Talk:Killington, Vermont secession movement

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

How this page came about: Taken from Killington Vermont Talk page

This article still has some POV issues. The legislative links seem out of place in an article about Killington, though would be okay as supporting documentation in an article about the Killington Secession Movement. I would encourage interested people to consider starting a new document with information about this movement so that the Killington article can refer to it, but also focus on information about the town itself as well. Jessamyn 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please describe to me a situation in which a US state would WILLINGLY AGREE to allow a piece of territory under its control (completely surrounded by other territory under its control) to be legally considered part of an adjoining state because a few hundred of its residents desire it? The very idea just seems ludicrous to me...

It probably seems pretty ludicrous to everyone else, too. Which is kind of covered by the statement about how it's expected Vermont will reject it. Nerrin 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else except the few hundred residents...are they really that unconnected to reality? On what basis do they actually believe that this idea is feasible, legal, realistic, etc.? Grammaticus Repairo 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this is just speculation and can't be confirmed without talking to them, I suspect the residents aren't actually so unconnected from reality, and that it's just a sort of "drastic" and attention-grabbing way of making their complaint known. Nerrin 05:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two words for them: "cheap theatrics". Grammaticus Repairo 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of potential OR problems

Unless some of these sentences were paraphrased from existing material whether for or against secession, they would fall into the category of WP:OR. That is, observing that NH does not have an income tax may well be true but it must be stated by a proponent of secession and footnoted, and not original research by the editor. The same applies to critical statements. Must be taken from some publication or newspaper (or more than one) and footnoted. Student7 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issue

I've just started looking at this article and it appears to have substantial deficiencies. While I've removed two dead news links, the one that remains is of a highly questionable source. The secession Town Meetting article was non-binding and completely symbolic and had apparent support from less than 15% of the population. No action was taken, other than a decidely ineffectual move to support the "resolution" in either the VT or NH legislature. There was little follow-up to the proposal other than short lived, quick hit news pieces that no longer exist. Since sufficient mention is made in the Killington, VT article, this article may be more than eligible for deletion. Does anyone know of any substantive action, beyond a symbolic vote by a distinct minority of the Killington community, that would warrant an article of this scope in Wikipedia? Vttor (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]