Jump to content

Talk:Vermont/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

A good deal of this article is also present here, although it is perfectly possible that the site instead copied from the Wikipedia article. Could someone track this down? RJC Talk 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was mirror site. I looked at it, and it's got a random seven in brackets [7], like for a source, that I get when I try to copy and paste from Wikipedia. I'd say it's copied from here. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 14:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - it's a parasite site, scraping wikipedia to provide "content" for ads. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vermont Republic

While inserting some additional info into a currency ref, I found this ref to the Vermont Republic. Since becoming aware of the whole secession kerfuffle and its claims re state history, I've been looking back through my own texts and am finding no ref to a Vermont Republic per se. I'm aware of the Vermont Republic article but since the ref has bled over to the History section of Vermont I thought I'd start here. Where and if possible, would like to see articles improved to show/reflect historic usage. Present capitalization seems to be only traceable to this decade or perhaps in some earlier whimsical novels of the 20th century. My own personal collection of Vermont maps include 18th century and have no ref to a Vermont Republic or Republic of Vermont. Earliest text ref I have includes repro of map (from Bernard Romans, A Chorographical Map of the Northern Department of North America Amsterdam, 1780) that was from a first edition printed in New Haven in 1778; is the first known "to show Vermont as Vermont" and identifies area as State of Vermont, from a Rutland Historical Society Quarterly Vol. XII, No. 1, 1982. A second comes from J. Kevin Graffagnino, Director of the Vermont Historical Society, The Shaping of Vermont Vermont Heritage Press, 1983, p. 58, that shows Vermont as, coincidentally, the first individual state map to be published in the United States, dated on or before January 15, 1789 (based on diary entry 1/15/1789). The map cartouche text reads A Topographical Map of the State of Vermont and is, Most Humbly Dedicated To His Excellency Thomas Chittenden, Esq, Governor and Commander in Chief; The Honorable Council, and the Honorable the (sic) Representatives of said State by Col. William Blodgett, who had resided in Bennington (1786-1788) before moving to New Haven. Additionally, the Act passed at the 3rd Session of the Congress of the United States in Philadelpha, on December 6, 1790, contains only refs to a State of Vermont. Historic usage seems to be State of Vermont. Vermont Republic, as noted in Vermont Republic, does not make clear that the title is a modern development from the mid (at best) 20th century. PeterInVT (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The state of Vermont is the correct terminology. There were overlapping claims with New Hampshire and New York. Neither of those states was too excited about sending soldiers to defend these claims which had persisted since colonial days. Vermont had always intended to join the union but wasn't invited because it wasn't an official colony and other states claimed it. There was no real pathway, at the time, to join the union. Vermont pioneered that path for the "other" 36 states that followed. It was never a serious republic with a standing army, ambassadors, customs, immigration, coinage, etc. The use of the word "Republic" is a combination of bravado and fantasy IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the case. There is no separation between the appellations New Connecticut and Vermont that I can find that provides for a state entity then known as the Vermont Republic. The latter appears to be a modern construct. PeterInVT (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've continued to search for references to a Vermont Republic. While I am coming across a number of references to a republic, seeming to describe governance, there is no documentable Vermont Republic mentioned in any fashion in records of the time. Both constitutions (1777/ 1786) refer 9 and then 10 times to a "State of Vermont." There are a couple of references alternatively to a "Commonwealth of Vermont" but the preponderance of references were to "State of Vermont." Acts enabled under the constitution in place prior to admission to the United States were "hereby enacted by the General, Assembly of the State of Vermont." Oaths and allegiances under each constitution are made to the "State of Vermont." The constitution requires that the representative body be called "The General Assembly of the State of Vermont."

Given that the members of the Congress of the Confederation at the time were referred to in their documents, such as the Articles of Confederation, as "independent States," it would appear that this is a more accurate descriptive for Vermont's status during that time, that is, "the independent State of Vermont."

Perhaps conclusively, the act voted on to admit Vermont to the Union in the third session of the First Congress was titled "An Act for the admission of the State of Vermont into this Union," and begins, "The State of Vermont having petitioned the Congress to be admitted a member of the United States."

I'd like to get some discussion on what are, I believe to be, requisite changes to a number of articles pertaining to Vermont that must be made to accurately reflect the true history of Vermont. PeterInVT (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PeterinVT. We find nearly no use of the term Vermont Republic or Repulic of Vermont existing in the period 1777–1791. Like you, I've seen use of the State of Vermont (the 1777 vellum manuscript of the constitution is title "The Constitution of Vermont," and in text refers to itself both as a state and a commonwealth, never a republic. The copper coins minted by Vermont come the closest, using a Latin passage "VERMONTS. RES. PUBLICA." While "RES. PUBLICA. easily translates as republic, it's worth noting that many state seals then, and now, include this latin passage. I've edited the Vermont Republic article a bit to try to clarify that Vermont was, more a republic by default than by design. CApitol3 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Independent State of Vermont." This reflects the idea of the founders that the state would ultimately join the union when the original states figured out how to do that. It agrees with published documents of the time. Student7 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. There's a good deal to consider here. CApitol13 - I've looked at the res republica translation issue and agree that while it easily translates, as republic, it seems that the translation also applies equally to commonwealth or state, the language used in the source documents available to us.
I have another reference to a document that purports that Ethan Allen may have referred to Vermont as a republic in a letter. It's not exactly clear that the document referred to may be relied on since the recipient questions Allen's motives at the time. I'm awaiting some original history text referred to in this article that may clear up some of this contextually. I'd probably then include a paragraph outlining this area.
I'm still pretty new to the process here, but is there some manner by which the more accurate title may by used while still protecting accessiblity to users looking up a modern colloquialism for the independent State of Vermont? PeterInVT (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but Ethan Allen did have an axe to grind. He did want to be sure that his competing claims with New York (Maybe not New Hampshire) would be valid. This might have been more likely in a permanently independent state! But I'm not sure how much he really spoke "for" early Vermont, particularly after the state had ratified a constitution and elected state officers. Student7 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

School shooting

I agree, it not only doesn't need its own section but that it's not a major history item for the state of Vermont. Its presence only encourages others to do the same for posthumous fame. I recommend removal. - Denimadept (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not from Vermont, so I can't speak as to the event's local magnitude, but based on how it currently appears, I wouldn't oppose removal. On a related note, I think the same editor who added the section went back as an IP and re-added the section break after I removed it. I've done this twice, and it isn't obvious vandalism, so I'm not going to do it again, but it's something others should keep an eye on. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not from Vermont either. I'm speaking from the point of view that these events seem to be coming more frequently and I think that stomping on their publicity should help eliminate them. - Denimadept (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am from Vermont and it no effect whatsoever. People talked about it for maybe a week. --St.daniel Talk 01:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Meeting house

That picture on the main page is of the local church in Marlboro, which is referred to as the "meeting house". However, Town Meeting does not occur there, rather, it occurs in a different building to the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.15.90 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

erased material entered by unregistered user

I reverted the new material. Footnotes are necessary. Please see WP:FOOT.

