Talk:Second Vermont Republic/Archive 1

Copyright
The verbatim list of princples is a copyright violation, one will note the term "Copyright 2005" at the bottom of the page it was taken from. I would reword and summarize it, but I figure some of the Vermont WikiProject people, being more knowledgeable about the subject, might want to do the honors. Danthemankhan 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier movement?
When I was a student at Middlebury College in the early 1970s, I remember that a Vermont secessionist group had pasted a manifesto all over campus. Does this ring a bell with anyone?Dynzmoar 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A myth?
I recall seeing an article recently which disputed the existence of the first Vermont republic, equating it to a myth.

I located this article and the title is What Second Vermont Republic? It appeared in Vermont Life Summer 2006 and was written by Hand and Muller.

So, this article should be tagged as containing questionable or incorrect information. No?


 * "Vermont continued to govern itself as a sovereign entity based in the eastern town of Windsor for fourteen years. The Vermont Republic issued its own currency, coins and operated a statewide postal service. Thomas Chittenden, who came to Vermont from Connecticut in 1774, acted as head of state, using the term governor over president. Chittenden governed the nascent republic from 1778 to 1789 and from 1790 to 1791. Chittenden exchanged ambassadors with France, the Netherlands, and the American government then at Philadelphia. In 1791, Vermont joined the federal Union as the fourtenth state–the first state to enter the union after the original thirteen colonies, and a counterweight to slaveholding Kentucky, which was admitted to the Union shortly afterward."


 * That's from the Vermont article. In short, no...no myth. Because of an ongoing dispute between NY and NH as to who owned the land that is Vermont (among other reasons), the Congress was hesitant to allow VT into the Union, as to not upset the involved parties - mostly the more powerful, important state of NY. So, we flew solo for a while.--Jonashart 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Whats the big deal about the SVR supposedly having ties with the Neo-Confederates? I check the League of the South site and they seem far from racist ( http://www.leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/racism.htm ). So whats the big? Howcome this article calls it controversal?? I don't really think the Second Vermont Republic's alleged ties to the League of the South should be in this article.

These "racism" allegations look like a smearing campaign. Anonymous bloggers making baseless accusation? Come on! This can't be serious. Hugo Dufort 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When a -non- anonymous blogger tried to discuss the SVR issues and get some answers about it, Naylor wrote a screed attacking him on a personal level and brought his -employer- into it. There are good reasons for some of the people involved in this to be anonymous.  That said, the blogs that bring up the SVR and racism issues documents them -extremely- well and doesn't make baseless accusations of any sort.


 * It's listed as a controversy because, in Vermont, it -is- a controversy. It is honestly the only news about SVR that you hear any longer.  JulieFromVT 09:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Someone recently added:

The organization, however, experienced notoriety of a different nature when an anonymous blogger produced evidence tying several of their members to White Supremacist organizations. In response, chose to personally attack one of the bloggers who brought the story to light in a press release which identified his organization of employment and mentioned its executive director by name.

The the question of whether or not the organization has any connection to racist and white supremacy has yet to be answered and has yet to be refuted.

Seems a bit dubious, unsourced and possibly POV to me. However, I'm no expert on the subject and if someone who knows more than I do could take a look at this and see what can be verified and rewritten, I'd be grateful.Paj.meister 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think that anything published by bloogers on Blogspot should count as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on another subject. The accusation of racism is unfair and unverified.  In fact, you could say that the SRV has demonstrated that it is not racist.  I don't want to get into an editing war, so I supplied the "other side" of the argument to create NPOV.  Logophile 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I and others have supplemented the section about racism with a bit of documentation. I think it's actually quite solid the way it's written right now.  I've no idea whether or not the SVR is a racist organization, but I think it's at least important to address it. JulieFromVT 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just removed a rather large amount of additions which involved some major POV stuff and a lot of editorial commentary. JulieFromVT 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

