Talk:Second Vermont Republic

Political Campaigns

"Green Tea Party" ref was one time mention that amounted more to a disagreement between Naylor and his biographer/secession movement advocate author, Ketcham than to real press coverage. No press coverage or other ref in Vermont or national press. "Green Tea Party" name not reg as party or trade name in Vermont. Will be removing this sec if no better verifible source can be found:

"The candidates were labeled a "Green Tea Party" in a Huffington Post article.[27] However, Thomas Naylor disagreed, saying 'While tea partiers think the system’s fixable, the secessionists believe America has become ungovernable—and that Vermont must break away from 'the empire' to survive.'[6]"

Vttor (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bromage mentioned the incident on him and his response in Seven Days (newspaper). So are you opposed to that source? I think making it clear they are not a "Green tea party" is helpful. I see Thomas Friedman NYTimes says such a party should be created. So he might be happy to see that secessionists disavowed themselves from it. And that was just one of many mentions I saw in a regular google search. And then there's Roseanne Barr's Green Tea Party. Ee [the CNN link and this one. Off course, Roseanne might be all for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bromage's mere reiteration of an item from a campaign piece (and that's a point that could be debated, however Ketcham's involvement with Naylor would undercut his objectivity) doesn't really raise this to being an issue of significant relevance to the Second Vermont Republic in Vermont or Vermont. Perhaps a Green Tea Party article with an inclusion of the reference would be the way to go. The whole discussion seems to derive from a national idea or notion and is not a factor in any way in Vermont other than in a ref from an out of state advocacy author, repeated in a local weekly advertiser pub picking up on a Huff Post Vermont mention - repetition is not revelation. The major Vermont daily news organizations have no mention of a "Green Tea Party," and nor is there a record for a "Green Tea Party" at the Vermont Secretary of State website.

Not to put too fine a point on this but I think this article suffers from a number of inclusions that weaken it. It's as though everything, no matter how unimportant, has been dumped into it and it doesn't seem to have the benefit of a local eye that could help to avoid that type of thing. It reminds me a lot of that Bing commercialVttor (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with deleting it frankly. A lot of minute stuff was stuck in by Vermont Democrats who virulently hate the group or as counterpoint to their edits. So another more neutral eye on it would help. However, one also must be alert that the virulent haters aren't taking out positive stuff and leaving the bad stuff. So one must ask questions and judge edit by edit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll attend to it. I haven't really had a chance to look at this in detail but will try to find some time to do so and then try to make some changes aimed at improving the contextualization. Who are the Vermont Democrats that you refer to? And would this be the proper place for me to ask questions about this or other articles? Thanks. Vttor (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to out anyone. Keep your eyes open in Vermont and on wikidia is all I can say within wiki rules.

And read all the references in this article for general info about some Dems.

Questions about this article here. About other articles on that articles talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't wish to spend time or become involved in individual party issues. That the Second Vermont Republic is a political effort, there can be no doubt but that's not my interest. Vttor (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol, before I attend to that removal there's a second that should get another look. It's the one about the "Vermont Independence Day Party." I hadn't heard of it being a part of the general campaign coverage, but when I tried your link I found the story link dead. There may be a copy here but that doesn't change what was, as I now remember, a poorly attended presser where the VIDP name was first, and probably last, used. They all ran as independents according to the VT SoS website. I think this is another one of those cases where an exceedingly fleeting usage is given undo weight in an article. I don't think it was just a throw away but w/o more it's quite trangential. I'm not asking to delete it but perhaps some clarifying reference is in order. Although, and please pardon my thinking out loud, this may be one of those "kitchen sink" items that in the end don't really add well to the article. Thoughts? Vttor (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good to click your links since [1] is still working. This is mentioned in Ballot Access News as well which is well known 3rd party publication. It's significant because they used name and could do it again. (If someone else co-opted that name and they let them, then it would be historically relevant here.) If they called themselves the "Silly Secessionist Party" it also would be notable in the context of the sources covering it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. It was the Ballot Access News link to the AP story that didn't work. I located the local WPTZ piece here.