Other entries violated WP:POV.

The entry on Bernie Sanders is either here or in forked article.

Entry about Republic is discussed in Vermont Republic.

Our current article on Vermont is too long. We need to ensure entries are made in forked (subsidiary) articles before putting them here. In many cases the Vermont article is just a summary of the most important items.

Some of the material on unions could be useful. It must be footnoted however. We need to discuss, with other editors where it goes. What the unions support or don't support may be political and care should be taken so entries don't violate WP:POV. Entries should be well documented from the paper or respected online sources. Also, there may be issues of undue weight. (Quoting from memory:) "wikipedia is not a soapbox."

The material on High Bailiff was interesting. It is, however, covered in that article in a bit more detail. I just added a pointer to this in Government of Vermont.

It may be useful to get the opinion of someone on the discussion page prior to making extensive entries. Student7 (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Mountain should be added

Magic Mountain should be added to the list of ski resorts because Magic Mountain was the birthplace of snowboarding -- even the Burton logo has a shape that is based on the Magic Mountain trails since he looked out his window and saw that the trails looked like his initials. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

History

This section has become a monster, in some cases overshadowing the "main" article which is supposedly the History of Vermont. I've merged everything up to the main article and now need to shorten this one. The Vermont article has been too long for a long time. This is an obvious place to chop. Student7 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is not the only Member of Congress who does not affiliate with a political party. Senator Lieberman is also an independent, albeit it an "Independent Democrat." It's just a name. As far as the Senate is concerned, there are two independent Senators even though BOTH Lieberman and Sanders are members of the Democratic Caucus. Epicadam (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Epicadam has a point that we ought not to ignore. Lieberman, you may recall, lost the Democratic primary some years back, forcing Democrats to back his opponent, the legal nominee. So he cannot be officially considered a Democratic Senator at least until he wins a Democratic nomination in the future. Therefore he is a member of "some other party", for all intents and purposes, an "independent." Student7 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quebec bordering Vermont?

After I inserted the states that border Vermont in the infobox, I questioned whether Quebec should be there as well in the edit summary. After THAT, I checked several other states that shared a border with Canada. None of them mentioned Canada. It's just a "style" thing I suppose. I would have left it out, but since it's there now, I'm not about to delete it.Student7 (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why doesn't it list Quebec? I know it's not a state, but that's no reason not to list it as something that Vermont borders.MrPMonday (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the main reasons I removed it was that at the time, the link to 'Bordering States' went to the United States article, so it was a bit problematic having Quebec on there. Also, there hasn't been a clear decision on whether or not to include Canadian provinces, Mexican states, etc., or if we should even have the entry in the infobox at all. There is a discussion on all this at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic issues

A "MY turn" editorial in the Burlington Free Press cited some reasons why Vermont is having trouble attracting business and therefore raising additional taxes for whatever (social and environmental stuff, for example). This editorial cannot be used since the author, however well-stated, is not 1) a reporter subject to editorial scrutiny, nor 2) a noteworthy researcher. Anyway his points were specifically:

  • Need circ (for readers outside Vermont, this refers to a proposed circumferential highway around Burlington under consideration for a decade or more)
  • need lower energy prices (electricity I suppose?)
  • housing costs (guided by Act 250 to some extent)
  • site permitting (too long. Bureaucrats blase about investors timetables)

Author claims Vermont is:

  • overpreoccupied with sprawl
  • opposes the circ
  • environmental considerations impede permitting process
  • attitudes towards energy generation particularly alternative approaches (??)
  • "other" regulatory issues

An unbiased author predicts that Vermont will be in the economic doldrums for the "next 30 years" a severe indictment. Have a good reference for this.

Anyway, if an reputable economist or other scholar comes up with anything like the above, it should go into this article or one allied with Vermont. I'm not sure those are all of equal importance. For example, the circ seemed a little provincial to me, but it does affect the prime region of the state. I didn't understand the "energy" comment entirely, but the legislature trying to put Vermont Yankee out of business may be smart environmentally, but it seems to me pretty stupid economically seeing as there is no replacement. Permitting is a problem everywhere but maybe worse in Vermont. I don't know. Student7 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

secession

ok, you deleted this article agfain, but please, if you can write it better , do it and insert it correctly ! ^^

In recent yeasrs, there grow the idea of the secession of Vermont to form the so-called "second Vermont Republic" or to join canada as a province. The biigest movement is called second vermont republic, which was founded by Thomasn Naylor in 2003, a former Duke University economics professor. The group organizes iner alia demonstrations, websites and selling of T-shirt with growing success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, articles are in three places already. Second Vermont Republic, Killington, Vermont secession movement, and [1].Student7 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


but if someone wants as much as possible informations out of this article he won´t get it!

because this is an article bout vermont and you should mention the secession movement there!^^ (Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Could you possibly look under Vermont#Political in the Vermont article. It is there already and has been for about a year.Student7 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


du lolepeter!(Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Frankslapperinni (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The secession issue is a joke. I live in Vermont and can tell you that the only people who pay attention to this are out-of-staters and ski-tycoons. The actions taken by Killington mountain to attempt to skimp out on their taxes by seceding to New Hampshire (who has higher property tax anyways) are largely seen as foolish, misinformed, and a grand gesture that in the end was fruitless. Perhaps there are groups looking to start a different secession or join Canada, but these radical groups are not in anyway widespread or publicly supported, and do not deserve to be in this article any more than "Vermont UFO fanatics" or "Vermont Breatharians" do.

How true! We've tried. Hope you will stay around and help! Student7 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Governors

I think that a numbered list of governors is okay, just needed to be "hidden." Tried to do that (without numbering) and messed it up so restored original. Thoughts?Student7 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

North East Kingdom?

