Talk:Vermont Progressive Party

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Vermont Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Mid-importance).

Why I added the Cleanup tag[edit]

1) Tone/style less than ideal for an encyclopedia. 2) Lack of formal sourcing of any kind. 3) Much of the text of the article seems to be rewritten from material on the party's website. I'll do what I can here and there, when I have time. Ripogenus77 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article was not only NOT updated upon me seeing it, the style/tone sucked to be honest. --Revolución hablar ver 10:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Platform section?[edit]

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

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox[edit]

FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery note[edit]

I removed the following from the References section, because it was unclear what it applied to:

^ "House committee OKs recognition of Progressives". Burlington Free Press. February 19, 2005. p. 5B.

HopsonRoad (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of office[edit]

@Gang14: Thank you for updating the officeholders in this article, today. Could you do two further things to help:

Could you supply a term of office? E.g. 2018–22 not 2018-present. If this article fails to be updated after the term ends, at least the reader will know that the officeholder may no longer be present.
Please supply a reference that supports the basis for making these entries.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy[edit]

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

In the US alot of Congressmen misuse the term 'Democratic Socialism' to define 'Social Democracy'

XYvalues (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets remove democratic socialism from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacles14 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove U.S. Senate seats from infobox[edit]

This is superfluous information. The VPP is not a federal party,so they have no members in the U.S. Senate. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Left-libertarianism[edit]

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

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

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

Vermont Progressive Party Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two seats, or one?[edit]

I'm aware of how proprietarial some people can be with these articles, so before making this post, I'm asking here, since the body of the article says they have one senate seated but the intro says they have two, is anyone unhappy if I just change the intro to say that they have one senate seat? 49.184.235.80 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked even closer, and the plot thickens, because other than the "State-wide Offices", *none* of the numbers seem to add up, for instance the article says there are five Progressive Party members in the lower house, but lower down it lists seven, all described as current members... Quite confusing! Then there are many others will the letters "P/D" or "D/P", which just add more unaccounted-for members... I'm guessing they're Progressives who caucus with the Democrats, but don't *all* the Progressives caucus with the Democrats? And are those listed as "D/P" Democrats who caucus with the Progressives? So confusing - this article needs a lot of clarification! 49.184.235.80 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]