I don't believe that a momentary usage not repeated in any appreciable way in the many press releases or website entries of the candidates constitutes a fact worthy of such notation, nor would it seem that simply because a reporter repeats a "fleeting" eminence that it requires immediate and permanent memorialization. I'll have to look but there's a number of passing campaign usages that came up that probably aren't all that worthy of note but if this one is and you feel that strongly, then I think in all fairness all should go in. These candidates didn't seem to have much experience but I don't think that needs to be clubbed over their heads or rewarded for that matter, one way or the other, no?

The VIDP does not exist, nor did it ever legally. VT trade name law allows for others to register a name even when previously used extensively by others. The Take Back Vermont campaign and trade name case is a good example. Vttor (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol. Is there a possibility that we could add into our considerations a relook at the Time Top 10 Aspiring Nations? This seems to be one of those recurrent vanity pieces that lacks any establishing criteria or corroboration. Much junk finds its way into purportedly reliable sources, no? It seems to be some of the fluff that detracts from this article's substance. Vttor (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While you're looking at all this stuff from last year, could you look at including the material about the anonymous blog I tried to put up last year? CarolMooreDC landed on me hard for it and I think she's doing everything she can to make SVR look like Boy Scouts or something by using wikipedia rules to undermine a balanced article. I don't post because of her direct connections to the VT secessionist movement (she's a regular contributor at the sesesh Vermont Commons), as I figure it's an excercise in futility. Regardless of "anonymity", nothing on the Vermont Secession blog that criticized the movement for their ties with racist organizations (still ongoing)has been debunked. The information presented there is highly relevant to the discussion, also because it has data indicative of how much of a fringe movement it is. Tie that in with Carolmooredc's Israel perspectives and it's painting some serious COI.Lordradish (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)lordradish

{insert}I have answered your WP:COI question below. Be careful comments do not fall into the realm of WP:Personal attacks. Also, I think two other editors have opined that the anonymous blog itself is not WP:RS per Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Some sources the blog quotes on this topic can (and have) been used here. You could bring this to the relevant noticeboard - WP:RSN - but you would just get the same answer I gave you. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to take a long look yet at the anon blog item you refer to but I think it may just be more a matter of a mistaken view of the underlying policy. I've looked at it some and I'm not sure that the criticisms offered about its content are entirely accurate or very relevant. If some material there is controversial or at odds with this article's organization, the Second Vermont Republic, that's not terribly relevant in my estimation. There's a lot of material at that blog and I'll take a look at it - it took me awhile to find it. It's the Vermont Secession blog that you're talking about, right? I'll also look at what may be the relevant policy, including that mentioned above, but understand that I'm no expert in that area. It'll probably take me a few days to get around to it and through it all.

There are a number of other parts of this main article that I'd like to get to since some of what's included gives a skewed sense of importance to the group that may be tied to a point of view issue. I'm not terribly interested in the "who done it" aspect as I am in what can be done to improve what's being offered to the general reader.

I'm not sure that I can help with whatever problematic interactions you may be having with another editor. I'm fairly new here and it's not the sort of thing that I want to be doing or getting involved in. Vttor (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

History

Removed a Time magazine top ten list. It's really quite subjective and incorporates unverifiable material. It the sort the thing that endangers the quality of the article by reducing it to press clippings that add nothing new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vttor (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, at this point I'm not sure if it is significant, based on the fact it is such a large, mainstream publication (or was pre-internet days), or not for reasons you state. Obviously if other WP:RS mention this, as they may over time, it would become more significant. After I get more general input on COI issues below, and if no NPOV editors opine (including on other issues that might come up), it can be brought to the proper forum for opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:COI concerns and solutions for this article

User:Lordradish asked a question about my possible conflict of interest - WP:COI. First, always look at Wikipedia policies if you think there is an issue, don't just go away angry. I know that I'm still learning Wikipedia policies and just reading the above I can see that in 2007-2008 period I was somewhat confused about a couple of them. The longer you are here, the more sensitive you become to all of them through experience.