What exactly does the "North East Kingdom" designate? I presume that it is some kind of geographical or historical designation. The Northern Vermont media does make reference to it; however, it is assumed that the listener or viewer is familiar with what the "North East Kingdom" designates.

First, what is the "North East Kingdom"?

And, should it be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.25 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a "region" in the template at the bottom with Northeast Kingdom in it. It is possible that an explanation may be necessary, but is this true of all regional references within Vermont? Student7 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just checked. It is linked the first time it is mentioned, and not subsequently, which is standard. Not sure what to do at this point. Awaiting suggestions. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness the economy is lousy!

A statement under Economy reads "The accompanying lack of industry has allowed Vermont to avoid many of the ill-effects of 20th century industrial busts, effects that still plague neighboring states." This seems weasel-y, fox and the grapes. At least it needs a counter-balance to the effect that the state is having difficulty raising money to meet "increased public demand for services." Like pay raises for government employees, for example. Kind of pov so far. Wouldn't hurt to have a scholarly footnote added to the above either, while we are at it. Student7 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

Actually, I was simply quoting the Wikipedia caution at the beginning of any edit which states: "This page is 95 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." I thought that cautioning editors about the length of the article was a no-brainer. It wasn't any conscious decision on my part. Shall we complain to the admins to remove the length complaint?Student7 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in Vermont and Oregon Pages

I found an apparent contradiction between the pages for the states of Oregon and Vermont. In the religion section, Oregon's page claims that Oregon is tied with Colorado as a state with the third largest proportion of non-religious people behind Washington and Vermont. Vermont's page, on the other hand, suggests that Vermont is tied with Oregon in this category, behind Washington. A citation is needed in this paragraph, as well. Obviously the two people had different sources for their information. I'm not particularly skilled at fixing pages, so I'm just throwing this out there. Am I splitting hairs?

I think this is a valid criticism. I am going to assume, as you have, that two different sources were used or at two different times or perhaps slightly different criteria. I am happy with both conclusions. It is also possible that the people we are quoting weren't that careful. But we are stuck with the info if the reference otherwise seems valid. It would be nice to have each tied to a time frame for the similarly careful researcher trying to use our data! Thanks for noticing and commenting! Student7 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Vermont now has the highest percentage of non-religious: see http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

History of Vermont

A long time ago I promised to move the lengthy history down to the main article "History of Vermont." I finally did that some months ago. Tried to summarize this and failed, essentially. Needs to be cut in half again. If you can help, please do so! Student7 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vermont, the government vs Vermont the geographic area

We really need to start distinguishing between geographic areas and the current government of same. In larger cities, they often have "modern city or Rome" and "ancient city of Rome." It is silly to suggest that Rome was founded in 1867 (or whatever) when the Italian Republic was created.

Similarly in Vermont, the area has been here and identifiable for millenia. To say that "it" was founded in 1791 is fatuous. The state had a European style constitution that year. The "founding" is very appropriate to the "Government of Vermont", but not this article. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific Issues to Document on Status of Independent Vermont

The independent period of Vermont is extremely important to document thoroughly here, as it has essentially been excised from standard American history, and most Americans are not aware of it.

The issues are:

  • What did Vermont formally declare independence from (any/all of): Britain, U.S., New Hampshire, New York
  • Details on Vermont and U.S. exchanging ambassadors (mentioned currently in article) as this means at least de facto recognition of independence by the U.S. federation; what steps of recognition preceded this, were there laws passed by one of the U.S. Congresses officially recognizing Vermont? (Did NY/NH oppose them in congress?)
  • Specifications on whether New York and New Hampshire officially -- in law, by de facto actions -- recognized Vermont independence during its independence period
  • Bringing together the previous two points, what the exact legal procedure was for Vermont's entry into the U.S.: was it a treaty between sovereign nations, approved by the U.S. Senate? Did New York and New Hampshire take any actions at this time that look like they hadn't previously recognized the claim, like the New York assembly "granting secession" to Vermont or something? Or did they even -- is there any formal legal record of NY/NH dropping their territorial claims?
  • And finally, a discussion of how this big part of early U.S. history just got swept under the rug and is not mentioned in any U.S. school history book any of us read. Curiously, we do read about Texas independence.

BindingArbitration (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Because of size issues (this article is already too long), it would be nice if the details weren't here. Some of your questions may be answered in Vermont Republic or History of Vermont. It would be preferable to insert new info in one or another of those aricles. For every new sentence on history that you insert here, it would be nice to delete two others. The history summary in this article is way too long! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Random statistics

I inserted the following information under Demographics: "In 2006, the state had the second lowest rate of births to teenagers, 20.8 per 1,000.<ref>New Hampshire was lower with 18.7 births per 1,000</ref><ref>{{cite book | author = |title = Report: Teen birth rates up in 26 states | publisher = Burlington Free Press | date = January 8, 2009}}</ref>"

An editor reverted it with the summary that the number of statistics like this were nearly infinite. Where do we stop?

I can't really argue the point. Yet, it seems to me that there ought to be someplace where statistics that place Vermont high or low in the country should be someplace. Perhaps a forked demographics article? Other states must have run into this. Probably the larger states have too much information anyway and so any excuse for deleting something is welcomed!  :) Not so Vermont!

In this particular case, readers might infer that their taxes weren't all going to "welfare mothers" as some of them seem to think!

While it seems unlikely today, I don't know why all statistics that are collected shouldn't go (or be summarized) somewhere in a (probably forked) article. Just my thought.Student7 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlooking_Barre.jpg‎

This photo is of poor quality. I would suggest if there is no way of improving the picture it should be deleted. Misortie (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, I see your point. It could be better. I could say the same about Church Street Marketplace which could use a noon shot (crowds and vendors that maybe the photographer was trying to avoid). Another photo is a bit unclear. My thought would be replace it with a better shot. I don't think it is so bad in the context of the others that it should be immediately deleted. Unless you are in a position to take a replacement pic yourself, you might suggest a venue for such a shot for Barre.Student7 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agriculture

A blurb blandly explains that "in the latter half" of the 20th century greedy developers wanted to develop land. Vermont's legislature boldly responded with Act 250, etc. designed to prevent the loss of farms. Right. The number of farms dropped by 90%. So it failed miserably. The upshort was to raise property values in cities. True or false? Or was it a "green" initiative to keep land vacant to look at? Or what? And is there anything scholarly out there that makes any sense of this? Student7 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Moose on foot, moose in cars!

