Talk:Vermont/Archive 1

Wondering how to edit this State Entry? The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help (treat it as an outline.)

Condos
"In recent years, Vermont has been deluged with plans to build condos and houses on what was relatively inexpensive, untouched land. Vermont's government has responded with a series of laws controlling development and with some pioneering initiatives to prevent the loss of Vermont's dairy industry."
 * This reeks of POV. It's a real issue in Vermont, and belongs here, however, so does anyone have a neutral POV rewording of this?  Kaszeta 19:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maps
I uploaded some U.S. government maps of Vermont and moved them here for stoarge until we find a place for them in the article. They come from the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 07:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I resized the maps into thumbnails to illustrate what they might look like smaller. Perhaps useful for other editors to think about. - Yellowdesk 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the orange map with two counties in yellow are doing. Look good. A bit large for a county page. But it would be nice to be able to see on a map what counties are adjacent on a country article. If we can "afford" the "footprint" on the article. Not a whole lot going on in the county articles... Nice to be able to link off that map to any county. Better than going to the bottom of the county article.Student7 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the alleged "independent Republic of Vermont"
There seems to have arisen some kind of weird legend that Vermont, during the American Revolution, was "an independent republic" in a sense in which the original thirteen colonies/states were not. That isn't correct.

This article itself makes it clear: from the very start of the Revolution, Vermont never aspired to be anything other than a State of the U.S. The fact that Vermont wasn't a fourteenth "original State" of the Union, and the fact that it took until 1792 for Vermont to be admitted to the Union, are due to one factor and one factor alone, namely that that New York and New Hampshire disputed Vermont's right to constitute itself as a separate State because both NY and NH claimed the territory of Vermont for themselves; it wasn't because Vermont ever had the intention of going it alone as a separate nation apart from the U.S.!

And of course Vermont wasn't alone among the States in calling itself "the Republic of . . .". Tom129.93.17.139 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if one were to consider Vermont a former independent nation, it would have been a de facto nation, not de jure as the republic of Vermont was not formally recognized by any other nation or sovereign state. The Confederate States of America was also technically a de facto nation between 1861 and 1865, so if we say Vermont was an independent nation, it would only be fair to also list all of the confederate states as former independent nations. Personally, I’m in favor of just eliminating the sentence. Deathinvenice 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You should look at the Vermont Republic Wikipedia page: it certainly contends that Vermont was an independent republic in a way the thirteen colonies were, e.g., in having a national constitution. GeneCallahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate these good faith remarks. We are all tempted to agree since the media promotes this with bravado nationalistic statements from time to time. Nevertheless, Vermont was never recognized by another country, never established embassies, never sent embassies, never had a foreign policy that differed from its neighbors (which might have prevented entry into the us), never had a standing army or navy, never had a president, etc. It had to do something to get the original 13 to accept it as a separate entity. Up til then, the states just assumed that each would expand by gobbling up nearby territory and in fact had done just that. Vermont established for all time that the us could expand on a statewise basis- that the union was not permanently limited to 13 states. Everything that was done was to force that issue.Student7 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Geography and Climate
"The highest-recorded temperature was 105 °F (41 °C), at Vernon on July 4, 1911; the lowest-recorded temperature was -50 °F" The table immediately after this contradicts it, and gives the records as 101 and -38! GeneCallahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

copyedit (minor): I removed an extraneous "percent" Rwlane 02:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the autumn, Vermont's hills experience an explosion of red, orange and gold foliage caused by the sugar maple. That this famous display occurs so abundantly in Vermont is not due so much to the presence of a particular variant of the tree; it rather results from a number of soil and climate conditions unique to the area.

Does that paragraph contradict itself? The colorful foliage is caused by the sugar maple AND the colorful display is not due to particular tree? Well, which one is it?


 * I edited the above entry to clarify the language a bit, i did not make the original note however. StanBrinkerhoff 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone just made this edit: "The Green Mountains, (In French: Verts monts) so named because, compared to the higher White Mountains of New Hampshire and Adirondacks of New York, they have much more forestation." .. I really don't like how the Green Mountains are being defined by contrasting them with something else. It seems very wrong, however I cannot think of a way to clear this up. I hope someone can for me. The old edit seems like somehting someone made up. I went back ~20 edits and could not find a better version. Ideas? StanBrinkerhoff 04:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll check one of my Vermont history texts, I know I've got one that has a clear explaination. Loudergood 07:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The earlier etymology of the "Green Mountains" (that it derives from the geology) is well-supported. It was introduced, with citation, at 11:15, 5 October 2005 by 192.80.64.232. I have independently heard that the correct attribution of the name is NOT that the mountains are green by vegetation, but because of the schist that has a greenish color (and it definitely does!) The citation seems authoritative, although I have not had the opportunity to check it personally:


 * Geography - corrected origin of the name "Green Mountains" to include surficial geology. source Christman, Robert, 1959, Bedrock Geology of the Mt. Mansfield [15’] Quadrangle, Vermont: Vermont Geo)

I will make the change back to the geological explanation before I leave VT for North Carolina on Sunday morning, unless there is a strong consensus that the current article is correct. Bill Jefferys 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Physiographic Regions
These named regions now probably need to be mentioned in the Vermont regional descriptions. They probably need their own descriptions in Wikipedia. The Northeastern Highlands, for example, isn't just the Northeast Kingdom. It is huge and oontains a lot of New Hampshire, maybe Maine and probably some of Canada.Student7 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vermont General Court
Could somebody confirm whether Vermont General Court is accurate? Or is Vermont General Assembly right? (Or perhaps somehow both?) Rd232 talk 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I've heard the media use Vermont General Assembly plenty of times, but this is the first I've seen Vermont General Court. Loudergood 06:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Vermont Constitution (Chapter 2, Sec. 6) states "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall be styled, The General Assembly of the State of Vermont." (emphasis added). Link: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm. Cbvt 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Newport, Vermont
Isn't Newport large enough to be considered?-Giant89 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We really ought to put in all cities. It's not like we don't have the room for all nine! :) Having said that, then a lot of towns are going to be larger than some cities. Do we have to list them as well?Student7 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit
In 950, the Viking explorer, Olaf Tomsson is alleged to have reached the Northern part of the state, where he settled for several years before leaving because of war with the local Abenaki.

proof???-Giant89 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This sentence has been removed. Rastral9 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bennington
This quote from the article:


 * "The New Hampshire legislature, fearing an invasion from the east, mobilized the state's militia under the command of General John Stark."

