Talk:Vermont/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sanders party affiliation

Maybe we should discuss this? I'm sure we can find reliable sources on both sides, since he has been affiliated both as Independent and as Democrat. The question is how do we list him? The template doc does not provide guidance. I think he should be listed as Independent, because his position in the infobox is "Senator," and he was an Independent at the time he was elected. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making this a matter of discussion, Kendall-K1. I concur with your suggestion, since it's only for purposes of running for president that he has claimed the mantle of Democrat. See, for instance, CBS: "Bernie Sanders on why he won't run as an independent" and Wash. Post: "No, Bernie Sanders still isn’t going to run as an independent" both refer to Sanders as "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)". Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Bernie Sanders so that's where the discussion should be. If you look at the date on the citation in this article, you will see that Sanders' statement that he is a Democrat now is recent, so sources from August are not applicable. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Should Bernie be listed as a Democrat now?, it was concluded that "In view of the sources provided, I would be content to list him as an independent [as Vermont's senator], so long as U.S. Senate—Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present and Sanders' website are cited as sources." There has been no subsequent debate to the contrary.User:HopsonRoad 19:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note further from Bernie Sanders#U.S. Senate: "Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.

• Taylor, Jessica (June 24, 2015). "This Quirky New Hampshire Law Might Keep Bernie Sanders Off The Ballot". NPR. Retrieved July 20, 2015. He did appear on the Democratic primary ballot in Vermont for the Senate in both 2006 and 2012, winning their primary, but he declined the nomination both times so he could run as an independent.
• Nichols, John (May 26, 2015). "'Don't Underestimate Me': Bernie Sanders Knows a Thing or Two About Winning". The Nation. Retrieved July 20, 2015. When Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, a Republican who turned independent in his last term, announced that he was stepping down in 2006, Sanders jumped into a race that a number of Democrats would have liked to run. He won the Democratic primary and then declined the nomination, mounting an audacious independent run that was not supposed to be easy.

It is because of declining to align with a political party that he properly should be designated (I) as a senator from Vermont, as the Senate roster indicates.

User:HopsonRoad 21:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added the following note among the references next to (I): "Note: Sanders is listed as (I) in the US Senate because he was elected as an Independent, although he's running as Democrat for president." User:HopsonRoad 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. When he's listed as D instead of I, it's a subject of which party he belongs to. You pointed out to a column that was written in May. Back then, he was independent which caucuses with Democrats. Now he's a registered Democrat. Archway (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking in here, Archway. Others may agree with you. I'll respect the consensus. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That's my point. You seem to be a good man, and that's why I don't get why you're so ardent with respect to this matter. At the bottom line, he's a Democrat and has an enormous support in the Democratic primary. The readers of this page ought to know that the great state of Vermont, which was deep red once, is now represented by two Democrats in the US senate, and not by some independent. Democratic socialist? so be it. Many people in this party support him. I am for Hillary personally, but it doesn't affect my views on him. I still like him. Archway (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Archwayh: wrote "Now he's a registered Democrat." No, as discussed at talk:Bernie Sanders, there is no mechanism in the State of Vermont to register one's membership in a political party. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Archwayh:, thank you for recognizing my good faith in this matter, as I recognize yours. I further appreciate your desire to educate the English-speaking world about the excellent people that my state sends to Congress. What I've been trying to do is to educate the readership on the oddities of American politics, which sometime run counter-intuitive to what appears to be obvious—in this instance, Sanders being listed as (I) in the US Senate, when he is running for president as (D)! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matther how he's listed in the US Senate—the readers of this page ought to know one thing—is he a D? Independent with no leaning? And so forth. @Jc3s5h:, He's registered Democrat nationally, by running for POTUS nationally in all 50 states, as a Democrat. Archway (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Archway. Everyone's on the same page with his national standing. The question here remains how he represents the state of Vermont in the Senate. That remains unchanged as a result of his candidacy. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Archwayh: You wrote "@Jc3s5h:, He's registered Democrat nationally, by running for POTUS nationally in all 50 states, as a Democrat". Registering with a political party is a specific action where one goes someplace and fills out a form. Registration is available in some states of the United States, but not all. There is no such thing as registering nationally. I feel quite sure you will be unable to direct me to a place where I could register nationally for a political party. Of course, he is effectively a Democrat, and the discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders mentioned an interview where he said he was a Democrat now. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I don't know of any mechanism in the Senate that officially recognizes a member's political party. Members vote however they want, and talk to whoever they want before doing so. Members elect other members to positions such as President pro tempore or chairs of committees. I'm sure there is no Constitutional provision recognizing parties, and I'm unaware of any law or Senate rule recognizing parties. He's effectively a Democrat, his votes more or less adhere to the party consensus, and he's been elected to committee chairs as if he were a Democrat. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

So he's Democrat then, period. What are we arguing for? And if he loses the primary to Hillary, he will run in 2018 as a D officially in the state of Vermont, like Patrick Leahy. Archway (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: see United States Senate#Party leaders, where "Each party elects Senate party leaders. Floor leaders act as the party chief spokesmen. The Senate Majority Leader is responsible for controlling the agenda of the chamber by scheduling debates and votes. Each party elects an assistant leader (whip) who works to ensure that his party's senators vote as the party leadership desires." Furthermore, see United States Senate#Majority and minority parties: "The "Majority party" is the political party that either has a majority of seats or can form a coalition or caucus with a majority of seats.... The president pro tempore, committee chairs, and some other officials are generally from the majority party.... " Although Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, I don't know that he had standing as an Independent to elect a party leader. He has been given committee assignments through the Democrats. His Independent status remains reflected in Senators of the 114th Congress.

@Archwayh: It would surprise me, if Bernie broke his long-standing practice of allowing his name to be entered in the state's Democratic primary, but running solely as an Independent in the next election. He has long cherished his political philosophy of being a "democratic socialist" and has been critical of Democrats, who (in his view) have been friendly with big corporations and wealthy interests.

Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but since Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, I will not read Wikipedia articles to figure out how the Senate works. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood, Jc3s5h, however the source material behind those entries should be informative. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know any person who is critical of one party, but is very popular with its voters and may win its nomination to the White House. Archway (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Archway, that's a common occurrence, here in Vermont! Bernie is successfully bending the curve of political discussion with his campaign. Just as a Congressman, he didn't have the influence, nationally, that he does now. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I just called his Senate office, (202) 224-5141, where they confirmed that he is correctly listed as (I) at Senators of the 114th Congress User:HopsonRoad 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But, again, it is because of Senate procedure. He's effectively a Democrat (and identifies as one), and so that's what the readers should know. It's Wikipedia. And by the way, you don't have to mention me every time! I follow this page. Archway (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's my point, entirely. Sanders represents Vermont in the Senate and there he is listed as an Independent. His status, as such, affects his role in office. It's with the permission of the Democrats, not by right of being elected under the party banner, that he caucuses with them. User:HopsonRoad 18:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only procedure. In a different case, it would be inappropriate to list Angus King as a D (although he was in the past and is very liberal -- so independent in name only) -- but as it relates with Mr Sanders -- it's fine. In November 2018 he will run as D officially. If the readers want to know that he's identified as I, for procedoral reasons, in the US Senate -- they can read his biography. Meanwhile, other readers may see that Vermont is represented by "I" and assume that he's not belong to any party, just like his predecessor who was Republican before turning to I. Archway (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the conversation that we're having, Archwayh. I was curious to see how James Jeffords was listed in the Senate website, after he became independent, but couldn't find how he was shown. I feel that the matter is beyond our resolution, since we each have a good reason for advocating what amounts to a change in one letter, yet there doesn't seem to be much interest from other editors in helping resolve the matter. But I do want to thank you for coming here and discussing the matter on this Talk page. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think he should be listed (I) on this page, because his listing here is as Senator from Vermont, and he was elected to the Senate as an Independent. And it's not just the Senate that lists him that way, so do all the major vote tracking organizations like Open Congress and Votesmart. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Iisn't the whole point of Wikipedia to have consistency of information? Angus King is listed as an independent on his page and the page for Maine itself. If Bernie Sanders is listed as an Democrat on his own page, shouldn't he therefore be listed as an Democrat on the Vermont page? It doesn't seem logical to have different information on different pages. User:Cynulliad 15:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a counter-intuitive subject, User:Cynulliad. Angus King didn't declare as a Democrat in the presidential race. Bernie's status in the Senate as an (I) remains unchanged, both according to the Senate site and a call to his Senate office. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I see your point there User:HopsonRoad. But if he is listed as an "Independent" on the "Vermont" English Wikipedia page, perhaps he should also be listed as an "Independent" on the "Bernie Sanders" English Wikipedia page. It is contradictory and inconsistent to have differing information on separate pages. If you believe it is necessary to change his party identification on his English Wikipedia page, go ahead and do so, because Senator Sanders has declared his intention to remain a Democrat and run as a Democrat. I think either way, both pages have to be consistent. User:Cynulliad 15:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradiction and it's not all that complicated. He was elected to the Senate as an Indepenent, so that's how he's listed in the infobox as Vermont's Senator. He is currently running for President as a Democrat, so that's how he's listed at his own WP article. Please leave the listing on this page as-is until you have achieved consensus to change it. So far you have not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay User:Kendall-K1, so let's achieve consensus. I'm still an amateur at Wikipedia, so let's figure out how to do this. I vote for a change from "I" to "D" on the "Vermont" page. I'm not fully informed on the procedure for "achieving consensus" and voting on what should be on what page, etc. so I'd like to hear more of others' opinions. "Consensus" and "consistency" are similar words. 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynulliad (talk • contribs)

You can read up about the process at Wikipedia:Consensus. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a question that will persist until Bernie Sanders is elected president or until the next senatorial election. It will remain puzzling to new editors who drop by how this apparent contradiction can exist and it will be their good-faith desire to fix what is apparently a mistake, although it isn't one—it's the fallout of an unusual circumstance where a politician has one status in the Senate and another on the national stage. Sanders has steadfastly allowed his name to entered in the Democratic primaries for Senate in Vermont, with the agreement that he would run as an Independent in the national election cycle—this eliminates there being a different Democratic candidate to split the vote. By the same token, it would be impossible to run as an Independent presidential candidate at the national level, unless he had eliminated a Democratic rival. That's why he is a Democrat at this moment, although at heart he is a "democratic socialist." It will be interesting to see, if he runs for the Senate again, whether he repeats his past approach.

He remains properly listed as an (I) here and a (D) at Bernie Sanders. —User:HopsonRoad 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Boston Globe, November 5, 2015. Bernie Sanders files for Democratic ballot in N.H. primary

"When a reporter asked Sanders his party allegiance after he filed, Sanders responded, “I’m a Democrat.”

"He then called on Buckley, the Democratic chairman, who confirmed the senator’s party allegiance. Sanders added that he would run as a Democrat in any future elections."

Seems to me that Sanders is now a Democrat -- by his own words.

Billmckern (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is disputing that. I know it's long, but please read the discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: -- Why would you presume that I didn't read the thread before I contributed?

Were people asked to add to the discussion or were they not? They were. I did. The group is free to consider what I wrote. If it helps in developing a consensus one way or the other, then it will have served its purpose. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome, but I do have an informed opinion on the topic, so I shared it.

Respectfully, just because you may not agree with what I wrote is no reason for you to assume that I didn't consider what else has been written on the topic.

Billmckern (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Billmckern. Certainly, Sanders is properly listed as (D) at Bernie Sanders and in the next election, if he runs and wins as a Democrat, he would be listed, as such here. A call to his office confirmed what the Senate listing says, that his status in the Senate remains (I). I assume that this means that he caucuses with the Democrats with their permission and not by right of his being elected under the party imprimatur. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

HopsonRoad -- That makes sense to me, given what is known at the moment: Sanders is an Independent Senator who caucuses with the Democrats; he's running for President as a Democrat; if he were to run for the Senate again, it would be as a Democrat.