The reference to moose invading cities was perhaps too obscure for an encyclopedia but seemed unusual enough to report. These moose, while a potential threat, have not yet harmed any pedestrian. The ones on highways have resulted in a measurable number of deaths from collision. If it seems to difficult to make the distinction, I suppose it can be left the way it is with the moose on sidewalks reference dropped. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

separate article - Economy of Vermont

per the suggestion on the editing page, I would move forward with this as it would cut down on the size of this article.--Levineps (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. The size of this article isn't really out of control, but it's probably as large as an article on a smaller state needs to be, and there are some other sections that look like they could still use some expansion. The economy section is much larger than that of most other states (the economy sections of FAs Minnesota and Oklahoma are both much smaller, or at least more condensed); the section certainly doesn't need 11(!) subsections. So yeah, a split is probably in order here, I think. A new article could be expanded, and the information in this one could be trimmed a bit. AlexiusHoratius 02:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The major problem is summarizing it. Fairly easy for the tiny section on taxes. Not quite so easy here.Student7 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As Blaise Pascal may or may not have once said, it's harder to write short than to write long (he allegedly apologized for a verbose letter because he didn't have time to make it shorter.) - 12:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it isn't very easy, but one of the advantages to having an article about the economy is that more specific stuff can be cut here without losing it. After reading the section today, one of the things I was struck by was how often it just mentions raw statistics without any information that puts these things into context. For instance, there are X number of non-profits, X number of wineries, X number of dairy farms, X percentage of people qualifying for food stamps actually received them, etc. Okay, great, but that doesn't really tell me much about the economy of Vermont. This is a good example of things that could simply be cut in this article, and then not just mentioned but explained in greater detail in the article about the economy. Another problem is the large table showing every little sector's contribution to the economy. Here again, this is a good example of information that would be fine for an economy article, but is probably too specific for this one. This article is for general statements and figures, like GSP, unemployment rate, and a few paragraphs discussing the major sectors and maybe a few things that are unique about Vermont. On the other hand, this article isn't the place for a detailed statistical breakdown of the economy. Give me a few days, and I'll try to come up with a shorter version in my sandbox. AlexiusHoratius 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation of government

A Pew report on Vermont was deleted. The report said that the state did well on (I am paraphrasing) personal (low-level) issues and high level issues but poorly on intermediate ones. This meant to me that on medical care (high level) it did well, recycling (done by individuals at the low level) it did well, but on road maintenance (for example) it did not do well, being neither a personal nor really a high level issue anymore.

So I thought a Pew report which seemed unbiased was important, Did it belong at this article level? That would be the question, not whether it was "junk" (the editors words) or not. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

The Burlington Free Press had an article on average Vermont salaries for specific occupations. what Vermonters earn. Not quite sure how to work this into an article, but I think it should be somewhere. Student7 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

45th in broadband?

I had inserted a quote from a study done by the Communications Workers of America (which seemed like a strange source at the time). Anyway, this study was later attacked in a Burlington Free Press editorial which stated that 1) there was no love lost between the workers and the telephone company that had taken over, and that 2) the samples for all states were "self-selected." That is, people registered under some site and measured and recorded their own speed. There was no controlled study. Further (total admission). There was no love lost between ME and the company that took over either! Several good reasons for excluding the study. But if a broadband study comes along that is controlled and unbiased, it would be of great interest. Student7 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IPA

I grew up in Vermont, and I have never once heard anyone pronounce the state with a rounded low back vowel at the end, this isn't even a standard American phoneme, or allophone for that matter. Can anyone object as to this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonConquistador (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a phoneme in some parts of the Contry. It is like the first "o" in Boston in the Boston accent and in "hot" in British RP. Though, also being a native Vermonter, I have never heard this pronunciation either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.143.183 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Population

Vermont is listed as the 49th most populous state on the list of states by population. On its own page it is listed as 41. I'd imagine the list is correct since the population number is the same on both pages. Kgromann (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency about ambassadors

The article "Vermont Republic" states "Vermont did not send or receive diplomats." This article lists the places Vermont sent ambassadors. Humblehelper (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxes

Actually there was a good reason to have taxes forked. This article is already too long. We need to fork a lot more. Not restore forked material! Student7 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Density incorrect

Dear folks,

the data about the population density in Vermont are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.6.34 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You were right. It was wrong. Thanks. I've changed it, but now the population per km2 doesn't look right either. Not sure why. I've left a question in the US state info box, hoping it is their problem! :) Student7 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Employment outlook

I had inserted this text, reverted by another editor: "In 2010, the largest number of new jobs by far expected by 2018, were expected in personal and home-care aides, 426. This paid $10.32/hour."Low-paying jobs account for most projected growth". Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. 12 September 2010. pp. 1C."

This is the sum total outlook for the entire state for the next 8 years. That is, virtually no new jobs, or very few new openings, in any other specialty. Perhaps it could be worded better or summarized better. Try the online article and summarize it yourself. This type of information is consistent with the rest of the economic outlook. I believe it is important. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it out because it was just a projection, and one that concerned a topic that is not particular to Vermont, but merely a one-state slice of national data. We could litter this article about Vermont's portion of national projections by various interest groups or government entities - transportation changes, amphibian population declines, Asian-American demographic trends, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps a projection about maple syrup production or something very specific to Vermont might be useful here, but this is really peripheral. (Or so I see it; others may disagree, of course.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. It was very particular to Vermont. Vermont only. It was not WP:CRYSTAL. This is the state projecting (actually collecting information from companies that hire). "one-state slice". Vermont is one state. That is all we are concerned about in this article.
Jobs (and new industry) are vital to Vermont's economy. There is no future for Asian-Americans, or transportation trends (two that you have mentioned) without job improvement. You are jesting about Amphibians, which have something to do with environment, not the economy. Presumably a maple syrup increase could be handled with current demographics, but there is no improvement in job outlook there. That was taken into consideration.
Perhaps we'd better discuss why you do not want this information revealed. Are you representing a candidate or a party? Student7 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I explained why I think it's excessive for this article in my comment above. Projections are a dime a dozen; important topics are myriad; so we could expand this article into an unreadable mush with projections about important topics from here to kingdom come, but that's not what this article is for. Some may disagree, of course - that's what wikipedia is all about! - but when you do, try not to wrap yourself in righteous indignation and conspiracy theories. If nothing else, that's really boring. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Green Mountain Boys

I fear that a casual visitor may understand that the flag with the dark green field and blue canton is the actual flag of the Green Mountain Boys. I read in a previous century that the remnant of that flag is held in a museum, probably the Bennington Historical Museum, and that it consists of the canton and a few scraps of the field, all bleached practically white. That the canton was blue, and the field green and uncharged, are inferences. Perhaps a cautionary note would be in order. J S Ayer (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Independent Country

The statement "Vermont is one of four states that were once independent nations (the others being Texas, California, and Hawaii)." is in error. Originally, all states in the US were independent countries. That's what "state" means, as in the "State of Denmark", or the "State of Germany".