Did the N.H. legislature really fear an invasion from the east? If so, why did Stark go west? If it is east, can someone please explain a little bit about why Stark ended up heading Bennington-way? Thanks! Isoxyl 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Vermont resident, I feel obligated to point out that your explanation of the Battle of Bennington doesn't seem to have any connection to the actual battle at all..."The nascent republican government, created after years of political turmoil, faced challenges from New York, New Hampshire, Great Britain and the new United States, none of which recognized its sovereignty. The republic's ability to defeat a powerful military invader gave it a legitimacy" sounds as if Vermont sent a bunch of troops against these other forces and won independence. Meanwhile, according to a Vermont Historica Sites Guide (not to mention any text book on Vermont history), what actually happened was this: "A massive British invasion from Canada chased the Continental Army from Mount Independence south through Hubbardton. Here, on a steamy July day in 1777, the Green Mountain Boys, a small rag-tag band under the leadership of Seth Warner, stayed behind to slow the advance of the Redcoats so that the main force would have time to retreat." (brochure by the Vermont Agency of Commerce & Community Development, Division for Historic Preservation) In other words, I think it should be made more clear that the Battle of Bennington was a part of the American Revolution, not some fight by Vermonters for status as an independent nation. It should probably also be noted that the battle was actually fought in Hubbardton (see quote above)...

Please see Fort Independence (Vermont). Contrast that with Battle of Bennington. We can go from there.Student7 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics section
New Hampshire is 'consistently Republican'? It's a swing state. I'm not going to cross my line here, I'm not even American, but does anyone agree that that line is a bit inaccurate? Joffeloff 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! I thinks it's extremely important to distinguish the difference between how the majority (%51 +) votes and the fact that there are other people who vote differently. Discounting the "blue" vote just because they didn't win is painting a false picture of the reality. See my other comments about this.--Jonashart 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's safe to say that New Hampshire is consistently Republican. With few exceptions across history, (Sen. John A. Durkin, Cong. Dick Swett), our entire delegation to the Congress and Senate is consistently Republican. With just one brief exception in recent history, our State House and State Senate is consistently Republican. The govenor is occasionally a right-wing Democrat. And nowadays, we occasionally swing Democrat for President, but that's still usually a result of special circumstances (such as a strong run by a third-party candidate or the next-door state's "favorite son" running).


 * Atlant 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Atlant: Same situation here in VT - we, as a majority, have voted Democrat in the last many years of major elections. Nonetheless, non-Democrats live and vote here too. Just as non-Republicans live and vote in NH. My thought is that we need to be careful not to sweep the minorities under the rug, just because they're minorities. It's funny...we're far more comfortable doing so with political identities than racial, religious, etc. I wonder why that is? We should strive to present as complete and accurate a picture as possible. Not just the one that makes the national Red/Blue map.--Jonashart 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tuttle nomination - Actually, it seems to me that the Democrats gleefully got Tuttle to run, knowing that it would be cheaper to defeat the challenger in the primary than in the general election. This sort of thing happens in one-party states with an open primary. The dominant party crosses over and votes for the candidate that seems the easiest to defeat. While this sometimes backfires, it certainly didn't in this case. Suggesting that this was all Tuttle's idea, is errant nonsense.

The mischief is in open primaries where a large party can co-opt a smaller one.Student7 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Disparity?
There is a disparity between the Geography section and introductory paragraph. Is the state's land area 9,615 or 9,250 and is it ranked 45th or 43rd?


 * The state's land area is 9,250 (which ranks 43rd), and its total area (water area included) is 9,614 (which ranks 45th). - Pal 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Vermontiers
"Little known facts" should probably be cited. Otherwise, it's really not a fact at all. This should be deleted unless it has something to substantiate the claim. Born and raised here, and I've never heard it. Google doesn't even come with anything noteworthy.--Jonashart 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No longer a problem. Has been removed.--Jonashart 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New York claims to Vermont colony
Something's wrong with this sentence from the History: Colonial section:

"The Province of New York claimed Vermont based on land granted to the Duke of York (later King James II) in 1764."

As James II was long dead by 1764, I doubt anybody granted him land then. Maybe the year is wrong? In 1664, James was still Duke of York.

Need citation
The idea that Vermont has been "long known for its liberal politics" is bordering on urban legend, and anecdotal at best. Also, being the 'leading producer' of maple syrup should probably be supported by some data. Even the Wiki article on maple syrup has a "citation" for such numbers. Tho, there's no source given, so not exactly ideal. Something like this would be much more helpful: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/data/table44.xls. That took me all of 5 minutes to find online. Let not today's movies and talk shows define your understanding of Vermont.--Jonashart 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Postal service
I removed the assertion that the postal system in the 18th-century Vermont republic was "linked to the Universal Postal Union" (which was not cited to a source) because the UPU wasn't created until the 1870s. Bruce Tindall 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Postbellum era and beyond
We move from the 1927 flood to the Civil Union law of 2000? Of all things to highlight about modern VT history... I'll see what I can do about expanding this.--Jonashart 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion
Where exactly do Jews and Muslims share space? Other than the Islamic Society of Vermont, I'm unaware of any other place where Muslims congregate. Not that I know that they don't, but I'd really like to know about this factoid.--Jonashart 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence on Mormon membership could be worded more objectively. Also, why are we interested in "memorials" (to anybody, but here to Joseph Smith) unless they are very large? Joseph Smith was born here. That is important. Eliminate reference to memorial unless there is something really special about it. Maybe remark can go into Wikitravel?Student7 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity
"The northern part of the state is inhabited principally by people of French (including French-Canadian and Québecois) ancestry." This might have been true 50-100 years ago. I'm going reword. Remember, ~150K of VT's ~650K people live in Chittenden County. Many of those have moved to VT, thus the French population, stastically isn't what it used to be.--Jonashart 18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that 'principally' is too strong a word for the French Canadian population, but I fail to see how individuals and families of refugees can be statistically significant. Even Chittenden county still has a significant French Canadian population: from the 2000 Census, Burlington, is 28% French Canadian, Charlotte, 12%, Colchester, 45%, Essex, 37%, Hinesburgh, 40%, Richmond, 40%, Shelburne, 17%, South Burlington, 30%, St. George, 37%, and Winooski, 55%. Italians, Scots and Poles constitute 15% of the population of the entire state. Why not mention them? Or why not just leave with the four major ethnic groups and say the state has also attracted a number of refugee communities. I'm not going to change it, just a thought here. Green Mountain Sailor 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. And know that I'm certainly not making any anti-French Canadian commentary. Now, as for census data...not sure about that. Is there any validation re: how French Canadian people are? In other words, if someone's great, great, great grandmother was from Canada, is that what's being counted? It's unclear, that's all. It's fairly subjective. Not that it ultimately matters, just arguing for the sake of making the point :)