Billmckern (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of state name

This edit by Sigehelmus adds a source from Vermont Public Radio (VPR) about the local pronunciation of "Vermont", which is good. Sieghelmus also adds an IPA pronunciation, but the VPR show transcript contains no IPA symbols, so it isn't clear who created the IPA representation. The symbols used do not appear in the page where the tool tip leads, Help:IPA for English, so very few people will be able to make use of the IPA representation, or be able to verify that it actually represents the same pronunciation described by VPR. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't insert the IPA transcription, I just restored it in a different format from the person's edit who transcribed it and was eventually removed. I don't know who did it or when (I only know how to check diffs manually and it's very tedious to go through hundreds), but I am looking through Google Books for other sources.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that the source cited portrays how the state's name has been pronounced throughout the state for any specific timespan. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. It would properly belong in a section on traditional Vermont dialect, if one were to exist. I recommend omitting the "local"—i.e. vernacular pronunciation from the lead. Nice idea, though. User:HopsonRoad 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice that other U.S. states and territories such as South Dakota and Puerto Rico have the local IPA pronunciation in the lede though, wouldn't your proposal be going against the precedent?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable question, User:Sigehelmus. I looked at Missouri where the regional pronunciation is very much at odds with the standard English version and they have a special section on that topic. Puerto Rico is a Spanish-majority territory and so the name has an English, Castilian Spanish and a local dialect manner of pronunciation. I can't discern the justification for South Dakota, since the non-standard English pronunciation is not explained by reference, but I don't view precedence as trumping verifiability. As a Vermonter, I don't regard the cited pronunciation as anything but very isolated, regionally, and not representative of how locals have spoken the name of the state during my 69 years. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I apologize. I wonder who added that transcription. Do you know the local pronunciation of Vermont? Or to not go against WP:OR, do you know any sources on the majority local pronunciation in the Vermonter accent?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've always heard it as spoken here for NA English. Some old timers that I've heard, pronounced it "VUH-mont". User:HopsonRoad 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this article by VPR. There are quite a few videos with the accent in the link. But I've been thinking, looking at South Dakota for example, do IPA transcriptions directly need sourcing for that transcription? Even with Puerto Rico, the particular source given only applies to one or two sounds relevant to that dialect, not the full transcription.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This one seems to have a more scholarly connection, but still isn't specific about how to translate the colloquial pronunciation into IPA—most notably the accented syllable is not rendered. Furthermore, there's no explanation regarding how widespread that colloquial pronunciation is. I haven't heard it, except in these videos, most of which come from the western side of the state.

BTW, is the accent properly rendered in the "standard" pronunciation in the article? The Oxford Dictionary pronunciation emphasizes (correctly IMO) the second syllable. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on IPA, but according to Help:IPA for English, the accent mark goes before the emphasized syllable, so the standard pronunciation seems correct to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm the editor who first inserted the IPA transcription and also the editor who recently decided to remove it. Months ago, I was under the impression that there was a more or less uniform "Vermont accent." My studies show that this is no longer true. I recently created the article Western New England English where I described how linguist Charles Boberg differentiates a Rutland accent from a Burlington accent. And neither of these even includes the now-dying r-less Vermont accent that once prevailed before the mid-1900s (i.e. "vuh-mont"). (Plus, all my actual Vermont friends just pronounce Vermont in a General American way; something like [vɚˈmɑ̈nʔ], dropping the T at the end like most other Americans.) I now agree with User:HopsonRoad; there is no one uniform local "Vermont" way to pronounce the word, so let's remove the one we have. Wolfdog (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see the original editor, thank you. Even if there is no uniform accent, do you believe there should at least be some note where the Vermonter transcription is distinguished? However, I was also about to post from the last source @HopsonRoad: posted, where there seems to be a homogenization into General American in The majority of Vermont, but the change of the final [t] into a glottal stop still prevails. EDIT: To clarify, would the transcription /vərˈmɒnʔ/ or even /vɚˈmɒnˀ/? (The r-colored vowel is used as it is ambiguous to the use of apical or other minor tongue articulation).--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to making a footnote of local or regional pronunciation. However, no-one has cited an authority that translates it into IPA. I feel that it constitutes WP:OR for a WP editor to make that transcription themselves from what we hear in clips or infer from non-IPA written description. My searches on "Julie Roberts, a University of Vermont researcher" haven't revealed any readily accessible scholarly works. She seems to be the current authority on the subject. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 19:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. This makes things a bit more difficult. There doesn't seem to be much research on the subject looking at Google Books, but I might have to look deep to works concerning New England dialects in general, perhaps. I'll see what I can find.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad:, @Wolfdog:, @Jc3s5h:. Success! I have found a book that successfully transcribes Vermont into a local pronunciation that "appears to be a robust dialectical phenomenon. Although considered to be a traditional rural phenomenon most common to older male speakers, these glottal forms are found in speakers of all ages in VT." (Scroll to page 60.) The transcription given is /vərmɑ̃ʔ/. I've already formatted the reference for use; do you all like it? The book was published relatively recently and seems reputable.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: If an additional source is needed, I have also found a small mention of the Vermont accent here (p. 226): Robert's (2006) study in Vermont, however, demonstrates that the glottal stop does occur in word-final position among Vermonters. However that does not explicitly provide the transcription of Vermont itself, as I provided in the first source.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your perseverance on this topic, Sigehelmus. Two cautions come to mind: 1. The map in Nagy and Roberts (P. 53), showing the east-west divide of language influences (along the spine of the Green Mountains), and 2. the explicit mention that the pronunciation of the state as "/vərmɑ̃ʔ/" is most commonly found among older, male, rural speakers, but still persists in rural areas among speakers of all ages.

