Talk:Vermont/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title: Condos

message: 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. 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)
thread_title: Maps

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: On the alleged "independent Republic of Vermont"

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Geography and Climate

message: 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)
thread_title: Physiographic Regions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vermont General Court 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: This sentence has been removed.  Rastral9 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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)
thread_title: Battle of Bennington

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disparity? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Vermontiers

message: 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)
thread_title: Need citation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Postal service 

message: 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)
thread_title: Postbellum era and beyond

message: 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)
thread_title: Religion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Economy

message: 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)
thread_title: Professional sports teams

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Phish paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title: Definition of Notable living Vermonters

message: 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)
thread_title: List of notable vermonters

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orphaned text: age of consent; Alcoholic beverage control state. 

message: The Wikipedia: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#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Sports'' section added to updated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states]] format  

message: 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)
thread_title: Cities

message: 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)
thread_title: State Symbols

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Gender War

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reason for Deleting Certain Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Politics and War

message: 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)
thread_title: Statutory Section

message: 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)
thread_title: "More" French Settlers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wacky Sentence?

message: Yes, health care in general should be covered. 2nd "best" in what? :)--Jonashart 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good update, thanks.--Jonashart 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical data

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Gold Standard for articles on states?

message: 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)
replies: text: Commented out politicians before I read your note! Put me down as in agreement!Student7 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "See Also"

message: 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)
thread_title: PDF superscripts/postscripts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vermont residents are Vermonters 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vermont, is it a brand, can it be trademarked?

message: 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)
thread_title: Tax Burden

message: 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)
thread_title: Burden of government

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vermont, the Country 2007- 

message: 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)
thread_title: Milk Production

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: On the alleged "independent Republic of Vermont"

message: 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)
thread_title: Academies and grammar schools

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Never calls, never visits..