 * To your 2nd point, I see no reason not to mention Italians, Scots and Pols. Especially given their historic contributions to Vermont culture and economics.


 * As for the refugee communities, you're again correct: not exactly a large part of the state demographic. However, the demographics of Burlington have changed noticeably in recent years. If for nothing else, it's perhaps important to note such changes, lest we think ourselves completely homogeneous.


 * Nice pickup, GMS. Let's continue to take a look at this and improve.--Jonashart 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the statistics relating to Hispanics and Pacific Islanders confusing. This small box is great for a state with a few more people of either origin. For Vermont, it seems (sorry) irrelevant. With tiny percentages, growth rates can vary gigantically up and down, but mean nothing. Can't some of these rows or columns be removed that relate to minorities under 1%? Student7 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics
Some good distinctions being made here, but it could be better. Like anywhere else, the perception of what "Vermont politics" is in the national eye vs. what it is across the state are two different things. Although the Tuttle issue mentioned here "Attempts by out-of-state candidates (so called "flatlanders") to be elected to office in Vermont have often been thwarted by locals" is an example, its not exactly definitive. Our most famous "liberal", Bernie, isn't a native VT'r. He still has his NY accent! Name the last governor born in the state. At the highest levels, much of Vermont's political landscape has been defined by those who have moved here. I shudder when I hear VT defined as "liberal". Some of VT is. Mostly in the Burlington area, and a few spots down south. There are plenty of people in the state who actually care nothing for "liberal" politics. Whether we like it or not, those voice are often overshadowed by what people to see on TV or read in the new about VT.

As a comparison for our Western States readers: Head over to the Western Slope of Colorado. Pick any small town, walk into town hall, and say "I bet you guys are liberals, just like in Boulder". See what happens.

Yes, VTs tend to be fiscally conservative, and socially "liberal". But we need to remember what that means, and the context. That can be generally described as classic New Englad 'Conservativism' = "don't spend money unnecessarily, and don't snoop in my back yard, and I won't snoop in yours". That is, live and let live, provided your "living" doesn't interfere with mine. Remember, the political disposition of those in the urban areas does not automatically describe those in the more rural parts of the state. Burlington is not the sole voice of the state--Jonashart 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just reread the politics section. It's seemingly trying to make Vermont politically 'left', rather than giving any in depth description of peoples' political views. Yes, most people have voted for the last Democratic presidential canidates. But, most = majority = 51%. Even if the vote were 60-40 or 70-30, blanketing the entire state as having one general political leaning is inaccurate. Sure, the blurb about Essex County is there, but that doesn't cut it. Again, I think this reflects more of what people want Vermont to be, rather than what Vermont is. By contrast, NH is offered up as a Republican state. I think we can all be comfortable believing there to be many Democrat votes coming out of NH. They just didn't happen to be in the majority this time. The point is, even a 30 or 40% minority is a fairly substantial group of people. Like it or not, let them not be discounted just because we may not like the officials for whom they may have voted.


 * Sorry, I know this sounds like a rant. This is not a pro-right or pro-left argument. Rather, it's one for fair representation of what goes on in Vermont.--Jonashart 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited Politics. Material should not sound like it is written by a party hack or a chamber of commerce flack. Seemed excessively POV. It's after an election. Can we calm down now?

I've removed the Tuttle article for being POV. Great stuff at the time. Irrelevant in the long run. Almost NO state elects out-of-staters except maybe New York. Same with out-of-area mayors or whatever. The main thing the Tuttle escapade shows is that Open Primaries can be used for mischief by the majority party in nominating the easiest candidate to beat. (Parties are not infallible. I've seen this backfire BTW. Not here though!). Tremendously irrelevant in the long run.

Going on and on about the Vermont Progressive Party was excessive. I shouldn't be able to guess what party the writer is a member of! The articles are supposed to be objective. I cut some out. I think I should have cut it all out. I'll take your word that they really have a few members in the legislature.

Besides, the Democrats and Republicans might demand equal time. Or more than equal since they get more votes!

The final line needs a citation. From somewhere else. Not a blog! Not a Party publication! See Wikipedia for citation help.