The Federal Government of the United States was created to perform specific functions with specific limits per the original Constitution of the United States (and the unfortunate first 10 amendments, which never should have been allowed). The Constitution applied only to the Federal Government and not to the individual states. Over time, the Legislative Branch in cahoots with the Judicial Branch have transformed the Federal Government into the National Government, subjecting the states to the whims of the National Government. Now, citizens of the United States believe they are granted rights by the National Government through the Constitution, while the opposite is the truth. The Federal Government was granted rights by the states. All citizens of the states (and all other people) are born with all their rights. A government can do nothing but restrict rights, it cannot "give" them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.142.219 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction between "state" and "nation" and while I can't comment on whether or not that statement about there only being 4 is true, the sovereignty of the individual states doesn't mean that they are independent nations. Every state added after the constitution is also a state with the same sovereignty, but that doesn't make them "independent nations." Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The views of whoever wrote the above comment reflect a minority conspiratorial point of view, and a deeply mistaken one at that. The term "state" used to describe the original 13 colonies (which Vermont was not, btw) is not synonymous with the term "state" used to describe the "State of Denmark." Also, the US Constitution most certainly did "apply to" the several states upon ratification by the several states. Even a most cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that. However, I do agree that it is potentially misleading to allege that VT was an independent nation of the same ilk as TX, CA, and HI. Although there was a VT constitution, VT was not recognized as an independent state by any other nation, nor was its constitution in effect for very long. In fact, the territory that is now VT was claimed by NY and NH - both US states at the time. I think it would be more accurate to say that between independence from GB and statehood, there were elements in the area that was to become VT who fancied VT as an independent state, however the idea of VT as an independent state was never universally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.251.182 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that CA was ever recognized formally by many other countries if any, either. Were even TX and HI recognized by anyone other than the parties directly concerned (out of curiosity only)? In any case, that Vermont self-governed does warrant the "independence" label, I think, though it might be better called an "autonomous region". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.168.165 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Put me down as one of the original doubters. Mercifully, my original comments do not appear above!  :) Having read many of the arguments, it really was a republic. But remember the economy of the day. No money. Most people obsessed with day-to-day living. No one threatening the state. So it was no big deal. BUT, the Allens and others tried to make a big deal over it by negotiating with Canada, maybe not in the greatest faith. Just to threaten the new US. Large states didn't want a) a new tiny state with 2 senators, b) a "Free state". They had already began to think about such things. And c) There were still conflicting claims to be cleared up. Eventually New Yorkers were paid off, and the way clear to enter the US with Kentucky as the "other" state. But they were truly a real republic with whatever trappings they chose (and paid for, the real problem. How many ambassadors can you afford with just a handful of taxpayers out there footing the bill?  :) Student7 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

war with New York?

United States Bill of Rights and Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution mention a peace treaty between New York and Vermont without explaining why a peace treaty was necessary or what this even means - and neither do the articles on these states nor even History of New York or History of Vermont. Very strange. --Espoo (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If I recall from my US History, though it has been awhile, it wasn't so much an armed conflict as a fight of words and pens over what the border between the two states would actually be. It was ended by a written agreement. Wish I could remember more than that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Try Vermont_Republic#Constitution_and_frame_of_government. While we don't want to repeat all history in all sections, there should be a one-line summary here if there isn't, I guess. Student7 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Still doesn't sound like a war, so the term "peace treaty" is wrong and misleading. --Espoo (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Conflict is conflict, peace is the end of conflict. A conflict doesn't need to have a single shot fired. What do the cited sources say? We should use their terminology. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I found no reference to the word "peace" outside of our own two articles! I changed the term to "treaty." While there was no actual war, things did get a little testy from time to time, but "peace treaty" seems a little unnecessarily ornate and is seldom used even on genuine peace treaties. See, for example, Treaty of Ghent, Treaty of Versailles, and those are for real wars! Student7 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Red lines on density map

There are red lines around 4 counties, Orleans, Franklin, the one Montpelier is in and the one to the south of that one. But not the other ten. An editor asks "why the red lines." I do not know. How can we get rid of them? Can we merely delete the map? Is it that vital? Student7 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

While the lines are distracting, I feel that they don't outweigh the value of knowing the distribution of population in the state in a graphic manner. A search of the web did not reveal a canned map from a U.S. government source. Modifying the lines in Photoshop is tedious and not worth the effort in view of new census data. It would be helpful if someone with GIS skills would provide an updated map in Wikimedia with 2010 census data. In the meantime, I suggest that we tolerate the lines, even if we don't understand their original intent. User:HopsonRoad 03:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers of record

Not sure that this goes here. Maybe we should have a "Media in Vermont" or something and summarize/fork this to it. We are not listing radio or television stations here (mercifully). We really shouldn't be listing, or encouraging others to list, individual media. It should be forked. Student7 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While lists of media can be a problem, I found the "newspaper of record" aspect interesting. More importantly, I think it limits the list, so that folks won't add every weekly, or magazine, or local-news blog, etc. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vermont name

I am erasing the sentence referring to Samuel de Champlain and a map from 1647. Samuel de Champlain died in 1635, so for sure he did not draw a map in 1647. One person who seems to have studied greatly the origin of the name is Joseph-André Sénécal, who was professor at UVM (University of Vermont) and extensively studied French settlers in Vermont in the first half of the 18th century. See his article the name Vermont.

The removal seems to concur with the source, so I support the removal.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Church of LDS founders in Notable Vermonters?