Re: COI questions, usually its better to start that on a talk page per WP: "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline." Actually, I thought this issue explicitly had been dealt with here before, but reading through I see I evidently confused it with a related COI question elsewhere. Anyway, I'll respond in interest of full disclosure, outline questions I think have to be asked on the talk page of any editor here who gives any indication of being familiar with the issue, and suggest some possible ways of dealing with WP:COI issues here.

My WP:COI

• To answer Lordradish's question, I have contributed 43 blog entries to the secessionist blog Vermont Commons over the last 38 months. I have not been paid. My blog entries have been more generally related to the topic of secession and occasionally make passing references to Vermont and its secession issues, including in comments on others' entries. I don’t live in Vermont and don't intend to. I don't consider myself a member of any Vermont Secession group. As far as I remember, I only have corresponded with the Vermont Commons editor, and that by email. I get some irregular Vermont Commons email and mailings and occasional Second Vermont Republic snail mails.
• I also have suffered a couple years of vicious and even libelous off wiki attacks from the anonymous blogger who does vermontsecession.blogspot, including because I edited this page, and including at another blogspot page he set up just to ridicule me with incredible sexist ire. Therefore I have come to know far more about what types of individuals may be making very POV and COI edits to this article than I would have otherwise.
• I do feel I have sufficient COI to make sure I declare it, as I now have, and to be very careful of my edits per WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest.

Possible WP:COI of other editors

In the 2007-2008 period there was some extreme POV editing of this article by individuals who I believe had very strong personal and financial connections to Vermont organizations and individuals, far stronger than mine. They are strongly motivated to trash or downplay the significance of Second Vermont Republic and don't care much about Wikipedia policies. Therefore here are some questions that might have to be asked on such suspected persons' talk pages (or here, but guidance on that appreciated). And I hope it’s ok to outline these general questions given the track record of this particular article.

General questions include: are you the anonymous blogger who does vermontsecession.blogspot.com which, while using some information from reliable sources, has a track record of unrelenting nasty, exaggerated and unprofessional attacks on individuals, often with little or even contrary evidence presented; is that person a close personal associate?; do you work for or with that person in some other capacity, such as at a publication or a blog or a sometimes paid campaign staffer?; are you a Democratic or Republican Party activist or contractor or potential contractor who fears that secession candidates running in 2012 might take votes away from your candidates and throw the election to an opponent. (According to official returns the candidate Pete Garritano mentioned in this article got 3.7% of the returns, something not yet in the article. So depending on whether a candidate was a more right or left winging secessionist, such a 2012 candidate could away enough votes to sway an election to the opponent of someone support by the COI editor.)

If other editors who seem to be too pro-Vermont Secession arise, obviously relevant questions could be asked of them on their talk page or here.

Dealing with special WP:COI concerns of this article

Given the problems described above, I can think of possible solutions:

• I am going to ask some neutral editors - those who have not been active opining on the secession topic or me - to look at this section and opine.
• If Wikipedia:Pending changes is implemented, this article may need to be put on the list.
• In the interim, any time individuals who may have COIs make questionable edits, perhaps a truly neutral editor needs to be brought in, from one of the methods of WP:Dispute resolution.
• More and other constructive suggestions welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know if any of that might have been directed at me but without going through each of your questions, point by point, I don't feel I have a problem with conflicts on this or other articles that I've edited. I should mention that it's my belief that merely disclosing a conflict, as you've done above, does not by necessity suffice in the real world. I'll look at the WP COI you've mentioned.

