Talk:Island Pond, Vermont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy[edit]

I trimmed the entry to just the facts, removing the implications and drawn conclusion s about the constable etc. I still think this reeks of Trivia, but will leave it there for now. Does this really help define the town? Does it really tell Encylopedia users something they would want to know - I'm not conviced. Mickmaguire 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no specific pov about the wording of the controversy. (I'm liking my choice "meticulous" less and less). The controversy may be the only claim to fame for the village so I think it probably belongs here. There has been a LOT of space in local newspapers about this. Obviously we have to be vigilant about pov remarks and WP:BLP. Student7 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it belongs here. And I do think that "meticulous" is biased (and not objective) in that most people would certainly enjoy being described as "meticulous" in their work. But I really don't understand why the constable's name and the single location that accounts for the majority of his tickets keep on getting removed. Both of these items are of great interest. The only reason I made a contribution is because I read the Boston Globe article and I thought it was pretty interesting. It's quite reasonable and covers both sides of the story; I tried to make my posting a synopsis of the article. I get the impression that there's an effort to "protect" the constable, as well as the "secret location" of his traffic stops. So, I strongly believe that his name and the location of his stops belong in the article, since he's easily the town's most famous resident, and the intersection would be a point of interest (and caution) for any visitor. But I will certainly respect any credible argument as to why these items have to be censored. Vtindigo1958 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intent on removing them, not because I want to hide things, but because it's frankly unencyclopedic: if Britannica decided to cover this village in detail, would they really have this? Wikipedia isn't the news. Go look at other similar articles; by and large, they don't contain such specific details, as they are unnecessary for the reader to understand the story well, and they make no difference to the vast majority of readers — not many people will be at Main and Cross or at any other intersection in Island Pond. Moreover, read my edit summary: I'm supporting the ideas of other editors, and you are reverting against now three other editors' decisions. Please stop reverting against consensus. Nyttend 04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take Encyclopedia Britannica as a role-model (yikes!), then the entry for Island Pond shouldn't even be here. The only reason that Island Pond is noteworthy is because of Constable Miller, and I would bet that 95% of the people who access the Island Pond article are doing so because of articles they've read about Constable Miller in the mainstream press (that's how I got here). And if you're going to mention the constable at all, then there's no reason why you shouldn't be mentioning his name. If I read that "the constable" is handing out an inordinate amount of tickets, my next question should be: who is this guy? So, I'm going to keep on reverting against consensus until someone can tell me why we should say "the constable" and not "constable Ted Miller." Anyway, the censored paragraph doesn't make any sense because the third sentence talks about "the constable" who theretofore hadn't been mentioned. Also, "meticulous" doesn't belong there. Anyway, I get the strong feeling that somebody's personal interests are being protected here. Which is surprising, because I'm sure Constable Miller would get a big chuckle out of seeing his name on Wikipedia. Vtindigo1958 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable for other reasons: it's a census-designated place and a village. We don't need to have everything on the article; it's easier not to violate WP:BLP if we don't have names listed. Anyway, we link to articles on him, so people can read about him elsewhere if they will. Nyttend 05:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The perceived risk of violating WP:BLP doesn't merit censoring his name; the village's claim-to-fame is Constable Miller. Again, the paragraph in its censored version doesn't make any sense because it references "the constable" without mentioning him previously. There's still no valid argument as to why we should say "constable" and not "constable Miller." And describing his work as "meticulous" is certainly a point-of-view with which many people wouldn't agree. Anyway, I don't perceive any real consensus and I don't think that the censorship of his name upholds some sort of higher quality standard. Vtindigo1958 05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[removing indent] Sorry, but the rest of us who have edited this article in the last few days believe that it doesn't belong. I'd revert again, but this is getting into an edit war, and I've already hit my 3RR. Nyttend 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already, most of my original entry has been deleted for reasons that I don't find compelling. I've tried to compromise, to no avail. The only thing I'm sticking with is the constable's name. My question is: if you're going to keep the section about traffic enforcement, why o why would you say "constable" instead of "constable Ted Miller"? So far, no valid argument has been made. Vtindigo1958 06:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is often a hallmark of tabloid journalism to use names to designate events or procedures - "Johnson's War," "Bush's War," etc. Actually they may have represented a group of people who wanted what happened but it was never personalized. The constable has been elected and re-elected so many times that it is clear that if the people could find someone as dedicated as Miller, they would simply replace him with someone the same or worse. It is public policy in IP to do this. Okay for tabloids to personalize it. Not okay for an encyclopedia. If you all can't handle this, maybe we should take the article out entirely and lock it. I would hate to see that.