I deleted the New Hampshire reference. That was irrelevant in an article about Vermont. Let them get their own PRStudent7 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of the back and forth, how about engaging in some constructive progress, like making this section a separate article. Thetrick 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Vermont article is too long anyway. BTW, I am new to this article. Was not trying to get in the middle of something here. Be aware that there is already a separate (and lengthy) History of Vermont section. It is, (or will be), footnoted and referenced. Maybe this section is, or should be, a "current" snapshot only?Student7 12:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up a bunch of language in these new edits. Overall, its a better section, but some was a bit too POV-heavy. While we may or may not like certain aspects of the Vermont political climate, the goal here is to describe it, that's all. My changes move to that end.--Jonashart 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Economy
The current edits re: the economy and maple syrup/global warming are important. However, I don't think this is the space for the global warming detail. Otherwise, we'd have to have a rather lengthy add talking about why the dairy industry suffers so badly. And why we don't have alot of the same agriculture industry we once did. Remember, Vermont used to have far more sheep, and far fewer trees. So, I suggest this detail be (re)moved. Atlan, It's certainly important, and could perhaps find a home in another subheading. But adding to the general "Economy" section is showing a bit of bias not needed there. Thoughts?--Jonashart 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've kind of made my thoughts plain already on this but I will restate it here for the record: Basicly the way I see it is that its not of primary relevance. Maple sugar forming part of the economy is, but issues affecting maple sugar production arent (they are secondary) and so should be in an article on maple sugar production. In the same way that terrorism affecting the leisure/ski industry would not really have a home in the VT page other than to say that the ski and leisure industries form a large part of the VT economy. If terrorism is indeed affecting it then it would be relevant content for pages concerning that industry ot terrorism, but you would not include details on every state that had a leisure industry  Mickmaguire 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent apparent changes to "Economy" probably looks a lot more drastic on the edit than it is in reality. I moved sections together. I don't believe I edited OUT anything. Just added a sentence to introduce Agriculture. Organized sections. Agriculture was becoming disconnected within the subsection. Agriculture is not really that big in Vermont and probably deserves less of a billing than it has. The figure DOES include indirect impact such as vendors, food products, etc.

Had no idea what to do with the last sentence. Are we bragging that we don't have a Target or Montpelier McDonald's? Complaining? Not POV, right? If it MUST stay, maybe should put it in introduction? Student7 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This should not be listed in the "Taxes" section, anyway. Perhaps in a "Trivia" or "Factoids" section...neither of which should really be added...--Jonashart 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've moved it to the top. I agree (in advance) that it probably doesn't seem to belong there either! How about a) a "consumer" section or b) deleting it? Do whatever you like!Student7 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Housing - A number of Vermont state and ngo documents quote the National Low Income Council as stating that Burlington is the fourth most expensive area for rental housing in the country. That's fine, but I was not able to find a nlic site that said so!Student7 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Professional sports teams
This misses the Vermont Voltage semi-pro soccer team. I may add it, but feel free to beat me to it.--Jonashart 15:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Voltage added--Jonashart 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article on Sports needs to start off with a negative. If you really want to feel bad (!) the state has no pro baseball team, no pro basketball team, no pro soccer, no major national golf tournament....Where do we quit here! :) I suggest removing sentence about "no pro hockey." It's not important. Really it isn't!   :)Student7 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
Rewrote the entire section, moving the first two paragraphs (pre-war) into the previous section. Green Mountain Sailor 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Phish paragraph
Does anyone else feel that the following paragraph detracts more than it adds to the article:

One of Vermont's best known musical exports is group Phish, whose members met while attending school in Vermont. The state has always held great importance for Phish—for example, lead singer and guitarist Trey Anastasio built a studio in Vermont used by the band and others, called The Barn. Phish ended their tenure together as a band with a farewell concert weekend in the state's Northeast Kingdom, which was dubbed "Coventry" after (in part) the venue city of Coventry, Vermont, on August 16, 2004.

It isn't that the information is incorrect, it's just that it doesn't seem noteworthy enough to be listed in an article on the state of Vermont. Blinutne 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Members might be mentioned in living notable Vermonters if Vermont remains their primary place of residence. The group's impact on the culture and economy of Vermont, were they comprable to, say, ABBA's on Sweden, would merit the parpagraph. They more likely deserve their own article with an added Vermont culture category link. CApitol3 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Notable living Vermonters
I am not one to seek proof of birth or birth of ancient ancestors to qualify as a Vermonter. If you live in Vermont, you're a Vermonter in my book. A first generation Hmong refugee can become as much a Vermonter as a descendant of the Allens, Chittenden or Aiken. But I don't think solely owning property and vacationing in Vermont makes you much more than a Vermonter in spirit. Which though a good thing, is a little bit of a stretch. The list of Notable living Vermonters might benefit from some consideration. If you were born in Indiana, and live in DC, but own a house in Middlesex, are you a Vermonter? If so, we could likely add 200 more notables. If you were born in Vermont, educated at Lyndon State College, now live in Chicago and are notable, do you belong on the list? Carribean born novelist Jamaica Kincaid lives in Vermont, her kids go to school there, her home is not a weekend getaway. To me, her day to day residency makes her a Vermonter. Maybe it's paying the dues of living in Vermont in winter. But, conversely the equally notable poet Louise Glück was born in NYC, has her primary residence in Cambridge, MA, and is on the list. This is brought up as food for thought. I no longer live in my home state but still feel I'm a Vermonter. Maybe this is all too subjective and should be left pretty libertine, but encylopedias normally have standards, definitions, and criteria. CApitol3 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

List of notable vermonters
This list does not need to be in the article about Vermont. It should either be its own article (with a link from this article), or should be merged with List_of_people_from_Vermont.--Fagles 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Fagles idea. Take "New York" as an example, or Washington DC. If they started to list "notable residents" there wouldn't be any space left! Let's leave this stuff to Chambers of Commerce and Travel Brochures. This is not the place to make up for a fragile ego! :) "We have important people, TOO!"   :)

A second consideration in this day and age is "notability." A modern, notworthy person, I would think, should be mentioned (without any external help from promoters!) maybe 50,000 times online. Kunin is mentioned and has a lot of online references. She can't be "noteworthy" because she was a Governor. We've had dozens of those! Ambassador to Switzerland? Please! Having said that, she is an important person and should be noted in the county and undoubtedly city/town in which she lives. Schumann is important in Glover but is not terribly well-known outside the state. Maybe not even in the state.

