Talk:Second Vermont Republic

message: Removed a Time magazine top ten list. It's really quite subjective and incorporates unverifiable material. It the sort the thing that endangers the quality of the article by reducing it to press clippings that add nothing new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vttor (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, at this point I'm not sure if it is significant, based on the fact it is such a large, mainstream publication (or was pre-internet days), or not for reasons you state. Obviously if other WP:RS mention this, as they may over time, it would become more significant. After I get more general input on COI issues below, and if no NPOV editors opine (including on other issues that might come up), it can be brought to the proper forum for opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I know. Time may very well be where many other mainstream pubs are finding themselves today, lacking sufficient ad revs, subscribers or an online model that can carry them much further. I'm not sure that repeating a subjective piece will make it relevant beyond possibly the magazine's own article. Vttor (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Just reorganized this article so that the questionable materials inserted over time by anti-SVR partisans would not unnecessarily warp its structure. I don't think anything important has been lost. Also cleaned up refs, etc.
Also after discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Second_Vermont_Republic_paragraph_OR.3F, I removed the paragraph on the Vermont State Archivist comments as WP:Original research (he does not identify which Vermont secessionists he's critiquing and we can't go around guessing). But I left the link in external links since it's not totally irrelevant.
 
I renamed the Controversies section "Reception" which seems like what WP:Criticism recommends, an essay which is linked from Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-0 which reads:Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template. To me controversy is just too strong a word for a few back and forths among minor parties, and makes it hard to include individual criticisms like McLaughrey, or figure out where to put the more positive comments by those not directly involved in group.  I remain an editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a more respectable encyclopedia, as opposed to a place abused by partisans to trash people and groups they disagree with. CarolMooreDC 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Per [[WP:Criticism]] renamed section to "Reception"

message: I think it's inappropriate to include the SVR chief's inflammatory rant about SPLC without providing a link to SPLC's response. It does not leave a good impression on the SVR's leader. I offer it up for consideration. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/07/03/second-vermont-republic-calls-on-league-of-the-south-to-denounce-racism/
QLineOrientalist (talk)
:OK, I did a new paragraph that mentioned three relevant SPLC articles. Frankly, considering the links still good, Naylor is dead and the group is pretty much defunct, I don't feel much like seeing what else is of much use there. Though there are a lot of details in the "Second Vermont Republic Pushes For Independence of Vermont" article that are neutral and factual that could be added if someone chose to. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Poverty Law Center