I would support a note saying something like, "Among rural Vermonters, especially in the western side of the state, the use of the glottal stop can render the name of the state as "/vərmɑ̃ʔ/," causing the "t" on the end not to be heard." Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in what is probably a very boring addendum to most people, haha. I just want to say that the source on page 60 mentions that the glottal stop is found in "in speakers of all ages in VT", not just rural (although maybe I'm misreading and it's implied?) But you probably know more than me. I still think it should be in the lede, but I do also support a footnote for it. Should I just go ahead and put the note in?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the article is ambiguous. The phenomenon is rural, but found among speakers of all ages, is how I read it. That's my take partly because I seldom hear people using the glottal stop and when I do it's someone in a rural area. User:HopsonRoad 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, I don't concur with the statement, "Often pronounced /vərmɒ̃ʔ/ by locals of all ages, especially in rural areas of the state," because it implies that is a common pronunciation in the state. It appears to be found in rural parts of the western side of the state, only. That's why I chose the wording, "Often pronounced /vərmɒ̃ʔ/ in rural areas of the state." Furthermore, "by locals of all ages" doesn't add information. It's clear that we're speaking of Vermont residents, whom it would be condescending to term a "local;" mention of age is only significant if there were something to discriminate among the ages, which according to the source, there isn't. I also find it questionable to use the word "often" since the source doesn't explain the penetration of that manner of speaking among the general populace—it only discusses the pattern of speech among those who speak in that manner. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I wasn't aware you changed that. I just wanted it to directly match the source. Please revert if I was in error.Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Sigehelmus. We're all equal here and approach things according to our best understanding of WP:MOS. But yes, I do feel that the previous more succinct wording, which doesn't make broad claims, is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Thank you for your understanding! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Vermont dialect

Sigehelmus has gathered enough material to have a brief section on "Vermont dialect." The question is, where would it best fit—under "Demographics" (which is mostly about census data on ethnic background) or "Culture" (which is mostly about high culture)? Thoughts on the subject? User:HopsonRoad 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I don't know if there should just be a footnote for the pronunciation, a subsection in the article, or even be in its own section in New England English, or more than one place. I'm not quite experienced with this kind of editing.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, thanks for calling my attention to New England English and its regional subordinate articles. Interestingly, T-glottalization is only mentioned in passing in the main article and not at all in Western New England English. User:HopsonRoad 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, @HopsonRoad:. I added the footnote as you recommended. How is it? Good for now?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have drafted a sub-paragraph on Vermont dialects, which one can view (for the time-being) in my sandbox. If there's no objection, I plan to drop it into the Demographics section. User:HopsonRoad 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Moronic motto depiction

The typographic arrangement of our motto makes AND to like like NO. Remember, the actual flag is not a tablet screen, so we should type it more distinctly. Politicians are aware of the issue but NO UNITY brings more votes, even if it harms our beloved state! Add more data! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:8C00:B8AD:1307:BAB7:BBB2 (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Population characteristics

An editor has added content denoting the national origins of the Vermont population using a census search tool. Unfortunately, this appears to represent original research and not information from a reliable source, so I have commented it out, pending a discussion here. Likewise the editor added an assertion about people's national self identification with a long list of references that make it difficult to discern which reference actually supported the assertion and whether the assertion pertained specifically to Vermonters, which should be the focus of this article. I have invited the editor to discuss the matter, here. User:HopsonRoad 00:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: Hi, I don't know why you think the source I gave is not reliable, American fact finder is a serious website. Every other states have the same source and Vermont is the only state where there is not informations about the population ancestry, I don't think is fair. User:SmashXY 15:08, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

@SmashXY: Thank you for your interest in this topic. It's not that the topic is unworthy. It's just that it was difficult to identify which source supports which fact with a lengthy list of appended references. Maine#Race, ancestry, and language#Race, ancestry, and language has a similarly strung out set of references. New York#Racial and ancestral makeup and Massachusetts#Race and ancestry are examples of articles that place the supporting references close to the topic. Ideally, one would use a secondary source where an authority has done the research, rather than relying on on-line tools that require the person to use a search tool when verifying what's written, possibly in a different manner than the earlier editor did. The reason that I commented out the material is not that it doesn't belong, but that it should be presented in a manner that ties the references with the facts that they support. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/5wkd0adOe to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110224/NEWS02/110223031/Amtrak-ranks-Vermont-last-as-worst-railroad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722022527/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100907/NEWS02/100906009/Burlington-high-rise-gets-facelift
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014034322/http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/ to http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090930063912/http://www.historicvermont.org:80/constitution/ to http://www.historicvermont.org/constitution/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019160532/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php
• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HZRQVgCU to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100823015931/http://www.burlingtonintlairport.com:80/ to http://www.burlingtonintlairport.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/balbuda.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://auditor.vermont.gov/interior.php/sid/2/aid/9/nid/125
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061231210937/http://vermontproperty.com:80/newsltr/2005effectivetaxrates.pdf to http://www.vermontproperty.com/newsltr/2005effectivetaxrates.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100617103717/http://liquorcontrol.vermont.gov/annualreports/2007.pdf to http://liquorcontrol.vermont.gov/annualreports/2007.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Vermont
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828135730/http://www.reason.org:80/ps369/ to http://reason.org/ps369/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders party affiliation

See discussion at Talk:Vermont/Archive 3. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025064914/http://www.reason.org/ps360.pdf to http://www.reason.org/ps360.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206163302/http://www.manchestervermont.net/about.php to http://www.manchestervermont.net/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114050550/http://autoinsurancetips.com/vermont-dui-laws to http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/vermont-dui-laws
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100728002708/http%3A//www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BudgetTax/StateBalancedBudgetRequirementsProvisionsand/tabid/12651/Default.aspx to http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/balbuda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053426/http://www.vermonttreasurer.gov/sites/treasurer/files/pdf/newsClippings/20070206_MoodyshighestbondratingtoVermont.pdf to http://www.vermonttreasurer.gov/sites/treasurer/files/pdf/newsClippings/20070206_MoodyshighestbondratingtoVermont.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513195925/http://www.vermontbusiness.com/news/vermont-ranked-6-well-being-0210 to http://www.vermontbusiness.com/news/vermont-ranked-6-well-being-0210
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511152121/http://www.ndakinna.org/ to http://www.ndakinna.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"ahead only" vs "only ahead"

I reverted an edit without an Edit Summary (hit the wrong key, sorry) - it concerned the difference between the small population means that Vermont is "ahead only of Wyoming" or "only ahead of Wyoming".

