Talk:Vermont

Archives
Archive 1

Possible Copyright Violation

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)

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)

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?

• Specifications on whether New York and New Hampshire officially -- in law, by de facto actions -- recognized Vermont independence

• 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