SVR is essentially defunct - the history of this organization is only 'historical' in the sense that some Vermonters were intrigued by the ideas of secession and self-government, but the leaders of the SVR were unwilling to distance themselves from other organizations that advocated (or reputedly advocated) nativism, xenophobia, and racism; or that were lead or had strong ties to individuals that were prominent for nativist and racist views. There was/is a strong sense in Vermont that SVR was advocating secession WITH the people we should be seceding FROM. So however compelling their ideas may (or may not) have been, the coziness and comfort that the leadership of SVR was perceived to have - and the fact that they sponsor and co-sponsor secession 'get-togethers' and 'conventions' - with other more dubious organizations ended up quickly and almost completely discrediting the organization within the state. Faveuncle (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Faveuncle


 * They had an event with 40 people in January. They claim to have a list of 1000 people.  A lot of organizations are going through a low cycle, but as long as theer is a web page, which keeps getting updated, meetings and events from time to time, and continuing news stories (like recent ones by Christopher Ketcham), etc. it is not defunct.Carol Moore 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Direction of the Article
I suggest that we work to improve the article by including more factual information about the Second Vermont Republic itself. I can see that the racism controversy needs to be included, because it is a fairly significant issue in certain circles. However we need to be fair and truthful and NPOV. Logophile 09:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Status of the group
I just read that SVR has lost most of it's membership due to the "racism controversy" and that a large portion of the members have formed a new group called Free Vermont. Vermonters got any info on this? Murderbike 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Both groups are listed at the Middlebury Institute Registry of Separatist groups without noting an conflict. Naylor is involved with the Institute. In the world of secessionist, small is beautiful, separatism, the more the merrier. Whatever works!
 * Carol Moore 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Flag
Can anyone verify the existence of the "Project for a New Vermont State Flag"? A few Google searches shows nothing.

Recent Changes / Naylor's Unsourced Quote
I made some changes explained in detail in the edit summary.

I like Naylor's quote, however, it's not sourced, even by a title and date, and the article link no longer works. There is a more low key quote at this article: Christian Avard, [http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/022007/Secessionists.shtml Secessionists or racists? Concerns raised over Vermont links to neo-Confederates], Vermont Guardian, February 23, 2007.

Should we be conscientious wiki editors and replace the fun, flamboyant unsourced quote with the more subdued sourced one?? Or at least mention the name of the article and that it is no longer there?? Carol Moore 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * I did replace the quote with a linked one, plus more info. When I read the Vermont Guardian article again I realized they used almost the same Naylor quote, saying it came from a Radio interview.  However it replaced the word "clients" (which sounds more likely) with the word "clowns" - but at least this is a live link.  Frustrating!
 * Carol Moore 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Deleted WP:OR Section on Vermont State archivist
The newest addition made me realize this whole entry really is WP:OR in that you are drawing the inference that the archivist is talking directly about SVR, when he clearly is not naming any group. And this article is about SVR, not some amorphous Vermont Secession movement, to which any such description might be relevant. Find a reputable source that directly counters SVR claims. Note that anonymous bloggers are not reputable sources. It is frustrating when there is not a reliable source for a point one wants to make, but that is the nature of an encyclopedia, as opposed to an opinion piece. Carol Moore 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * User:PeteinVt who only edits on the Vermont secession topic and evidently is ANTI-secession, claims he has asked an administrator to look at my bias in the edit summary of his revert. "(Restore; no reference is made to SVR; req Wikipedia administrator review Carolmooredc (well known secessionist proponent) contributions and who regularly deletes information not seen as pro-secession.)"


 * Where did you make this request? Not on Requests_for_administrator_attention. I don't think edit summaries gain admin attention, do they?? Please respond.


 * Please note that I use my real name and the Carol Moore article about me specifically mentions interest in secession. Being pro or anti something doesn't mean you are biased unless your edits clearly and consistently violate WP policies, which I think PeteinVT's recent addition and revert of clearly WP:OR material does.