The first wording is correct but it's easy to misread or be confused, so on second thought I'm going to remove the "only" which isn't needed anyway. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411025556/http://www.tolatsga.org/aben.html to http://tolatsga.org/aben.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524030510/https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/627/627.F2d.606.79-7759.79-7113.1070.1098.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/627/627.F2d.606.79-7759.79-7113.1070.1098.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/whats-the-greenest-place-in-america-hint-it-has-8-million-peo/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Clink5%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fwhats-the-greenest-place-in-america-hint-it-has-8-million-peo%2F
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120330/NEWS03/120330011/President-Obama-addresses-crowd-at-UVM-in-Burlington
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327114914/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50/5010675.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50/5010675.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621030850/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245667150/1237405732511 to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245667150/1237405732511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130826163427/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245666724/1237405732511 to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245666724/1237405732511

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Choice of verbiage

An IP editor and I have different ideas about which verbiage is more appropriate for the article:

1. Vermont is the 2nd least populous ahead of Wyoming, and the 6th smallest by area of the 50 U.S. states.
2. As of the 2010 census, Vermont ranked 49th by population—ahead of Wyoming, 31st by population density, and 44th by area of the 50 U.S. states.

Please discuss the relative merits of each and express your preference, below. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option #2 I find "2nd least populous" in Option #1 to be awkward. That might make Wyoming the "most least populous"! Ranking from the top in terms of population, as in Option #2, seems more straightforward to me. I feel that it's important to date the population statistic, which changes with time. I don't have a problem with "6th smallest", since that doesn't have an awkward modifier. However, depending on which option is chosen, it's best to keep it the ranking consistent—either from the top or from the bottom. Option #2 also speaks to population density. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 I guess, although I don't care too much. My thinking is that the description should emphasize the most notable aspect of the fact being discussed, to enlighten the reader. Thus, for the, say, 10 smallest states we would list them as "X smallest" while the rest we would say "X biggest". I wouldn't get hung up on being consistent across all state articles; what's more important is to be clear and useful to readers in any given article. As for the wording, I think 2nd smallest by population and 6th smallest by area cover it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 I think it is the most straight forward. Let's not complicate some simple numbers. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 is a decent sentence; option 1 is poor style, awkward, and unclear. I think #2 would be improved by omitting the mention of Wyoming. Though somewhat interesting, that info is a side note that interrupts the sentence a bit, and the curious reader can glean that info easily by following the link on VT's rank. Eric ^talk 17:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1: Same reasons as DavidWBrooks above. Vermont is notable for its small size and population. BruzerFox 21:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their input. The IP editor in question didn't engage here, despite being invited, but commenced reverting after I implemented the DavidWBrooks suggestion with the exception that I spelled out "second" and "sixth", per MOS:SPELL09. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead insufficient

The lead currently only reflects the history of the state up to its admission to the United States. It needs additional material to reflect the content of the article, better. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Implemented I have boldly added material. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Scandal scenes

Scandal scenes were shot in Vermont too Khesia hopper7 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Quebec Tourism To Vermont

Not a single mention of it, despite being the vast majority of visitors to the state. Really? 70.29.99.162 (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the basis for your claim that Quebec tourism constitutes "the vast majority"? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I lived there for over thirty years and I wouldn't say this is true at all. In my personal experience most French Canadians came there to shop, not necessarily as tourists. I would say most tourism actually came from U.S. cities and most of them came to hike or ski.2601:18C:4301:244:581A:EC60:EC1D:4452 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat?

Should Sanders be labelled as a Democrat in the infobox? As per DNC rules he needs to formally join the party to run for the nomination. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please cite a reliable source for your assertion about DNC rules.

By the way, in many other states one can formally join a party through the voter registration process. But the voter registration process in Vermont does not include any method of affiliating with a party. There are other ways one could indicate affinity with a party, such as by making speeches, joining a town committee of the party of one's choice, or becoming an officer of one of the town committees. The exact text of the DNC rules would be relevant, because they might spell out how to tell if someone has formally joined the Democratic Party or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would go a step further. What do the reliable sources say? Do the sources call him a Democrat or an Independent? Whatever the sources say is what we say. We don't care what the DNC rules say. ~ GB fan 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My recollection is that reliable sources describe him with carefully crafted phrases that don't really answer the question, like "caucuses with the Democrats". Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry

@DavidWBrooks, Servicio, Castncoot, Aboideau, Slightsmile, Rickscully, PootisHeavy, Jmertel23, Sjj109, Patrickneil, Rossdegenstein, and Cemateo: One or more IP editors has deleted an analysis of the effect of global warming on the state's ski industry in the state with this edit. Perhaps other editors can weigh in about whether the passage should stay. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should return, but replacing the words "is likely to" with "has been predicted to" and remove "historic". Castncoot (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire article used as the reference for this passage, but having reviewed the abstract, I see no reason to remove the passage - it's a reliable source. I do like the suggested wording by Castncoot above. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Castncoot, it should return. My only comments were that the link to download the 2007 University of Ottawa PDF from "researchgate.net" could be improved, there's probably been more research in recent years.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I also think it should return, and would prefer using Castncoot's rewording. aboideau^talk 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I hope that the following text addresses the suggestions, above: "The effects of global warming have been predicted to shorten the length of the ski season across Vermont, which would continue the contraction and consolidation of the ski industry and threaten individual ski businesses and communities that rely on ski tourism." Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess being an IP editor makes me a de facto second class editor but Wikipedia is great because it is communally sourced, and eventually the crowd really does get the best results, so I am going to stand my ground on this hill (no ski pun intended). The rewrite seems a little better, however...I counted 4? sentences that directly speak about Vermont's Ski Tourism industry. There is no way that sentence is the fourth most vital piece of information about the subject. In fact, more information about the contraction & consolidation of the Vermont Ski tourism would make this a better article and GW/CC could be mentioned as major contributor, maybe someone could do the work and put THAT in there. There is an enlightening bit of global warming context re: the Sugar Maple industry that seems pertinent. This sentence about the ski industry just seems alarmist and negatively biased just for the sake of throwing it in there. It might be better suited to the section re: Vermont's climate. People come to this article for information about the state of Vermont, this sentence imparts very little of that. It is practically intuitive that Climate Change/GW will effect things that occur outdoors and pointing that out in ambiguous fashion really does noone any good. Should we just embark through Wikipedia and insert global warming information with every item that will be affected? Should we point out the future effect of CC/GW on the fall tourism industry & how in the future the colors will begin to occur earlier? There is no mention of GW/CC in the forestry/farming portions. What about the lengthening of Summer season tourism, if I found an article to cite about that should that go in. Where do you draw the line? I say this sentence goes over the line, and should be drawn back.