Someone has added, "Also, early leaders of the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, were born in Sharon and Whitingham respectively," alongside mention of Vermont's two presidents. All other Vermont notables are relegated to List of people from Vermont. I suggest that this entry should be deleted or more thought put into how notable one should be to receive special mention here. I will wait a week to delete, pending discussion. User:HopsonRoad 03:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the somewhat myopic viewpoint of some Latter Day Saints, these individuals are not universally recognized as being notable at the same level as US presidents. Both Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young are found in List of people from Vermont (where they belong), along with several other notables in the Latter Day Saint movement; this newly inserted sentence should be removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We have our answer. I concur with User:Student7, who noted "confine list. fork others." and left in-line commenting to that effect. User:HopsonRoad 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see discussion here. Thanks. Good to have a record and concurrence. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I looked this name up in my dictionary and it had the pronunciation for it as /vɜˈmont/, where according to the Wikipedia Pronunciation Guide for English /ɜ/ can translate to /ɜr/ not /ər/, even though the stress is on the second syllable. The current pronunciation would indicate a pronunciation of "vuh-MONT" (which isn't correct for my dialect and doesn't match what is in my dictionary) rather than "vur-MONT" (which is correct for my dialect and does match what is in my dictionary). --121.219.21.117 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The guide you mention does not indicate that /ər/ would suppress pronunciation of the r. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation format

The citation format for this article seems to have been established with this edit but it has since fallen into disarray. I do not recognize this format; does anyone know what it is? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Neutrality who made the edit cited above and I discussed this on our respective talk pages. Neutrality intended to use the MLA Style Manual, although the edit above does not exactly follow the current version of MLA style. It could be an error, or it could be the manual has changed in the intervening years. In any case, it appears the MLA style is the established citation style for this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any objection to changing the article to use list-defined references? This would not change the appearance of the article, but in the source code for the article, all the citations would be gathered together near the end of the article, where it would be easier to work on them to create a consistent style. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)ing
I sympathize with editors who are trying to edit something and run into multiple cites in a relatively short sentence; trying to find out where their edit goes. For me, in-line raw ref/cites seem best because the cite follows the material. It seems, to me, very credible and, if unnamed, I can change it on the spot, if necessary without resorting to editing the entire article.
I agree it looks sloppy and is sometimes a nuisance to edit, but I prefer it the way it is. Student7 (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The established format is MLA, which calls for parenthetical citations after each claim, and an alphabetical bibliography at the end. For example, the sentence "The state capital is Montpelier, which has a population of 7,855 and is the least populated state capital in the country.[7]" would become "...state capital in the country. (Wetherell)"
If we wish to respect the established format and repair the article so it follows that format, list-defined references would be a step in that direction, because it gathers the citations at the end. If we don't want to respect the established style, then we need to agree on some other format before any improvement can be made. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If that hideous botch is "the established format", please, throw it overboard! 121a0012 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:CITEVAR, the first format established in an article should be maintained until there is a consensus for a change. That happened in this edit, in 2004. But since then editors have added new sources without paying any attention to what format already existed. So now we have a hodgepodge. So yes, I intend to throw the hodgepodge overboard. I like the MLA format well enough, and will convert it to that format unless a consensus emerges for some other format. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're the one doing the work, so I won't stop you, but it's still hideous. (Nearly as bad as the common legal citation style and for the same reasons.) Count this as vote for the standard {{cite X}} templates with named references. MLA is one flower I'm not happy to see blooming anywhere. 121a0012 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

California Republic and Republic of West Florida

Lack of international recognition is neither a necessary nor a sufficient basis to deny the status of an entity that claims sovereignty. This is especially so in historical situations that bore little that resembled modern international diplomacy and communication systems. It is also true that, even today, there are independent countries whose territory is claimed in whole or in part by other nations (e.g., Belize, by Guatemala; Guyana, by Venezuela; the Armenia - Azerbaijan situation) and yet are welcomed into the community of nations.

Therefore, rationalizations made in hind-sight that seek to deny recognition of historical entities, such as the Republic of West Florida and the California Republic, are neither here nor there and ignore critical and salient factual considerations. It is necessary to look further afield to ascertain relevant data that, when taken into account as a whole body of data, may either support or deny a judgment of the extant realities of people who happen to have lived in the past.

To that point, the comparisons that follow are based on a subset of possible criteria that could be utilized in a consistent manner to arrive at conclusions. With this in mind, I argue the following:

The California Republic was never independent or sovereign because, among other things:

• There was no knowledge broadly among the people of the mere fact of existing as an independent entity.
• Therefore, there was no broad acknowledgement or broad popular support for being an independent entity.
• There was not a leadership group of governing officials that was acknowledged by the majority of the internal population as being a legitimate instrument of governance.
• The self-appointed governing officials did not exercise, impose or project de facto authority over the majority of the total population or total area of the entity.
• Unknown to the main actors, before their declaration of a California Republic, the United States had already declared its authority over all of Alta California.
• The United States did project de facto authority over the majority of the total population and total area of Alta California at the time of the declaration.
• Although Mexico did not effectively respond to and extinguish the hopes for independence, that fact is moot, because the new ruling power, the United States, did.

On the other hand, the Republic of West Florida was sufficiently independent to be considered sovereign.

None of the above reasons for denial to the California Republic of sovereign status applied in the case of the Republic of West Florida. In fact, the opposite did:

• The fact of its existence as an independent entity was known broadly among the people.
• There was broad acknowledgement and popular support for being independent of Spain.
• There was a leadership group of governing officials that was acknowledged by the majority of the internal population as being a legitimate instrument of governance.
• These governing officials exercised and projected de facto authority over the majority of the total population and area of the entity.
• Other than defending Mobile, Spain did not respond in any effective manner to the independence declaration and did not attempt to re-assert its rule, thereby ceding its control and leaving the entity of West Florida to self-govern.
• The United States had a tenuous claim on a swath of Spanish land, caused by an ambiguity created by France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Within Spain's Territory of West Florida, the U.S. claimed the portion that extended from the Mississippi River east to the Perdido River. With (1) Spain effectively ceding control to the people of West Florida (it was pre-occupied with war in Europe), (2) a weak disputed claim by another foreign nation that had been largely ignored and (3) no immediate projection of foreign authority or threat to its existence, the effective sovereignty of the Republic of West Florida cannot be readily disproved.
• On 27 Oct. 1810, President Madison proclaimed possession of “the territory south of the Mississippi Territory and eastward of the River Mississippi and extending to the River Perdido.” Not until the United States later sent its military to seize part of that land did the U.S. project its authority over the Republic of West Florida. Despite its post hoc rationalization, the U.S.'s taking of the Republic of West Florida was unprecedented for its military seizure and forcible annexation of foreign land (aside from Native American lands). That some, or perhaps many, West Floridians welcomed the U.S. takeover is not relevant.
Note: Two years later, the U.S. formally asserted a specious claim to all the land west of the Perdido River, thereby annexing the West Florida land between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers and recognizing only the present-day Florida panhandle as Spanish. Spain rejected this claim.