 * I think this deletion stands on its merits. Anyone could have written the press release, including a group critical of SVR that quoted them.  Unless the archivist explicitly stated that the press release actually was from *or* about the Second Vermont Republic, it's not relevant to this article.  There are lots of other explicit anti-SVC sources you can quote if that is your goal.

Carol Moore 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Am in the process of doing so. Some of us have lives. From what I've now learned you also edit Wiki articles of people for whom you have been paid to do web work. Your work as a blogger for VTCommons, the sister publication of SVR, coupled with your many pro secession edits and deletions are certainly deserving of review. User:PeterInVT


 * I guess if I was an anonymous user I could appeal to Privacy: "Posting personal information about someone else (regardless of whether it's true or not) is a serious case of harassment and usually results in the offender getting permanently blocked." Again, I feel the quality of my edits on this topic speak for themselves and am not worried. But I will wait for time and/or other opinions before revert the WP:OR material, though I believe that asking for a review of my neutrality as a way of protecting WP:OR material -- which you haven't really defended as not being WP:OR -- is quite problematic in itself.
 * Carol Moore 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

But, as you yourself have pointed out, you are not an anonymous user, so this is a red herring statement that implies a potential negative consequence that is clearly, to me, being used for effect. The information about your partisan activities is germane to a discussion about overall intent, not the quality, of your edits.

As a newcomer to Wikipedia I will proceed at my own pace and will not submit to direction from you, particularly since you have adopted - instantly I might add - an adversarial tone directed to me who you perceive may not share your extreme position on secession. Perhaps if I had ignored the same information that didn't promote SVR and thus diminished the reason why the Vermont Secesssionist blog was started, as you had in the Marc Awodey article, you'd have considered me PRO-secession. Put another way, anyone not a part of your chorus you perceive as ANTI. That's why I believe the intent of your edits and deletions are in serious need of oversight and review. I concede the quality of your overt partisanship.User:PeterInVT —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have asked on Wikipedia_talk:Privacy whether or not people can post personal info on me that is not from either my Carol Moore web page or my personal web page (linked at User: carolmooredc) falls within that scope of a privacy violation. I really don't know.  There's no specific info on Conflict_of_interest.


 * I didn't realize how questionable your first reference to the Archivist was, and even improved it, until you added even more questionable stuff to it. Maybe I should have announced in advance it was totally WP:OR and explained why and given you a chance to find some other source that explains he's talking about SVR. And maybe you should have reverted it and explained why it wasn't WP:OR and looked for another source that makes it clear he is talking about SVR.  I think your running to an administrator, without any discussion here, is a bit much. So while I might have been a bit preemptory thinking you would understand the problem, you started hostilities by not just reverting and asking we discuss this in talk.  Please see Dispute_resolution.


 * As for Marc Awodey, I only made one change to your {PeteinVT] edits. I changed "its" to "the" since Vermont Commons networks with, is "sister" to, but not owned or controlled by Vermont Commons. I guess I should have included a link to the SVR site which makes that clear? What's the big deal?
 * Carol Moore 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I didn't change your original "op-ed", was only sloppy and imprecise in my new sentence in using "article" since I agree it was an opinion piece. And it was still a change since you didn't use UNDO, which is why it wasn't a revert.Carol Moore 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk


 * You wrote "opinion" in a first sentence. At this point I don't remember (and won't bother to research) if I wrote second sentence or changed your "opinion piece" in second sentence to article, carelessly since I should have used the more accurate term. The point is in Wikipedia a revert is when you go to the (diff) section and use undo to go back to some original language.  And I'm pretty sure that I did not do that, unless I reverted the whole darned section, rewrote it and accidently used the wrong word.Carol Moore 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Frank Bryan's and John McClaughry's book
Hi Carol. Frank Bryan's book "OUT!" is more humorous than any kind of serious proposal for secession. His more serious Vermont Papers, written with John McClaughry is a proposal for making Vermont democracy happen on a smaller scale, decentralized from Montpelier, and closer to the citizen, but it makes no argument for a separation of Vermont from the U.S. Thomas Naylor may argue for a sort of return to the Vermont Republic, but should be mindful that the first republic was, from the start, a U.S. state hopeful. That sentiment is expressed in the motto Quarta Decima Stella (the fourteenth star) found on its copper coinage and in its flag of fourteen stars which anticipated Vermont becoming the fourteenth United State. Those who suggest the stars represented Vermont's fourteen counties will discover Vermont had fewer than 10 counties until well after statehood. None of this is to belittle the progressive Vermont Constitution of 1777, or detract from Naylor's movement. But I think Vermont State Archivist Gregory Sanford is wise to caution us not to confuse fact and myth. About Vermont's mythology — it's all true, and some of it actually happened. CApitol3 (talk)