Sincerely,

IP Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4380:2631:350E:8454:291:9EAA (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, Your point is a valid one. Two things to remember are:

1. All articles are a work in progress, and
2. When there is a disagreement, we settle it by consensus.

To your point, it would improve the article, if there were an overview of the effects of global warming, positive and negative, on the various sectors of the state, supported by reliable sources. For the time being, this is what we have. The other editors felt that it was better to add information, rather than subtract it. And, yes, if there were a citable article on the benefits of GW on summer tourism, that would be appropriate to include and maintain a neutral point of view.

BTW, please remember to sign your contributions to a talk page with ~~~~.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

French speakers

The article French language in the United States states that Maine and Vermont have the highest share of French speakers among US states. The article on Maine shows 5% speaking French. This article does not mention present-day French speakers in the infobox or in the article. I assume the source is the Census for language spoken. Is it available? - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

See https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?hidePreview=true&g=0400000US50 and Language Spoken at Home. I only spend a few minutes on it, but it seems like they used to report detailed information about what language was spoken at home. The latest data seems to only report English, Spanish, or other Indo-European language.

Nomination of Portal:Vermont for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Vermont is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarify?

Hi Dylanvt, I notice that you put a "clarification needed" tag in the "Vermont speech patterns" section. What do you feel would be helpful to create the clarity that is missing for you? Cheers from another Vermonter, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation should be transcribed using the IPA on Wikipedia. I, for one, have no idea how "bah-k", "thair", and "caaf" are meant to sound, though I assume it's roughly how someone from Woodbury would sound. So these should be rewritten using IPA. Dylanvt (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dylanvt. On the other hand, I have no idea what I'm looking at, when I see IPA and that's probably true for the average reader. I see that the article is using the rendering provided by the source material. Absent the words cited being rendered in the source in IPA, wouldn't it also be conjecture on the part of a WP editor to attempt to render it into IPA? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dylanvt, how do you feel about bah-k (/bɑːˈk/), thair (/θeɪr/), and caaf (/kɑːf/)? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know; like you said, any attempt to clarify using the IPA would require some conjecture. Based on bah-k I would indeed guess /bɑːk/, but I've never heard anybody pronounce it like that, not even the most conservative of speakers. thair is probably supposed to be /ðeɪr/, which seems feasible. And I reckon caaf ought to be /kɑːf/, with the same vowel as bah-k, since "back" and "calf" have the same vowel in most dialects. But I don't know why one is written aa and the other ah-. Dylanvt (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Dylanvt, I interpreted the "ah-" to be interrupted with something like a glottal stop, so I added an ', in contrast to "aa", which I took to be a uniform sound. You asked for clarification. Perhaps it's not possible, given the sources provided. As to whether we've heard these intonations, the claim was that they were disappearing. I hardly ever hear accents that I once heard in Windsor and Windham counties in the '60s. I suggest we let the passage remain as it is, based on the sources cited. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Molly Walsh source and saw that it says "The trademarks of the accent include: Broad "a" and "e" sounds, making calf sound more like 'caaf' and there like 'thair'". Indeed, "broad 'a'" generally means /ɑː/, and "broad 'e'" means /eɪ/, so I accordingly changed the transcriptions. Since the (non-academic) sources are still there, people can go to them and see how they are transcribed there. Dylanvt (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you two. I've removed those popular linguistics references and replaced them with some recent, scholarly, research-based linguistics sources. (Actually, some studies have been done as recently as 2019 regarding rural Vermont dialect!) Hope that helps. Some of the popular sources' attempts at phonetic spelling are fairly baffling and don't appear to be backed in any way by the hard research as far as I know. Wolfdog (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate precision

Several changes to the coordinate precision have been made in the last few days. I have reviewed the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines which I belive support this edit by User:Sanjay7373 so I have restored it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "Vermontane" a demonym that belongs in the infobox?

An IP editor reverted this edit wherein I stated that, "Removed "Vermontane" as a demonym. In the cited reverence, "Vermontane" is used as an adjective, not a demonym". The IP editor contends, "an adjective formed from a place name and describing features of that place is literally what a demonym is, unless "French" isn't a demonym now". The "French" analogy is problematical because "the French" refers as a noun to the people of France as a demonym or to things pertaining to France, when it is an adjective, as in "French rivers". The cited reference uses "Vermontane" as an adjective pertaining to the land and not the people to describe "Vermontane rivers". I'll await further input before reverting the contribution. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines "demonym" as "A name for an inhabitant or native of a specific place, usually derived from the name of the place", which clearly indicates that a demonym has to be a noun. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Vermont, the demonym is "Vermonter", a noun referring to a resident of Vermont, whereas the adjective that describes such things that are present in Vermont is "Vermont", as in "Vermont rivers" or "Vermont mountains". "Vermontane" is an archaic form of the same adjective that would be used to describe things in Vermont. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vermont dairy industry

I recently made an article for the Vermont dairy industry. It is a work in progress. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Thriley (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Intro section too long

The history paragraphs of the intro to the article are too long, and hopefully eventually I'll come back to this and shorten it up so as to be comparable to other states intro sections. No need for the history in such detail if it's expanded upon in the history section of the article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New England? Northeast? both?

It's amusing to see the different opinions held by editors, including me, concerning how the first sentence should describe the region that Vermont is in. At various times it has said New England or Northeastern U.S. or both New England and Northeastern U.S. I suspect it will continue to switch around forever. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say New England is preferable, because it is a smaller subset of states than the northeast. I would imagine it is more frequently called a New England state than a northeastern state too. Also, the other five New England states all use New England and not northeastern (even Connecticut). -- Calidum 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's decide here and now with a poll to get a sense of a consensus. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Poll: New England, Northeastern United States or both?