The above presents clear reasons why the California Republic should not be considered independent and sovereign, while on the other hand, the Republic of West Florida should be so considered.


Jeff in CA 03:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation is wrong. Vermont is pronounced /v3rmɑnt/. General American English does not possess the phoneme /ɒ/ - only /ɑ/. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.218.77 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires, among other things, that all challenged material must be supported by a reliable source. The pronunciation of "Vermont" has been challenged. Therefore you must provide a reliable source for your pronunciation before you can put it in Wikipedia.
Next, any decent publication that provides pronunciations also provides a pronunciation key. When you click on a Wikipedia IPA pronunciation, you are brought to the Help:IPA for English page. The diaphoneme /ɒ/ is present on that page and /ɑ/ is not. I don't think your going to get very far trying to specify a pronunciation symbol that isn't in Wikipedia's de facto pronunciation key. I think you will have to prove your case at "Help:IPA for English" and get /ɒ/ included there before you try to use it anywhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the phoneme /ɑː/ is on that page (the colon indicates a long vowel). That page is ambiguous because it is for all varieties of English - if you look at the page for General American English, you will see that /ɑ/ exists along with /ɒ/, though /ɒ/ is only an allophone of /ɔ/. I don't see why using a diaphoneme is helpful in this case when the GA pronunciation is clearly not /ɒ/ (compare http://www.forvo.com/word/vermont/#en to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_back_rounded_vowel). 148.85.206.190 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of putting the pronunciation symbols at the start of the article is so that an ordinary reader can learn to pronounce the word. To accomplish this, it is necessary that every single symbol be present in the page that the pronunciation symbols are linked to, without the slightest variation, embellishment, or removal of embellishment. We cannot expect to readers to understand the relationship between /ɑː/ and /ɑ/; I'm no expert on IPA and I'm not sure if /ɑː/ and /ɑ/ are the same. Is that what you are saying, that /ɑː/ and /ɑ/ are the same and they are both closer to the correct pronunciation of "Vermont" than /ɒ/? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - in short, that is what I'm saying: the General American pronunciation of Vermont is closer to /ɑ/ than /ɒ/ (see the pronunciations I linked to above).. The only difference between /ɑː/ and /ɑ/ is vowel length. 148.85.206.190 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of other use of /ɑ/ in General American speech? The sounds for /ɑ/ and /ɑ:/ at Help:IPA are identical; they are linked to the same file. If you are saying /ɑ/ and /ɑ:/ are different and the former is reasonably common in General American speech, it seems some other files such as Help:IPA and Help:IPA for English need to be fixed before this article can be fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Update sound sample and IPA

The sound sample from OED (which isn't even American) is wrong. The "standard" pronunciation is definitely incorrect. Maybe that's what it's supposed to be pronounced (as if there is a standard), but it's almost never pronounced that way. The standard/common AE pronunciation is not with a voiceless alveolar plosive (like you're spitting out a "t" or the "t" in "tie") or pronounced fully unless it is deliberate. Almost everyone pronounces it (and other consonants) with a glottal stop of varying stresses if it occurs at the end of a word/pronunciation. The voiceless alveolar plosive or the /t/ is glottalized into /(ʔ)/, so another pronunciation that should be added is /vɜrmɑn(ʔ)/. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Update, I've found an interview ref where it clearly states that "Vermont" is pronounced as /vɜrmɒn/ or /vɜrmɒn(ʔ)/. Also, in the Vermont dialect, the glottalization of the /t/ is even more pronounced than "standard" AmE (as if there is one). I've gone ahead and changed the IPA representations. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
So there's at least three pronunciations that are not in the article: /vɜr'mɑn(ʔ)/, /vɜr'mɒn(ʔ)/, and /vɜr'mɒn/. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Update, I think the New England dialects use ɚ (as in standard) rather than ɜr (as in curl). Also, I think standard pronunciation is with an unrounded vowel ɑ, not the rounded vowel ɒ. Someone should verify the IPA. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank God someone successfully changed the IPA after my attempt was denied. I don't think there is any functional difference between /ɚ/ and /ɜr/ in my dialect of New England English. And the vowel should definitely not be rounded. 71.184.237.126 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflating French and French-Canadian ancestry

I object to the conflation of French and French-Canadian ancestry in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. I've posted my reasons over at I object to this, and I've posted my reasoning over at the Maine talk page. —Quintucket (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Politics of Vermont article is a bit of a mess, and it turns out is being better handled here as is. Can we merge the relevant information from that article to further bolster this one instead of separating it out? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article was constructed "seat of the pants" like most articles not written from scratch. Elections are frequently confused/conflated with "politics," which isn't accurate but a confusion the media promotes. "Politics" is what elected officials do once they are elected to office. This article is here to be included in a navbox that includes all the other states, some of which are worse or more confused with elections than this one. Standing alone, it is less likely to be returned to the mess of being confused with elections.
Also, the Vermont article is too large, as most mature state and country articles get to be. We are looking for material to fork, not merge. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

tribe reference

Your second paragraph mentions an Iroquois tribe. The Iroquois is actually a confederacy includes 6 tribes. I bet the Mohawks lived in Vermont. Dave Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.111.39 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Fact

Within this article it says VT was the first state to legalize same sex marriage in the US. This is incorrect (I believe it was Massachusetts?) Somebody should look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.19.126 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The article states that VT was the first to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation. Other states may have legalized same-sex marriage ahead of VT, but that was almost exclusively through court action, including in Massachusetts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


"In 2009 Vermont became the first state to approve same-sex marriage..." is how it's worded, with the "passing the statute without being forced by court challenge or ruling" coming afterwards. Perhaps it'd be smartest to put it beforehand? I'm no English teacher but it seems as if the sentence isn't exactly clear on that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.19.126 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

134... is right, the way it was worded stated Vermont was first, with the legislature part being additional information. I reworded it to make it clear that Vermont was the first to approve through unforced legislation. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias?