Another reason, oddly enough, is that I have found when people get upset at something, a compromise on the lower side is generally required to satisfy them. Fewer words, not more. In this case, that would mean eliminating his name. Still have the facts and links to his name in the tabloid press.Student7 12:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is unconvincing and illogical. Nobody's saying that this Miller created the traffic laws, but he IS the constable. It's a bit like having an article about Burlington and saying that the city has a mayor, but we must not reveal the name of the mayor, because he's only carrying out the policy for which citizens elected him!
So, I ask again, can anyone else answer the question why, if you're going to keep the section about traffic enforcement, you would say "constable" and not "constable Ted Miller"? Please answer the questions with a VALID response instead of coming up with useless threats about how we're going to lock the article. Evidently you think that you're protecting the constable. As I've said before, I'm sure the constable is absolutely thrilled at the amount of energy everyone is expending writing about him. Anyway, please do not censor relevant information unless you can explain why you're doing it. Vtindigo1958 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vt, please rest assured that no locking is going to be done, unless several other people come in and continue the war. Being an elected official such as the mayor is significant: it's a public, elected position, much more significant than being the constable. Since the village is so small, I'm assuming that it only has 1 constable, but whether or not it has, there's no need to list individuals. If we list a simple village employee like its policeman, why shouldn't we list every other office worker? This is the key thing: the constable is not (unless you can prove otherwise; I admit that I don't know New England as well as I do other parts of the country) a significant official as is the mayor or any other elected governmental official in the village. And remember: we believe that this is unnecessary; we're not stooges trying to censor our buddy's name. Nyttend 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all other things being equal, it's not necessary to identify a town's constable. But in the case of Island Pond, Constable Miller is the most famous person in town! He's the subject of long feature articles that have appeared in very reputable newspapers across the continent. The man is so controversial that hundreds of out-of-towners apparently think that he's out-of-control, and some of the merchants in the town (including the owner of the hotel) say that he's destroyed the local economy. We're not naming some random town employee here; we're identifying someone who's done something extremely noteworthy! For example, if the chairwoman of the Island Pond prom committee wrote an incredibly persuasive, heartfelt letter to Bono that convinced U2 to skip their scheduled concert in Berlin and come perform at the Island Pond prom, wouldn't you want to know 1) what the chairwoman said in her letter, and 2) who the chairwoman was? Most people with even a modicum of curiosity would want to know these things, and it would be the duty of Wikipedia to report it. In such a case, we wouldn't be naming a random town employee; we would be identifying a noteworthy person. And whether you love him or hate him, Constable Miller is truly noteworthy. Vtindigo1958 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the constable is doing nothing wrong per se. He is enforcing traffic laws. People believe unfairly or with too much precision. It would be far more reasonable (and overly ambitious in view of the offense) to list perpetrators if our point of view was to embarrass offenders. But with a point of view of attempting to annoy the constable, who is carrying out the town's wishes, it doesn't seem reasonable. The best people to edit an article are generally outsiders. Insiders here want to erase the section. But outsiders are frequently people who have received tickets or know someone who has. This means that they have a pov. The only people breaking laws (to date) are the traffic offenders. Miller is not accurately accused of anything in the way of a misdemeanor or otherwise. If the constabulary were broken down into six people who patrolled each once a day, would you list all six? Being on the receiving end of enforcement is no fun, but it is legal! I don't generally have occasion to go there, but would avoid the place knowing what I know. But we've listed all the relevant facts for the reader. A reader does not have to know the constable's name! Nor would he be interested. Our only reason to list the constable's name is to try to embarrass him into changing. It won't work. It has been done before. Another good reason for not listing it is that