• New England because of the common culture and history of the region. Those unfamiliar with New England can follow the link to where the lead sentence of the article states, "New England is a region comprising six states in the Northeastern United States: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut." This allows the reader to follow the link to Northeastern United States, in case they need further context. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• New England because the state and municipal government is similar among New England states, compared to other northeastern states. For example, a certain degree of direct government by the people at the town level, and counties that are relatively weak (or non-existent in Connecticut).

I'll also add a ditty, which can be found many places, such as https://bbteam.com/2013/11/26/thanksgiving-pie-breakfast/

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To easterners, a Yankee is an New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

Jc3s5h (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"USA, Vermont" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect USA, Vermont. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#USA, Vermont until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"USA Vermont" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect USA Vermont. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#USA Vermont until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Previously sovereign states

This has a section that says "Vermont is one of the four U.S. states that were previously sovereign states (along with Texas, California, and Hawaii)." This is incorrect. First, California was never actually a recognized sovereign state with a constitution. It was formed by 33 people. Their claim to fame was they made a flag. Sorry, that doesn't count. Second. All 13 colonies were internationally recognized as sovereign states by the Treaty of Paris, and would maintain that until at least the ratification of the constitution in 1788, or until the US civil war and the 14th amendment, depending on whose narrative you follow. This puts the number at 16 previously sovereign states that joined the Union. 02:38, 20 April 2021 173.216.125.56 (talk)

By those lights, only Hawaii of the four cited was a sovereign nation, recognized by other countries. This is trivia, anyhow, so I'll strip away mention of Texas, California, and Hawaii. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Food section could be added

Recently, an editor added a "Food" section that was unsourced and appeared promotional:

---

=== Food ===

Vermont is home to a robust ecosystem of breweries, microbreweries, and brewpubs. Some of the most popular beers in the state are from <removed>.

The state is also known for the version of soft serve called the Creemee. While commonly flavored with maple syrup, creemees do no have to be maple.

---

While that specific text was appropriately removed due to lack of sources, the editor does make a good point that there could be a "Food" section added here. There are three paragraphs down under "Other" under Agriculture that could be perhaps converted to a new and separate section. There could also be mention of creemee since that seems to have originated in Vermont. There is also no mention in the article about all the restaurants that are throughout Vermont. Anyway, I do think this is something to consider as a change to this page. (And I raise it here because I don't know when I will get the chance to make the edits myself.) - Dyork (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I support such a section. A word of caution: I just removed a statement that "creemees" originated in Vermont, because the source given did not support the notion. It's supportable that they are popular there (which is here for me). Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Lack of current links to tourism sites?

Why are Wikipedia articles for US States locking in significantly obsolete web-archive versions of the states' official tourism sites instead of providing a correct and CURRENT link? I can understand using archived articles to preserve the sources of specific facts from the body of the article. To me at least, common sense would dictate that the external links should be as current as possible, not a showcase for fossils... Thank you... PhotoBoothe (talk) 2021-12-29 — Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the tip! HopsonRoad (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Unneeded material?

I have restored good-faith removal of sections by HelpingWorld on the seasons, the ferries, and a list of the most notable Vermonters, subject to discussion here. I would like to see the question of each section removal or wholesale removal of material discussed here, beforehand. I'll start with notable residents. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. I suppose "article list" in the edit summary of the edit that deleted the material means the "See also" section. If all the related articles that currently are listed in sections that categorize the related articles were lumped together in one alphabetical list, it would be harder to find what you're looking for. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed those sections for multiple reasons. First of all, a state that isn't really known shouldn't have 266 thousand bytes, the article has a obscure amount of subsectons that aren't needed such as the seasons and agriculture in Vermont. Second of all, I removed the notable residents simply because it is already elaborated in the article made for the notable residents and it has no citations. Last, the season sub sections (now activities) are outdated and aren't informational. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👻👻) 04:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the article is too long, I count 13,289 words and 83,843 characters of prose currently, which is above the length which WP:SIZERULE recommends for splitting. Portions should be condensed, split out, and/or removed to focus on the most important aspects of the topic. Notable residents sections can work but must be kept to a reasonable length and maintained against frivolous entries. Only ~2 dozen or fewer entries should be on this article, with the rest in the dedicated List of people from Vermont. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the place to get specific about what needs to be tightened up or trimmed, so that we can discuss the merits of such a step in a given section. I suggest the following:

• History: Too long an overview. An interested party can refer to History of Vermont.
• Fauna: Eliminate or combine one-or-two-sentence paragraphs.  Done with this edit. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Economy: Omit mention of components that are less than 3% of the total.
• Housing: Eliminate as a collection of minor statistics.
• Transportation: Eliminate short paragraphs, containing obscure statistics.
• Utilities: Condense into paragraph style the highlights described.  Done with this edit. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Finances and taxation: Condense into summary paragraph.
• Politics: Consolidate one-line trivia into paragraph structure with items of substance.
• Culture: Consolidate one-line trivia into paragraph structure with items of substance.

In sum, I suggest that improved writing in paragraph style, preserving only the most notable topics, is indicated—not wholesale trimming of sections.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually did this a few hours before writing this comment, but I removed the housing section because it failed to be anything more than some statistics without context. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Residents section

The edit comment on removing a short list of Vermont's most notable residents was: "most states just keep the article list and not name them on the state article". I feel that such an approach would bury these most notable persons among hundreds of entries and not highlight their importance. I recommend retaining a short list here. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Natural Disaster Sub Section

Is the Natural Disaster Sub Section really necessary? Its not important and has no useful effects on the article. I don't believe that a natural disaster sub-section for a state benefits anything besides wasting space. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, all four of the disasters cited were highly impactful in the state's history. The section should be made more concise and perhaps moved to Geography with mention of the flood-control dams to deal with Vermont's flood-prone topography.. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I moved and consolidated the flooding aspect in Geography with this edit. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

CNBC rating of states

The question has arisen about the appropriateness of including such a rating in this article. Discussions about ratings of cities have pointed out that they are may be from dubious sources and based on dubious methodologies, e.g. here and here. I suggest that those discussions about cities do not apply to CNBC's annual rating of states for two reasons:

• Unlike some of the other examples given, CNBC is a reliable source.
• CNBC applies an objective methodology that it explains here.