 * I just went to my copy of the book and searched and see that there is no index item on secession. So should we just delete that reference? Of course, Frank Bryan himself is listed on the advisory board, so the alternative would be to mention that fact as well. I personally don't have a strong opinion.
 * Carol Moore 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Carol, I wish that you might have gone to your copy on 22 July 2007 and checked the index, or better still, the text, before posting:

Previously, University of Vermont professor Frank Bryan had published two books supporting Vermont secession, OUT! The Vermont Secession Book (1987, with Bill Mares) and The Vermont Papers: Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale (1989, with John McClaughry).

The first book, illustrated by cartoonist Jeff Danziger, has a comic book feeling and does not pursue secession peaceably but instead with bombs. The second, far more serious book, is about how Vermont might govern itself in the future. It makes no provision for separation from the United States, a union which Vermont sought to join. Vermont before statehood was by default a republic in that it was independent and had a representational form of government. It sought union and union was not foisted upon it. Each state has its own cultural identity and mythology. Vermont has a very lovely one, but the notion of an independent people who are looking to exit the Union is not a part of its culture or its mythology. Calvin Coolidge's Brave Little State of Vermont speech taps into something entirely different, the idea that the small state of Vermont plays an important role as a reservoir of democracy that can correct and restore the United States "If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the Union and support of our institutions should languish." CApitol3 (talk)


 * "OUT!" may be tongue in cheek even when (as I see on my copy beside me) the "Special note to the reader" says "This book is about the coming secession of Vermont from the Union in 1991" and the back explicitly says: "to support our Vermont independence movement-buy this book!" However, the fact the Bryan as co-author of THAT book is on the advisory Board of SVR is relevant so will include.


 * Re: July 22 entry on McLaughry/Bryan, I was still a pretty new editor then so not as good at checking whether assertions that I assumed were relevant actually were. However, having been challenged many times since, am getting to be better editor.


 * Anyway, the McLaughry/Ryan book doesn't seem that relevant to SVR so feel free to delete if you want.:Carol Moore 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

To CApitol3 I am not sure if you actually want it deleted or not from your comments above. I myself am starting to think it should be deleted on grounds of irrelevance. If you want me to delete it I will. Please do tell :-) Carol Moore 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Separate Section on Vermont Secession Legal Issues?
First, per WP:Dispute, I have asked a neutral editor offering assistanced at WP:Editor_assistance to look at the Bryan/McLaughry and Bryan/Baldwin/Archivist related paragraphs and give their opinions so by the time other editors get around to looking at this page again, there hopefully will be some experienced and neutral input for everyone to think about.

