Talk:General Revision Act

nonsense since 2009
Introduced in this 2009 edit which greatly enlarged this article was non-sensical statement that the National Forest grew to 150 acres. Anyone? --Doncram (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Under these conditions, the sale of commodities such as minerals and timber goods could be sold at a price above marginal cost, thereby reducing quantity sold and boosting profits forwestern speculating individuals"?? meant increasing rather than reducing?

And other problems, making this look to me like bad copy-pasting, with random changes. --Doncram (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Forest Reserve Act of 1891 into General Revision Act. I believe these are the exact same laws, both passed in 1891 and being found at [https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/26/STATUTE-26-Pg1095.pdf 26 Stat. 1095-1103]. While the Forest Reserve Act article lists the Statutes-at-Large, and the General Revision Act does not, I found the same reference for the Forest Reserve Act used for the General Revision Act in Gary D. Libecap, Bureaucratic Issues and Environmental Concerns: A Review of the History of Federal Land Ownership and Management, 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 467 (1992). It has been difficult to find a source that lists both these names at once, but every discussion I can find on either law points to the exact same statute. It appears that "Forest Reserve Act of 1891" is usually used on topics related more to § 24 of the original statute, while General Revision Act refers to the broader law.

However, I have neither the time nor energy to manage this merger. But it seemed my duty to point out this discovery. At least if the articles are not merged, the difference needs to be made much clearer. Even the General Revision Act mentions many of the same consequences of the law (e.g. Presidential forestry reservations) as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, so their subject matters are not so easily independent for two articles. Zkidwiki (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The merger proposal was not formed perfectly, in that the merger proposal banners at the two articles did not link properly to this discussion on a Talk page. Fixed. --Doncram (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)