Take a page from Pliny the Younger. When asked "Why don't you have a statue of yourself in the Forum," he replied, "Because I would rather would be asked why I don't than why I do!" We remembered him for 2000 years without a statue! We don't need PR flacks exaggerating other people's deeds to remember them. If the deeds are great enough, we'll remember them anyway!Student7 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not set the threshhold for politicians to at least national Cabinet rank or equivalent. That would eliminate Kunin and Bernie Sanders (with LOTS of online references) but include Warren Austin. For military, include 4-star and above. That would include Admiral Dewey. Entertainers should be mentioned on the web some minimum number.Student7 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't you know. Wikipedia has already thought about this. See notability. Should have guessed!Student7 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Ambassador Kunin. Nevertheless, she is not notable outside Vermont. I think she is a particularly "threshhold" candidate. Anyone with more credentials should be considered for the list. Less, not. Clearly a distinguished individual. I think I understand the criteria for politicians and sports. A little less comfortable with the arts. Do some of these other folks deserve to be on there since Governor Kunin is not? Let's keep the threshhold high!Student7 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned text: age of consent; Alcoholic beverage control state.
These items were in the "Federal legislative representation" section; there appears to be no obvious place in the article for them to reappear, so I have left them out. - Yellowdesk 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Vermont is an Alcoholic beverage control state. The age of consent in Vermont is 16.

New Sports section added to updated WikiProject U.S. states format
The WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Vermont. Please see South_carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cities
It makes sense in New York state to list "largest cities." Does it make sense in Vermont with only 9 cities? Why not list them all? That might lead, in turn, to listing a lot more towns that appear to pass city threshhold populations. Is that good or bad?Student7 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

liberal?
If vermont is so liberal, why does it have a Republican governor? or are they talking about economically liberal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.16.113 (talk) 21:01, 2006 December 26


 * Please sign your name to articles using four tildes.
 * The governor (and lieutenant governor) are two sole refugees from a Democratic sweep of the state. The governor today is but a figurehead - there are more than enough Democratic legislative votes to override any veto. All other important offices are held by Democrats. Token Republicans, you might say. A transitory whim of the electorate.
 * If the article claimed that Vermont is liberal, I agree with that observation. With the exception of Richard Snelling, the last conservative governor was probably Lee Emerson, who left office in 1954. Governors since have either been liberal Republican or Democratic.Student7 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How liberal is VT compared to England, UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.0.103 (talk) 10:13, 2007 March 24


 * Vermont was traditionally libertarian, which is what the Republican Party was before the religious right took over. Starting in the 1970s, liberals began moving to Burlington and it is definitely fair to say that Chittenden county—now half the state’s population—is now predominantly liberal. (There was even an article published in 1972 that described how 1960s liberals could rise to political dominance in a small state, and it concluded that Vermont was the best choice.)
 * So you have a state where the liberal half the population lives mostly in one county, and the “old-school republican” half of the population lives mostly in the rest of the state.  One thing that both sides agree on is that the religious right—and the neoconservatives—are worse than the contentious liberal issues, hence the state’s current political leanings.
 * —MJBurrage • TALK  • 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Chittenden is only 1/4 of the state's population. For the rest of your comments you should cite some election or polling data that shows the alleged enormous political divide between Chittenden and the rest of the state. Thetrick 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Vermont is probably not as 'liberal' as Britian in terms of policies implemented. For instance it does not have universal health care or strong gun control.  However, cross-country comparisons of political cultures are difficult to summarize.  Also, remember that Vermont is very small in population compared to the rest of the United States at roughly 0.22% of the total, so it can do but so much on its own.  Thetrick 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have said "Greater Burlington" rather than Chittenden county, since Burlington and its suburbs now spill over the county line. As for the politics, all of the labels are somewhat subjective, and I was using libertarian in its general sense, rather than the Libertarian Party.  The article itself already does a good job of describing the state as generally "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" which is how I was using libertarian.  Basically I was just trying to point out that the "Democratic sweep of the state" is not the best description for Vermont, since the standard national descriptions of Democratic and Republican, do not necessarily match where Vermont democrats and republicans stand.  If I was going to put any of this in the article I would of course find some good sources, but I was simply trying to quickly answer the questions above from the perspective of a local.  Senator Jeffords said it even more succinctly, when he said that he was not leaving the Republican Party, the Republican Party left him. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i am in vermont now and juding by the large numbers of suv's on the road and the number of "support our troops" bumper stickers, i dont see how vermont is any more liberal than any other part of the u.s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.236.209 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

State Symbols
This was just too long. The few people that are interested in precisely where and when and how should go somewhere else. Could use pix, I suppose. That brightened up Hawaii's and they have far less words. More interesting as a result.

I suggest that "outside" editors should go through all these sections, often written by afficianados, and use a machete on them.

Then add references to the remainder.

Easy for me to say! Student7 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gender War
For some unknown reason, the media decided some time ago to term the differentiation between males and females as "gender," rather than "sex." Gender differentiates between nouns of various languages that have male and female association: "La amie," "Le belle," for example. See the preferred definition #1.

We need not follow the media. I don't know why they did what they did, but it was a misuse of the English language. We can certainly assume that they didn't do it out of simple delicacy! That went by the board many years ago! I don't see why we should continue the misuse here. Student7 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would guess that "gender" doesn't have the connotations that "sex" does in the seething, hormone-addled brains of all those permanent fourteen-year-olds out there. Kinda like Basil Fawlty claiming "it's all about sex with you" in hollering at a psychiatrist. Of course, I suppose he could as easily have hollered "it's all about gender with you" to a philologist, eh? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (hoping my irony meter is working...)

Reason for Deleting Certain Links
Website: http://www.uvm.edu/

Reasoning: This link should go on a page about the University of Vermont NOT the State of Vermont.

Website: http://www.vsc.edu/

Reasoning: This is a link to a website about Colleges in Vermont. This link should go on a page about Colleges in Vermont NOT the state of Vermont.

Website: http://www.vtlife.com/

Reasoning: This is a link to a magazine. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising of any product.

Website:http://www.vermontartscouncil.org/

Reasoning: This url is listed twice in the external links. I am just deleting one of the links. Look to see if the link you are adding is already in the list of external links before you add the link again.