While I frankly don't feel like working on such a Vermont Secession Legal Issues section, and it would have to be carefully constructed to avoid WP:OR, it is another way to deal with the issues raised by the Vermont Archivist. I did mention a separate section as an option to get the editor's opinion also. Carol Moore 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Use of Vermont National Guard image
To illustrate section on the flag the Second Republic group has adopted a picture of the Vermont National Guard displaying their regimental flag which is based on the Green Mountain Boys' battle flag and used by Vermont from 1777 until 1804, is shown. I am concerned that this sort of picture editing is the equivalent to weasel words. Use of the picture could suggest that Vermont's state guard is separatist. This can safely be dispensed with. The Adjutant General of Vermont's Guard at the time of the picture, was the now former Republican Candidate for the U.S. senate, presumably not running on a pro Second Vermont Republic platform given her unconditional support for the Iraqi war. CApitol3 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why else would the photo be used except to suggest it is -- or could eventually be -- secessionist? It certainly would not be put up there as a secret counter-argument to SVR's desire to secede, could it? After all that would WP:POV and against Wiki policy. Of course, I've already noted at least one other instance of this sort of thing, and at my leisure am going to seek a third opinion on it. Again, I'm not opposed to a "controversies" section that includes one of the controversies different opinions on Vt seceding, assuming that itself is not against wiki policies. Just don't like argument's seemingly snuck in as facts. Carol Moore 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi Carol, I appreciate your forthrightness. Facts are troublesome things. Deft insinuation more so. There is nothing to suggest that the Vermont National Guard's participation in Rising Phalanx an operation to help support an Independent Republic of Macedonia, which never sought voluntary union with Yugoslavia, implies effective support by Vermont's National Guard, an organization Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan admit in their Washington Post op-ed piece is no longer controlled by Vermont,  for our state leaving the U.S. There remains some serious differences: Vermont sought admission to the federal Union. Vermont petitioned for it, sought allies first in the Continental Congress and later in the newly constituted U.S. Congress to bring it into union. CApitol3 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly at this point I don't know how much of some of this stuff is irrelevant and/or POV so at my leisure will ask a third opinion from neutral source. Really more relevant to learning how to edit for other articles I'm more concerned about editing where I have to deal with much more combative and experienced editors. Carol Moore 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I've reverted the term "article" to "opinion piece" since an article is part of the content of a newspaper normally produced by staff. The Baldwin-Bryan piece is carried as opinion in the WaPo and neither are listed there as staff or as columists. Opinion is by its nature POV and the distinction is important. PeterInVT (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI. You haven't reverted it, since that means an undo on a revision comparison page. You have changed it to a more appropriate word.Carol Moore 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Perhaps you're just confused by common English usage. I wrote "opinion piece," you "changed it" to "article." I reverted that to "opinion piece." Sometimes a word is just a word. Even inexperienced editors know that. Changing a word, and thereby changing the representation of what the Baldwin/Bryan piece is, isn't making it less POV, as you said; it's just another example of apparent partisanship on behalf of secession, in this case, the SVR group. One term for it in the industry is press fluffing. PeterInVT (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag section endnote
Hi, I've gone to endnote 22, Grace Rogers Copper's Thirteen Star Flags. I am curious what language there suggests your point? A page number would be great. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Current status of article
Because both the Bryan/McLaughrey and Archivist sections now are more balance and/or accurate I don't have a problem with them personally. Though I think a real purish could have the Archivist section delete on WP:OR.

However, after reading WP:Libel and WP:defamation, I do think that that defamation is the POV goal of creating a separate section on the links to the allegations of racism are an example of it. Those those two reference should' be in the article to provide better sourcing for the article self. Otherwise there is only WP:RS reference in the description of the issue. (Anonymous blogs obviously not being WP:RS, but only linkable as part of the historical record.) So I have made those changes. If others disagree and want this WP:libel and WP:Defamation section in, I can report it to WIKI and see what the powers that be think.

Also if citations not found for two noted instances, they should be removed soon.Carol Moore 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Flag section deletion
Hi, I have deleted the recent addition referring to a call by members of the Vermont General Assembly to return troops to the U.S. It is not relevant to the section subject (SVR's flag); or the article subject Second Vermont Republic. There is no connection between the opinion of a member of the Vermont General Assembly on the engagement of the Vermont National Guard and Second Vermont Republic, which is not mentioned in the cited source.

