since the execution of Charles I.  In 1660 Parliament passed a number of Acts giving effect to some of the legislation of the preceding period; in some cases, the new was not quite the same as what the "usurping powers" had enacted.  The Navigations Acts are an example of that.  Peterkingiron 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of headings 

message: I am sure that Tim!'s alteration from 1651 to 1381 is well-meaning, but without more explanation in this article, it spoils the article and is tantamount to vandalism.  Since I believe this is not actual vandalism (though I do not appear to be able to access Britannica to check the reference), I have slottted the date in later in the article.  However, it would be much better if Tim! (or some one else) added a short section saying what the 1381 Act and subsequent pre-1651 legislation said and how effective it was.  Peterkingiron 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way you call the only cited fact in the article "vandalism". Tim! 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means add to the article something about the 1381 Act, but you need to write a paragraph about it and other early legislation on the subject.  In just altering a date you were damaging the paragraph that you altered, completely changing its implications.  That is vandalism.  I would see no objection to a well-written section on pre-1651 shipping legislation, or something of that kind.  Peterkingiron 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What complete rot. Tim! 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If anyone is damaging Wikipedia, it is people like you who cannot bother to properly cite sources. This article is too worthless to damage. Tim! 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a substantial (if short) article on the subject.  I stand by my statement that changing 1651 to 1381 was essentially vandalism, in that it was disruptive to the overall argument of the article, focused (as it was) on legislation from 1651.  If you have substantial information on the postion previously please take the trouble to set out in a few sentences what you know.  The main content of this article is not my writing and I do not have suitable text books by me to cite as sources.  By placing 1381 in a new section, I hope I have given you the space to expand that without interfering with reasonably accurate material on the Commonwealth and subsequent periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I have already told you, read Wikipedia:Vandalism before accusing other editors of vandalism. I am frankly sick of you and do not really care to edit this article whilst you make such inane statements. Tim! (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1381 Act 

message: I would like to know if any one thinks that they where fair or not  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.138.98 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair or not?

message: I support User: Red King's reverts in respect of the names of Acts of Parliament.  Today Acts of Parliament always have a short title, e.g. Theft Act 1968.  This practice became formal in the late 19th century, when the Short Titles Act assigned names to many earlier acts.  Those repealed, often did not acquire a short title, but (if important) have acquired one informally by usuage e.g. Navigation Act 1660.  Formally these acts should be described by theri long title (which no one ever uses) or by their regnal year and chapter number (which no one can be expected to remember.  Peterkingiron 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts of Parliament 

message: Some of the content in the effects section is not consistent with the info I added about there being relatively few restrictions on colonial shipping (backed by citation "Craven, p. 35") BradMajors (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects

message: There is an error in the first paragraph but I do not know how it should be corrected: "At their outset, they we]]." Storslem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: I deleted a bit under repeal which seemed a bit dubious and remained unsourced. I put it here in case anyone wants to improve upon it:
'..but also led to the end of the formal empire in favour of an informal empire, in which private enterprises under the British banner extended trading relations and opened new markets. The East India trading company is an excellent example of this, gaining full provincial control over Bengal and its sub-regions with the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, while being governed privately rather than directly by the British government.' LastDodo (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious claim in Repeal section