HopsonRoad (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm so confused!

• CNBC ranks the top three states to live in as Vermont, Maine, and Hawaii.
• US News ranks them as Washington, Minnesota, and Utah.
• Time Out ranks them Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
• Money Rates ranks them Washington, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
• Luxatic ranks them Tennessee, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.
• Rocket Homes ranks them Washington, Minnesota, and Utah.
• North Dakota cruised in with the fourth highest per capita GDP (CNBC ranked them #4).

What I really appreciate about CNBCs methodology is their "woke" score, because in "an era of enhanced social consciousness...companies are demanding that states offer a welcoming and inclusive environment for employees" (they even considered "historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which companies are increasingly seeking to partner with".) Are companies really demanding this? Really?

CNBC appears to use the same subjective, unscientific methodologies as all the other "best places" rankings (which all arrive at different "best places" scores).

Please take a moment to read Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included? where a consensus of editors overwhelmingly rejected including cruft-like rankings in US city articles. Can we just stick to the US census for our rankings? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to do the above research, User:Magnolia677. You make a good case for not giving undo prominence for one source. Some of the sources you give seem obscure and probably below the threshold of reliable. So, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, I would propose to retain ratings from reliable sources, but explain the factors that they used, e.g.:

In 2022, CNBC rated it Vermont at the top of states to live in, citing its access to childcare, healthcare, voting rights, and air quality, whereas US News rated it 11th, using healthcare, education, the economy, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal stability, crime, and the environment as metrics, and Time Out ranked Vermont 12th, according to 72 parameters.

If there are other reliable sources that rank the state's livability, then I would add them to the mix and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. From the above three, the median would be 11th best.

Thank you for engaging. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

How can Vermont be the best state to live in, when US News ranked it an abominable #18 for health care. Good health care is crucial to happiness. Crucial! Wait a minute...Fox Business ranked Vermont #6 for health care. Never mind. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Remember, ranking is different from scoring. A highly rated entity may have 17 even more highly rated entities ranked before it. More to your point, you are questioning whether such rankings are meaningful in the first place, which is a valid question. My support for including media rankings is that people read them and take them seriously. You're pointing out the issues with doing so. I'm suggesting that, by publishing the range of rankings, we're informing the readership of their basis and range, which I contend is more useful than omitting mention of them. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I was asked to weigh in here by HopsonRoad, presumably because I recently reverted vandalism on this article. As far as the ratings go, I don't think it's really worthwhile to include them. As Magnolia677 has pointed out, the rankings are somewhat subjective and different news agencies weigh the various factors differently. I think it's fine to mention HDI, but I would not go any farther. The RfC Magnolia677 linked is also damning, as an overwhelming consensus was formed against including ranking about "best states/cities to live in", which stands unless it is revisited with another RfC. So in summary, no, we should not be including rankings like these in this article or any state's article. It's not just about if the sources are reliable, but about if the information is fundamentally encyclopedic or not; I would argue it is not encyclopedic and therefore does not merit inclusion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Being asked to contribute to this discussion, as long as the sources meet the reputability standards of Wikipedia, they should be allowed as has been prevalent for decades. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course reliably-sourced content is publishable. In this case, there appears to be a wide range of opinions, as noted by @Magnolia677, so IMO all of the more prominent ones should be noted. Since not even the most reliable source could be definitive on an issue as subjective as this one, I'd also refer to those that aren't as "well known" (less reliable?) in a summary sentence such as "Other sources include W, X, Y, Z... in the top rankings" to give readers a more complete picture as well as the underlying message that such rankings tend to be all over the place. Allreet (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Another very important policy...one which enables Wikipedia to remain "encyclopedic" and not a repository of cruft... is WP:VNOT: "not all verifiable information must be included". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

The information may be verifiable, but it is not encyclopedic. It is not encyclopedic to collect subjective rankings of which state is "the best to live in". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Vermont was ranked #3 best place to raise a family, #2 best state to be LGBTQ, and (this one is kinda sad) 40th on the list of happiest states (which makes no sense because West Virginia was ranked the least happy state, but how could you not be happy when there are places like Jenkinjones and HooHoo?) Magnolia677 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I thank everyone, who has participated in the discussion, so far. There seems to be two schools of thought, 1) that rankings are inconsistent among themselves and thereby meaningless and such lack of rigor renders them unencyclopedic, and 2) that rankings from reliable sources, especially those with a consistent methodology from year to year, merit reporting as a body, but not on their own. I'm in the latter camp and would suggest that WP:UNDUE does not apply to such a body of rankings, reported in their diversity, especially if a given reliable source conducts the ranking annually. I look forward to further perspectives from others. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Vermont's Order in the Union

Most other references refer Vermont as the 14th state to enter the Union. The first state after the original 13.This article references "Vermont to the Union as the 15th state as of March 4, 1791. 2nd state to enter the Union." Please fact check this. 2601:190:4302:C60:A5CC:72E2:DF71:40B6 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

134th fighter squadron

the squaron was only equipped with f-16 until 2019. since they fly the new fa-35a. 91.44.220.107 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Update to pre-colonial period

I've just boldly revamped this section as follows:

• Add better refs. Found some really good sources. Before it had only refs to an archived blog (?) and to the History Channel.
• Divide into paleo, archaic, woodland, and Abenaki periods.
• Add notes on historiography, archaeology, and surviving toponyms.
• Add image. It looks great on my phone. Not too happy about how it's pushed under the infobox on PC. Could try justifying it to the left margin?. EDIT: moved to bottom left of section on PC, appears top on mobile.
• Use the heading "Pre-Colonial" since it aligns with the second heading, "Colonial", and is also used in History of New England. Looking at other "state" articles there doesn't seem to be a standard for this.

It is fairly long, but I've tried to keep it all specific to Vermont. Cornellier (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vermont Product Exports (2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

2022 American Atlas Values Survey

Hi, @TheLionHasSeen:. The data for the pie chart is from Public Religion Research Institute's 2022 American Values Survey.

• Click list
• Scroll down for Vermont.

There is a glitch on certain devices where it won't show on the map - but will on "list". Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)