There remains a problem with citation/endnote number 22, Grace Cooper's "Thirteen Star Flags" I've read the text and can't fathom why you are citing it. CApitol3 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think the section on the current use of the flag is irrelevant and WP:OR argumentative vs. SVR and should be removed, with photo. If people want to make the point there are people (including national guard) opposed to Vermont Secession just find some WP:RS quotes. Also, now that there are two different controversies, I have no problem with a controversy section, which is where WP:RS statements can be put. Carol Moore 06:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Why this section is original research-as I played around with it I realized the problem was not relevance. The fact that the flags are similar is relevant to the history of SVR. The problem is that the Editor was trying to synthesize his personal point (including with an unsourced fact) that the Vermont Natl Guard uses the original flag and is not for secession. (Synthesis means: If A is a fact and B is a fact than C must be a fact.) Synthesis is an example of WP:original research aka WP:OR which is a WIKI no no.  I personally don't care if the point is made - as long as we do it the wiki way, which means find a WP:RS who quotes someone as saying, in effect, "We use that flag and we aren't for secession!"


 * I am not as strict about WP:OR as others who use it to keep out material entirely. As I said before the whole Archivist section would have been scratched by now because it jumps to the conclusion Archivist WAS talking about WashPost article; but since additional quotes made it balanced, I let it slide.


 * But this example has been bugging me because it goes over the WP:SYN line. Obviously my adding to the problem -- like my fun fact on withdrawing the Natl Guard from Iraq to give it balance - just compounds, doesn't solve, the problem in this case. So let's see if we can come to agreement on this WP:OR issue before I ask for third opinion. Thanks. Carol Moore 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The sky is blue.
Hi Carol, the text "Neither the Vermont Air National Guard or the Vermont Army National Guard endorse the secession of Vermont from the United States" was added (by me) to balance the implied tacit support of the Vermont National Guard for SVR and Vermont's separation from our federal union. Your edits are clearly driven by an agenda of support for the SVR and secession. I have questioned before the inclusion of the photo of the guard members with the Green Mountain Boy flag. Why is it here at all? Your edits seem to be less about a similar (or is it identical?) flag, and more about saying, look, here is Vermont's state guard helping a parallel independence movement (Macedonia withdrawing from Yugoslavia). What would interest this user, would be information on why SVR chose a flag which features the stars of the first thirteen United States? A flag that was used in battle by a force under authority of the Continental Congress, as it was after October 1777. I am always fascinated by home state's independent streak and contrary nature, but it is difficult to imagine why Vermonters would join a group that paints the Southern Poverty Law Center as the bad guys, comparing them to Joe McCarthy, and gives succor to the racist, antisemetic League of the South. Aren't they the perpetuators of everything Vermonters fought against 1860–1864? Wouldn't this be exactly the sort of thing in America that Vermont would wish to secede from, not to?

It is a dizzying amount of editing to follow, you start a new section–then, when it unfolds not to your expectation, lobby for its removal. The same occurred with the John McClaughry portion. All fine and good until details emerge that don't quite support SVR's premise. Then it is discussion entries suggesting its wholesale removal. Agenda driven editing produces results similar to agenda driven "scientific" research. Following the thread of edits here of the last 3 months I begin to feel I am observing the frantic rearrangement of deck chairs. CApitol3 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First I agree the photo and national guard stuff doesn't belong there and just was adding some balanced facts, which seemed easier than arguing with whoever put them in. So now that there are two of us, perhaps we should agree to delete it. In any case, I've seen so many sky is blue statements challenged in the past that it did not occur to me there was a sky is blue defense for WP:OR or WP:RS. Please show me that reference because I will use it in a heartbeat :-)


 * I don't know what new section you mean; I didn't put in the flag business originally. In McLaughrey we're talking about edits 6 months apart when I mistakenly thought book WAS about secession. My only agenda is that the article be balanced, given the questionable strongly POV edits in the past. If you want to see dizzing edits, edit wars, revert wars, etc etc I've got a dozen articles I can recommend to you. This one is tame. Carol Moore 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Second Vermont Republic and Kosovo
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/news_events/independent_kosovo_why_not_vermont