Eric 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?
I have heard that it was not until 1960 that the number of people was greater than the number of dairy cows. Is that true, and if so is there a way to include that little tidbit? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think not. Stating that Vermont is and has been generally rural and without great population is enough. The factoid to which you refer only adds to stereotypes about Vermont that are unneeded here.--Jonashart 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of respect for Jonashart's opinion and contributions. But to me, it sounds like an interesting intro to something. Eye catcher. As Wspencer11 suggests, data (a solid reference) would be needed. And maybe a follow on. Because I suspect that efficiency is such that we have half or a quarter the number of cows now (with far greater milk production). It's not a easy throwaway sentence as I construe it. We do have a lot of open space in Vermont, even if there are hardly any farms in them! Perhaps that is what Jonashart is getting at? The small contribution of farms to the Gross State Product indicates that we ought to be emphasizing other industries. Software? Chips?Student7 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. I'm just...sensitive to any entry that trivializes or makes Vermont seem cartoonish. Perhaps this entry isn't all that bad, if placed in the right context. As a "oh, by the way..." I don't like it. Maybe in a larger paragraph regarding population and/or economics. Trying not to be a pain. Convince me :)--Jonashart 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics and War
The recent addition of Vermont's statistical participation in the War on Terror, while important for this article, should not be linked to people's political leanings. While there may be more Republicans who chose to serve, there are certainly democrats as well. Juxtaposing political parties, service, and patriotism is not a direction we want this article to take. I'll wait a bit for discussion, but will edit today if I don't hear anything.

That being said, I think it would be great to have some more detail about Vermonters and military service, both present and past. I know we have at least one serious Civil War historian in the "Wikiproject: Vermont" group.--Jonashart 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Did want to make the point that not everyone is demonstrating against the war. Some are volunteering and dying in it. Nonetheless, it may be inappropriate in this section.Student7 15:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, glad to hear it. And to be fair, the 'public' (by whatever percentage) opinion re: war should be accounted for. But, Vermonters have always served when called, and that definitely should be noted. I can makes the changes, if you'd like. But it's your add, so I'll leave you to it. --Jonashart 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is once again an addition connecting military service to politics, which I think to be erroneous. I will leave it for a day or so, but unless I hear objection, it's coming out. VT's military record is gladly welcome, but suggesting there is a direct link to people's political beliefs is not something we should do.--Jonashart 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I took it out. And I will continue to take it out. Please, if you're intent on citing VT's service record during this current conflict, do so. But, attributing service to political leanings is unjustified and assumes much about people that is not, at this moment, proven.--Jonashart 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Jonas, I doubt there is data on this. Anecdotaly I know two Vermont families who are Democrats and presently in Iraq (one in third tour) and two Republican cousins who oppose the war. This is not as simple as support for the war indicates Republican leanings or vice-versa. 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * GB, thanks and good to hear your view. Listen, I'm all for supporting our folks and their efforts. We are doing more than our fair share. But, by suggesting political views are evident by service, we're layering on our own views. While the current conflict has created further political divide, both here and nationally, we'd only be fostering it by not being smarter about that which we add here. I'll say it again: I think we should add something about VTer's service, both past and present. Just not here.--Jonashart 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

a couple of weeks ago 10 people got arrested for protesting the iraq war in vermont. i dont see why people say vermont is liberal or left wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.236.209 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Statutory Section
My thought on establishing a "statutory" section, was to shorten the political section somewhat by moving out the (relatively) non-controversial stuff, but that differs from other states. My thought was to leave the paragraphs there on civil unions, and 250 as being sufficiently "modern" that differences of opinion still occur and are being worked out with the courts. With "Statutory," that is usually long past and is part of the culture. I realize that the division is (obviously) not clear cut. Maybe the section could be better named.

The one-man-one vote item is obviously statutory (as are the others), but deserves the long explanation it gets in the article.

Is that clear? (Good. Now explain it to me! :) Student7 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"More" French Settlers
Essentially a question for the editor, Tidying Up. My definition of "settler" is someone who is not predominately a trapper, has a family. Or at least a bulk of "settlers" have them. In other words, colonists. Was this true? While it is fresh in your mind, could you provide a footnote/citation? Thanks.Student7 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wacky Sentence?
Anyone know what this is trying to say? Sounds insanely awkward... (read it twice) "Settlers who held land titles granted by the Province of New Hampshire, through their Green Mountain Boys militia eventually prevailed." Tim Horton 05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems the original settlers held land titles granted by the Province of New Hampshire and recruited a militia to fight off new migrants from NY: In 1770, Ethan Allen—along with his brothers Ira and Levi, as well as Seth Warner—recruited an informal militia, the Green Mountain Boys, to protect the interests of the original New Hampshire settlers against the new migrants from New York. (see last section of Colonial). --LeVoyageur 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For Tim Horton - I understood the sentence because I was familiar with the subject matter. Why don't you rewrite it so it can be understood by everyone?Student7 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Medical data
Yes, health care in general should be covered. 2nd "best" in what? :)--Jonashart 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good update, thanks.--Jonashart 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New Gold Standard for articles on states?
Just noticed that Talk:Minnesota has received a "featured article" designation. It's pretty good. They seem to have a lot more footnotes. Their organization is good. Maybe I've overorganized things here, but better than no organization! We can always go backwards! :)

They don't discuss "liberal" vs "conservative" which tends to raise hackles everywhere. Rather they discuss the history of the political parties without embellishment. I think that is a plus. Nor do they discuss what the citizens are thinking or where they are going. They discuss what is or what was.

They have forks for political parties. Since Reform and Farmer-Labor are or were 'big' there, I guess they mention those, but minor parties don't make it. I think that is fair and makes sense. Maybe they go into detail in the forked article. I didn't look.

Lots of pictures. We desperately need more pictures, I think. They have about one for each sub-article. They have a nice proportion of maps versus scenery.

No bs on statutes. Maybe they should have, but it's hard to know where to stop. The article shows great balance. None of their sub-articles are too long. I didn't get information that I didn't want. No "in your face" stuff. There's a bit of that currently in our article.