"Farms in the state were estimated to have hired 2,000 illegal immigrants as of 2005. Local authorities have ignored the problem, sympathizing with the employers about being able to efficiently run a farm."

Never really edited Wikipedia before but I've read a lot from here and this doesn't seem to hold up to Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps I am wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.19.126 (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the reference provided, I've reworded this to say, "Farms in the state were estimated to have hired 2,000 illegal immigrants as of 2005, largely tolerated by local police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." User:HopsonRoad 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Woodchuck vs. flatlander

On two occasions, so far, I have reverted attempts to use the term, "woodchuck", even jocularly as a reference to native Vermonters. It's a sufficiently pejorative term that people don't refer to themselves as woodchucks, nor would they be pleased if you called them one. The same goes for "flatlander". As a Vermonter, I've heard the term applied exclusively to low-income rural residents of Vermont. I've never heard it applied to prosperous native Vermonters.

The most recent inclusion of "woodcock" in the article is in the "Demographics" section. Even assuming the jocular context that the citations use the term in, I still don't feel that a discussion of slang terms for native Vermonters or others belongs in the "Demographics" section. In my view, it's not consistent with an encyclopedic entry, but if such a discussion were to make an appearance, I'd put it into a "Popular culture" section. As to the underlying cultural tension between the values of multi-generational residents of Vermont versus the values of new arrivals, that's been a continuing theme of life in Vermont and is worthy of discussion. User:HopsonRoad 19:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have heard reasonably prosperous Vermonters refer to themselves as woodchucks. The term is widely used in the name of local events, typically, events connected to the outdoors. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As the editor who made the most recent addition, I am content with your most recent changes. Vttale (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Vttale. It was owing to our useful discussion at your talk page. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that "Woodchuck Day" is primarily a celebration of native Vermonters. Elsewhere, it is a product promotion for a brand of Vermont hard cider, which depicts a real woodchuck on the label. I'm further unconvinced that Vermonters, who jokingly call themselves "woodchucks" or "flatlanders", would be pleased if someone called them that in Town Meeting. One could argue that the Stowe rendition of Woodchuck Day is an event held by flatlanders and not something condoned by those who are most frequently called woodchucks.

Self designation can take the sting off of what is usually an insult, e.g. the use by African Americans of the N-word in Boyz in the Hood and The Wire and the light-hearted fun in this Woodchuck of the Year contest held in 2010. The Quakers tolerated what was intended to be an insulting term, although they would prefer to be referred to collectively as the "Religious Society of Friends". I would like to see more evidence discussed here to leave the suggestion in the article that those terms are anything but mildly pejorative. User:HopsonRoad 14:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, jocular. I have never heard "woodchuck" applied to Vermonters before. It is most likely a Western Vermont term? Soouthern Vermont?
"Flatlander" definitely pejorative. Maybe more than mildly. All out-of-staters, including people from New Hampshire, with taller mountains. But more aimed at Massachusetts and New York, perhaps. Student7 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I live in central-eastern Vermont, proximal to Routes 4 and 5. People here would know what both Woodchucks and Flatlanders refer to. User:HopsonRoad 03:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Here in north central (Middlesex) too. Vttale (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

first to ban slavery?

The article says "Vermont was the first state to partially abolish slavery[7][8] while still independent." That was in 1777. But Rhode Island's article says "In 1652, Rhode Island passed the first abolition law in the thirteen colonies, banning African slavery." Rhode Island joined the union in 1776 before Vermont. They were both partial bans. So is Rhode Island first, not Vermont? Is the distinction that Vermont's constitution was the first to have a partial ban? Nearwater (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. RI was then Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, not a state. Distinction doesn't really belong in state article, but what are you going to do? Law had to be approved by an appointed Royal Governor before becoming law. The method of enforcing a colony law would have to be quite different from a state with a State Prosecutor, Circuit Court, etc. So the sentence here is correct. I tried to change the sentence in RI to be more accurate. Student7 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI. Vermont 1st state to ban slavery in its constitution, see NY Times source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Another source USA Today here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

French vote as a bloc?

The article French American describes French Canadians in Vermont as "largely assimilated" which matches my observations, as well. It is reliably cited.

However Politics_of_Vermont#Political_parties_in_Vermont describes French Vermonters as a bloc that votes Democrat 90% of the time! This approaches, if not exceeds the African American voting pattern. Many hardcopy citations are given to support this which I cannot verify. Can anyone help? Student7 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young

The Vermont#Religion section is incorrect per MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS. It says "Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young—the first two leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)".

  1. Per Talk:Joseph Smith Move, Joseph Smith is correct Joseph Smith, Jr. isn't
  2. Joseph Smith, Jr. was not the first leader "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Church), he was the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole. All sects in the Latter Day Saint movement claim him, not just the LDS Church. This is a well established protocol as until 1844 the name of the sect Joseph Smith created went from the Church of Christ to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the name in 1844, and following his death, several sects broke apart, inculdng the LDS Church, RLDS Church, Rigdonites, Hedrickites and many more.

At a minimum the sentence needs to reflect that Joseph Smith was the founder of the entire movement and Young was the second president of the LDS Church so "Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, and Brigham Young, the 2nd president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were both...." is correct per MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As you (Skyerise) requested I took it to the talk page. I would appreciate your input.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 12:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS, I concur with the changes implemented by ARTEST4ECHO. User:HopsonRoad 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Illegal" or "undocumented" immigrants

A change today changed "illegal" to "undocumented" immigrants. As a Vermont notary and disaster volunteer for a well-known NGO, I object. I have encountered many Vermonters who lack the documents needed to get a regular, REAL ID driver license or state ID card, and instead settled for the Driver's Privilege Card, which can be obtained without proving legal presence in the US. The folks I encountered spoke with a Vermont accent and had family names that go back for centuries in Vermont; it was clear they were undocumented native-born American citizens. Although they were undocumented, they were neither illegal nor immigrants.

I am not the only one to notice this; see this news story. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The cited article uses the term "illegal". I updated the number and date of reporting to correspond with the citation. User:HopsonRoad 00:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vermont/Archive_2&oldid=1137295501"