If you are asking for an opinion, I'd need some time to take a look at some of what you've cited. Vttor (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we'd covered that on your talk page, but thanks for answering. LordRadish also might answer. COI doesn't mean you can't edit, just that you have to be more careful and people will be watching. I am hoping for better guidance regarding this unusually problematic page from more experienced editors in COI, per my question at Conflict of interest talk page, which seemed like the appropriate place to take it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We had but I'm still trying to determine where things go and wasn't sure that our original discussion would be readily apparent. Vttor (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag

I've added the Citation needed tag for those two points. Can't find a source. The ref shown states that the Stark Bennington Flag is more properly classified as a regiment flag than as a national banner. Stark was a NH commander. Vttor (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I put a cite on the first for what the WP:RS says. Searching books google I found this history if anyone wants to read through and try to figure it out and maybe compare to any other relevant info in books.google. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Time piece is apparently based on the Time 2010 interview of Thomas Naylor. It reads, "Their (Second Vermont Republic) flag is similar in design to that of an earlier Vermont secessionist movement from the 18th century," not "The flag adopted by the Second Vermont Republic is similar in design to the flag used by Vermont while it was an independent state from 1777 until 1791." The Time piece also doesn't identify "an earlier Vermont secessionist movement from the 18th century." Not to get too sidetracked but what earlier Vermont secessionist movement? The only documentable use was as the Stark Bennington Flag/GMB regimental flag. The remains are at the Bennington Museum

Thanks for the Google Books cite. That seems to confirm that there is no verifiable record for a flag pre-dating the 1804 flag. "The answer to this question must be that if there was such a flag no record or description of it is extant No act establishing such a flag appears on the early statute books The records of the time have been searched in vain for any reference to such a flag." and "up to this time no description representation or definite reference to a Vermont flag has been found of earlier date than the Act of October 31 1803."

Do you want to do the re-write or should I take a crack at it? Vttor (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing a little more research (and that's what it's all about) I find that this was the Flag of the Green Mountain Boys and added two references to that article. Flag of Vermont reads: "From the establishment of the Vermont Republic in 1777, through admission to statehood in 1791, and on to 1804, Vermont had no official flag. It used both the flag of the Green Mountain Boys and later Governor’s flag (above) informally." I just added citation needed and will look around a bit more, so it looks like SVR is technically more or less right, though in wikipedia we have to pin things down even better. So let's keep researching. Books google *Stark Bennington Flag* search has slightly different info too. Will look more into later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Vermont Republic and Green Mountain Boys also could use getting more consistent since all mention the flag. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Agreed. Vttor (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

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

Per WP:Criticism renamed section to "Reception"

Just reorganized this article so that the questionable materials inserted over time by anti-SVR partisans would not unnecessarily warp its structure. I don't think anything important has been lost. Also cleaned up refs, etc. Also after discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Second_Vermont_Republic_paragraph_OR.3F, I removed the paragraph on the Vermont State Archivist comments as WP:Original research (he does not identify which Vermont secessionists he's critiquing and we can't go around guessing). But I left the link in external links since it's not totally irrelevant.

I renamed the Controversies section "Reception" which seems like what WP:Criticism recommends, an essay which is linked from Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-0 which reads:Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template. To me controversy is just too strong a word for a few back and forths among minor parties, and makes it hard to include individual criticisms like McLaughrey, or figure out where to put the more positive comments by those not directly involved in group. I remain an editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a more respectable encyclopedia, as opposed to a place abused by partisans to trash people and groups they disagree with. CarolMooreDC 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

I think it's inappropriate to include the SVR chief's inflammatory rant about SPLC without providing a link to SPLC's response. It does not leave a good impression on the SVR's leader. I offer it up for consideration. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/07/03/second-vermont-republic-calls-on-league-of-the-south-to-denounce-racism/ QLineOrientalist (talk)

OK, I did a new paragraph that mentioned three relevant SPLC articles. Frankly, considering the links still good, Naylor is dead and the group is pretty much defunct, I don't feel much like seeing what else is of much use there. Though there are a lot of details in the "Second Vermont Republic Pushes For Independence of Vermont" article that are neutral and factual that could be added if someone chose to. 'CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽01:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)