See what you think. Can we talk about it? Student7 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been doing a ton of good work so far. Nothing wrong with improvement. I'll look at MN and get a sense of what they've done.--Jonashart 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vermont a British Colony?
While no one can dispute that Britain "owned" Vermont at one time, it did so in a broad sense. They appointed no Governor. How low do you want to get to designate a British possession? Vermont seems too low in this case, but if allowed, why not Chittenden County? Or Burlington? Because the area wasn't officially divided up like that at the time, it just makes no sense to me to go as low as the state level to insert "Former British Colony" as a category. At a higher level perhaps.Student7 12:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Vermont was not an "official" colony in the sense of MA, NH, NY, etc. A "territorial possession", perhaps. But does the historical documentation prove out that England had specified, direct intentions w/the land that became Vermont? Seems like the 'no man's land' between two colonies, and thats about it. Remember, it was settled (generally) south-to-north, and much later than other New England lands. But, I'm certainly not an expert here...and would love to hear from one.--Jonashart 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Vermont was considered (if it was considered at all) as part of New Hampshire or New York. See map 1 and map 2.Student7 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW being a former British colony is a prized attribute. But I think we would eventually have to contend with the objections of real colonies some of them "crown colonies" who have charters, maces, etc.Student7 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, VT was never an 'official' colony. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'prized attribute' title. Explain, if you would.--Jonashart 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Norfolk is extremely proud of it's mace. I had thought that there were differences between the colonies on charters, but I may be wrong. Anyway I can't find differences listed. I thought that Virginia and Massachusetts had charters that were superior in name to the others, but this is irrelevant to this issue. Here's an article on a royal charter. I don't know if I've answered the question.Student7 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The mace is an interesting piece of history, to be sure. But, while being a charter colonies may hold prestige for those in those lands, I think Vermont's colonial situation reflects it's independent nature nicely. Regardless, I think we're agreed that the "colony" tag doesn't apply to VT the way it does to other places. So, either it should be replaced by something more accurate or left out all together.--Jonashart 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the furthest we could go would be to acknowledge the multiple claims on Vermont from New Hampshire and from New York, at least that would cover the British. But, don't we already on this article, and the vermont history article? A statement that Vermont was a colony could imply several erroneous things, among them, earlier European settlement than happened; a British colonial structure around an entity called Vermont; or, at least a British colonial structure around a geographic area similar to the present Vermont. I don't know that many Vermonters would view artifacts of colonial occupation (a mace) as prestigious. Those things are a part of the story of several of our states. What is remarkable is that they were not destroyed in the wave of "de-Britishising" and "de-royalising" that took place in the early republic. In Boston, New York, and Philadelphia this happened in big way. The British lion and unicorn were pulled off of the Old State House in Boston and burned and replaced with an American eagle. Orange Street was renamed Washington Street, In New York, George III's equestrian statue was pulled down, and melted, King's College was renamed Columbia College (now university), in Philadelphia the British arms were removed from several buildings and burned before the end of the war. Across the nation many things named for George were renamed either Washington, Columbia, or sometimes for Lafayette. The mace is a lovely thing and a part of history. It is to the credit of cooler heads there and then prevailing that we can still see it. CApitol3 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Full agreement. Listen fellas, I'm doing my best not to trumpet my VT pride here and write a disastrously NNPOV blurb about how happy we should be that VT wasn't a colony! :) But I try to remain neutral. Nope, not a colony. Involved with the British land-grab?  For sure. That's about the extent of it.--Jonashart 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The status I was trying to think of that was granted by the British to Mass & Va was "Commonwealth," a title that they use today.


 * 2) Most of the 13 colonies have two sites, one for their status as colonies which contains history to 1776 and a second one (!) that takes credit for both! See qv Province of Maryland and the succeeding State of Maryland. They are all like that! Sites are sandboxes of two different groups who never talk to one another apparently! Okay, I'm glad Vermont doesn't have two sites!


 * 3) The hatred for Britain lasted maybe a generation after the War of 1812 ended. Then it reversed to something like it is today - generally positive. And no, I don't have a citation! :) Student7 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed they do, and I find it curious. Kinda like I find Eastern Canada's (minus Quebec) continued allegiance to England a bit odd. I mean really...the Queen on currency? Yes, Vermont doesn't need a 'colonial' page, unless it's in the greater context of VT history. No worries about a ref. for #3, it still holds true today. Most of us have experienced the American phenomenon of people looking to Europe (England too) as being "ahead" of us in many respects, esp. re: cultural issues. But if someone wants to write an article about VT's status during the colonial period, have at it. As it stands, this article has more about VT colonial history than does the History of Vermont page!--Jonashart 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"See Also"
I'm a bit confused about this section. Could this not just end up becoming a very long laundry list of anything associated with Vermont? As it stands, it's a fairly eclectic pile. Too random, no organization. If anything, there should be a "See Also" at the end of each subsection, so that "Howard Dean" and "Bernie Sanders" are listed under the politics section, etc. However, the goal should not be to compile a huge list of associations: thats what in-text wikilinking is for, yeah? So, I propose that we eliminate this section, and cover our bases by making sure those individual items are included in the main body, provided they're useful. Thoughts?--Jonashart 14:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Commented out politicians before I read your note! Put me down as in agreement!Student7 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PDF superscripts/postscripts
By using a superscript in the section "taxation" for the "Barre City" footnote, an editor has tacked on a pdf postscript for readers who apparently don't have or don't even understand pdf can read up on it. As a frequent pdf user, I find this superscript/subscript confusing. I'd hate to see this as a trend. Any comments? (BTW I don't find the comment "Wikipedia standards" helpful! I'm sure the language allows for it. That's why it worked! Doesn't mean we should use it though.) Student7 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vermont residents are Vermonters
Student7, I assume you were talking to me with your comment :) I removed it because repeatedly throughout the article it already refers to Vermonters, at least 16 times by my count, so I didn't see the point in a random sentence that says "Vermont residents are Vermonters", when it clearly refers to Vermont residents as Vermonters throughout the article.  My edit summary should have been cleaner, but was a result of twinkle.  I should have reverted it manually though, which was laziness on my part.  I hope that makes sense, but maybe not.  Thanks for being civil though! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vermont, is it a brand, can it be trademarked?
Hi Student7. Use of the term "brand" is not inappropriate. It is not trademarkable on its own. Most place-names are not. Though use of the word Vermont as an adjective for products not made in Vermont, or made of Vermont produced ingredients can and are investigated and sometimes litigation is brought by various state agencies. It is also entirely proper to describe the careful monitoring of Vermont's image, and the use of the word as "brand management." I am a graphic designer working primarily in brand development and brand management, while not a lawyer I frequently work with copyright and trademark lawyers in naming or repositioning a name or brand. Vermont's brnad management sort of waxes and wanes administration to administration, with no noticable trend based on party. From a legal perspective almost all litigation is viewed through the question "does use of the name cause confusion in the marketplace?" Example, a brand of toys called "Vermont Child Smart Toys" that elude to Vermont in its name and packaging but are manufactured in India for a company based in New Jersey may be deemed as causing confusion in the marketplace. CApitol3 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax Burden
David Edson, on the Underhill Planning Board, wrote an interesting letter ("My Turn") to the BFP editor May 22, 2007. He claims (among other things) that schools and human resources take up 2/3 of the state and local taxes. I agree that education is a money sink at both state and local levels. I would imagine that roads take up most of the rest of local taxes. Apparently not enough to offset human resources at the state level. Don't know where to verify this or get a reliable reference.Student7 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burden of government
Also, where can you get figures on how many civil servants in Vermont? How many teachers locally and at the state university level?Student7 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vermont, the Country 2007-
''MONTPELIER, Vt. - At Riverwalk Records, the all-vinyl music store just down the street from the state Capitol, the black "US Out of Vt.!" T-shirts are among the hottest sellers.