The Second Vermont Republic discusses the Kosovo Declaration of Independence in this article. Would it be considered relevant in this article? 72.248.122.243 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The political opinion expressed on this group's website should be taken as such. But if you were to find an online, or print source of the Associated Press story from a journal or newspaper I think it will have greater credence. The article's first question "And what's wrong with a People's Republic of Vermont?" has a simple answer: a state of 608,827 people, with roughly 120 citizens or expatriate Vermonters affiliated with SVR, is not going to seek independence. There is no mandate. Some of my family members thought SVR a charming notion and joined. Without exception they now think of it as akin to the Confederate States of America types. And why a people's republic? Typically they tend to be autocratic police states. The Associated Press photograph is interesting. Not a sign of a single flag of Kosovo but instead the flag of Albania and wonders of wonders: the American flag! Kosovo appears to be rather fond of the nation SVR would like to extract Vermont from. Curious too that both Kosovo, and the country it has declared independence from, the Republic of Serbia, seek union with the European Union. And the comparison of a dissolution based upon tribalism and religion with Vermont is a real stretch. CApitol3 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the question, probably not relevant unless Kosovo supported Vermont secession, which it probably would not because it's a US client state. I have seen an article or two linking both secessions, but nothing of encyclopedic interest. Carol Moore 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You're absolutely right - an eccentric gadfly who happens to currently reside in Vermont is not the same as the state of Vermont, or the people of the state of Vermont. Naylor's publicity seeking-fluff PR pieces are not of "encyclopedic interest",any more than a story in a kids' comicbook.Faveuncle (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Faveuncle.

Flag/Controversy
Under the 'controversy' heading, there is a paragraph about the flag and it's history. While interesting, it doesn't seem controversial, and if there is a controversy regarding the flag, it isn't explained or even hinted at. 152.133.6.2 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Moved it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

VT Secession blog link is relevant
Carol Moore, who regularly deletes many things in this entry that view SVR in a negative light, keeps deleting the external link to the VT Secession blog, simply because the blogger is "anonymous'. When taking on white supremacists, that is certainly understandable,as they can indeed be threatening and intimidating. However, I contend it is important for the link to stay in there for two reasons. One: much of the controversy was dug up by the blog's author, and two, everything he presents is verifiable and well-documented, it's not conjecture or fabrication. Anyone interested in the controversy needs to read it to make an informed decision. Carol has well-documented ties with the movement and also was a defender during the controversy, so her motivations are not unbiased in the least. Lordradish (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)lordradish


 * I have added an "Inappropriate External Links" warning to your talk page. Others should note this user recently has been warned twice about this practice and blocked once on it. Using outing and accusations of racism to keep violating policies which you have been warned about and blocked for before is probably something for WP:ANI but I will give you another chance. Please remove the link ASAP. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's no good, Lordradish: The blog doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards.  Blogs in general are strongly deprecated by WP:ELNO, especially if they're not written by a person notable for the primary subject of the blog.  Furthermore, it's inactive:  the last post was in 2008.  It doesn't meet the guidelines, so I've removed it.  If you're concerned about presenting your POV, then you are free to propose better sites, but I think we need to stop trying to force this particular one into this article.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatamidoing - the entire "controversy" section is based on something that was started by that blog. The Southern Poverty Law Center found it important enough to investigate SVR and confirm the accusations - how is that not relevant? Lordradish (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)lordradish


 * Carol, I was was warned because I posted too many links to a movie site in a short period of time. Had nothing to do with what's going on here. You'll have to forgive me, perhaps it's the sunspots.Lordradish (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)lordradish


 * Both articles about the controversy link to the website. That is more than adequate. Lots of self-published sites contain material summarizing WP:RS, but that doesn't mean they belong as external links. And this site has all sorts of allegations by the anonymous author about individuals that are NOT backed up by WP:RS, and therefore even more so not suited for an external link on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to archive
It's getting quite long with ancient threads, so time to tidy up, up to the ones starting 2011. I can do a quickie. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a current page that starts Jan. 1, with previous stuff archived, if that's an acceptable method? Vttor (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I was proposing, just starting in 2011. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)