Talk:Vermont Progressive Party

message: 1) Tone/style less than ideal for an encyclopedia.
2) Lack of formal sourcing of any kind.
3) Much of the text of the article seems to be rewritten from material on the party's website.
I'll do what I can here and there, when I have time. Ripogenus77 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article was not only NOT updated upon me seeing it, the style/tone sucked to be honest. --Revolución hablar ver 10:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I added the Cleanup tag 

message: Was reading through, and noticed the  Platform section makes it sound as if  Green Mountain Care exists. Given that GMC is passed but not yet implemented, should the platform be clarified? Cjrecord (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Platform section? 

message: FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox 

message: I removed the following from the References section, because it was unclear what it applied to:
: "House committee OKs recognition of Progressives". Burlington Free Press. February 19, 2005. p. 5B.
HopsonRoad (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery note 

message: Thank you for updating the officeholders in this article, today. Could you do two further things to help:
# Could you supply a term of office? E.g. 2018–22 not 2018-present. If this article fails to be updated after the term ends, at least the reader will know that the officeholder may no longer be present.
# Please supply a reference that supports the basis for making these entries.
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of office 

message: There is no mention in the party constitution or platform or sources for this article that say the party promotes social democracy. Does anyone have any sources for this? TFD (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Social democracy

message: This is superfluous information. The VPP is not a federal party,so they have no members in the U.S. Senate.
--Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove U.S. Senate seats from infobox

message: Does the party still identify with Left-libertarianism? Or has it drifted from Bookchin? Any sourcing would be helpful. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Left-libertarianism

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm aware of how proprietarial some people can be with these articles, so before making this post, I'm asking here, since the body of the article says they have one senate seated but the intro says they have two, is anyone unhappy if I just change the intro to say that they have one senate seat? 49.184.235.80 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've looked even closer, and the plot thickens, because other than the "State-wide Offices", *none* of the numbers seem to add up, for instance the article says there are five Progressive Party members in the lower house, but lower down it lists seven, all described as current members... Quite confusing! Then there are many others will the letters "P/D" or "D/P", which just add more unaccounted-for members... I'm guessing they're  Progressives who caucus with the Democrats, but don't *all* the Progressives caucus with the Democrats? And are those listed as "D/P" Democrats who caucus with the Progressives? So confusing - this article needs a lot of clarification! 49.184.235.80 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two seats, or one?