But to some people in Vermont, the idea is bigger than a $20 novelty. They want Vermont to secede from the United States — peacefully, of course.

Disillusioned by what they call an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics hopes to put the question before citizens in March. Eventually, they want to persuade state lawmakers to declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777 to 1791.''

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_us/vermont_secession  --198.254.16.200 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Milk Production
Was frustrated when I ran across an article that mentioned that the price of milk (as of May 2007) was 50% higher ($18+/hundred) for August 2007 futures, than they have been over the past 12 years ($12/hundred). A Vermont extension agent recommended that farmers buy a put option to tie up this price! There is no place for this comment. Doesn't really belong in Vermont. The "milk" article is too puerile for any country-specific economics. So right now, we can't point (link) to a joint Wisconsin-New York-Vermont+ article on "Class III" (whatever that is) milk production. Nor anything about inspections, on which farmers/farms have fallen by the wayside over these many decades in Vermont (conducted by the State of Massachusetts!).Student7 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

History
We have about five pages of history here and only eight pages in the "main article." It seems to me that we should be able to come up with a way of moving some of this out to that article. Particularly since most of it is pre-Civil War and therefore not "controversial" or anything.

I guess my main hope is to shorten this article. It's a bit long.Student7 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On the alleged "independent Republic of Vermont"
There seems to have arisen some kind of weird legend that Vermont, during the American Revolution, was "an independent republic" in a sense in which the original thirteen colonies/states were not. This is presupposed by the mention of the "secession movement" whihch defines its goal as "returning Vermont to the status she held from 1777 to 1792." That is very misleading.

This article itself makes it clear: from the very start of the Revolution, Vermont never aspired to be anything other than a State of the U.S. The fact that Vermont wasn't a fourteenth "original State" of the Union, and the fact that it took until 1792 for Vermont to be admitted to the Union, are due to one factor and one factor alone, namely that that New York and New Hampshire disputed Vermont's right to constitute itself as a separate State because both NY and NH claimed the territory of Vermont for themselves; it wasn't because Vermont ever had the intention of going it alone as a separate nation apart from the U.S.!

And of course Vermont wasn't alone among the States in calling itself "the Republic of . . .". Tom129.93.17.139 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the orange map with two counties in yellow are doing. Look good. A bit large for a county page. But it would be nice to be able to see on a map what counties are adjacent on a country article. If we can "afford" the "footprint" on the article. Not a whole lot going on in the county articles... Nice to be able to link off that map to any county. Better than going to the bottom of the county article.Student7 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Academies and grammar schools
Looked up Randolph Center in | Child's gazetteer. It says "The Randolph academy, or Orange County Grammar school, was established here in 18o6." That wasn't the 18th century. A bit far north for that early a school system I suspect.

We need to be thinking about forking education into a separate article. Getting too long. Student7 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

merging some town center CDP articles into the town articles
Related discussion about merging some CDP articles for some town centers into the town article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont and Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont for details. --Polaron | Talk 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please
Under Economy > Agriculture, I found the following text: "While milk production rose, but Vermont's share declined. Within federal order one, Vermont is third with a 10.6% share of the market." What does this mean, please? - Denimadept (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Gulp). 1) Well, milk production has risen in the state over the years due to increased milk per cow. 2) Vermont's percentage of the market declined however because other states are producing even more than Vermont. That is, their increase is higher percentagewise than Vermont's was. 3) Federal order one is a strange grouping that I really didn't want to get into here. I wish that some of the agriculture articles were a little more robust sometimes, and I could point to them. Anyway, Federal Order one (as I remember) is a strange bureaucratic grouping of states that fill milk demand (and maybe other argricultural products within a grouping of states. Doesn't make much sense for milk to tell the truth). Anyway, the states (as I remember) include most of New England, but also NY and Pennsylvania and maybe others. We like to hear the words "the whole country." Well, Vermont is too small for that. Anyway the bureaucracy only keeps real accurate statistics and publishes them for Federal order one (and probably other "orders" as well, I suppose). I can take out the whole sentence starting with "Within federal order one..." Kind of ruins the paragraph, but at least there won't be questions.


 * What I would really like to do is bracket Federal order one. But the likelihood of someone ever producing an article on it are nearly zero.Student7 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest rewording those lines, in part to make them grammatically correct (first bit is a sentence fragment), to make them easier to read, and to have them make sense to the uninitiated. - Denimadept (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much better. - Denimadept (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Never calls, never visits..
How important is it that Bush never visited Vermont? As of May, he had never visited Rhode Island either. Did he visit there? Reagan never visited Vermont either (or Rhode Island). Are we going to accumulate a list of Presidents that haven't visited Vermont? I'm not sure Lincoln did. Pretty sure Jackson didn't, etc. How important, in the long run is this snub? I think of little interest. I suggest removing it. "Current" news gets stale real quickly IMO. Anyway, who cares? Student7 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)