there is no encyclopedic reason for doing so. Student7 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student7, you seem to know a lot more about the community than I, because you're extremely confident that the town has asked Constable Miller to write an inordinate amount of tickets. That seems a lot more interesting than the constable's name! Can you direct me to any published sources that support this claim? Some whiners who've gotten tickets have alluded to the idea that he's keeping the tax base low at the behest of the town's residents. If that's indeed the case, then that seems very antisocial to me (in the same way that resident permit parking is antisocial). Anyway, please read the paragraph again; I was in no way trying to assert that Constable Miller did anything wrong. Trauma is the third leading cause of death in this country, and most trauma is caused by automobiles. If people are endangering others or themselves then they certainly must be stopped. I'm sure at least some of the drivers that Constable Miller stops are guilty as sin and were endangering public safety, so in those cases the constable is my hero. Quite honestly. But on the other side of the coin, there are a lot of people who claim to have been pulled over without reason; and the statistics indicate that the constable DOES write a huge amount of tickets for such a small town. It's Wikipedia's role to report that in the interests of fairness. Anyway Student7, do you know the constable? Am I right in surmising that he's actually getting a big chuckle out of all of this? Do you really think he's embarrassed? I'd be very surprised. And can anyone answer my question as to why we should say "the constable" and not "constable Miller"? Vtindigo1958 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing this conversation. I can refer you to the last town meeting (they are annual) where the constable was reelected. His performance was widely discussed as it is every year. Nor is his election by any means unanimous. No, I do not know the constable, nor do I want to!  :) I live in the area and read the papers. His performance is also the topic of conversation. I am unenthused as are most of the commenters. But this is not personal. If he were governor or a legislator or someone who sets or helps set policy it might be useful to name him. But he is only a functionary. "Strict." That's the word I want. He's just a "referee" who has NOT been disciplined by anyone himself. But reelected year after year after year. Do the citizens like this income? I assume so or why would they elect him? What annoys people is that driving is pretty casual elsewhere in this rural area - People drive on the wrong side of the street to park. That sort of thing. But he is a functionary like the road commissioner, the listers, the zoning department, etc. He can be disciplined by the town, the selectmen, the state attorney general, appealing to a higher court...none of this has happened. He is "just" doing his job. Worthy to note town, but not him personally. He is just too low down in the system IMO. Not really relevant that I live there or not though. Student7 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Strict" is a very appropriate word so I support that. As for his name, you win. This subject is not of any real interest to me other than the amusement that I got from the Boston Globe article and an underlying desire to see all relevant information made readily available. I'm all in favor of traffic enforcement because it saves lives. But my own conclusion, based on what I've read, is that the town is antisocial, xenophobic, and taking advantage of outsiders for their own financial gain; and I also think that Constable Miller sounds fairly sadistic. If my conclusions are correct, then I wish only peace to these apparently hate-filled, opportunistic podunk-dwellers, and to constable Ted Miller as well. My message to them: embrace outsiders, don't hate them! Share wealth, don't covet it! And feel a mighty weight be lifted from your heart. The story of Island Pond sounds to me to be a tragedy; perhaps one day economic growth will return to your town and your hatred will be vanquished. Best of luck. Vtindigo1958 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of the difference between New England and the rest of the country: I can't imagine communities in the Great Lakes or Midwest states electing their police officer :-) And by the way, a reference to the town meeting minutes would be helpful. Nyttend 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to note that there was an attempt to refer Mr. Miller's actions to the Attorney General's office, but that the Attorney General refused to pursue the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.206 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To many in the press, Island Pond's constable defines the town. Some examples:
  • Gram, David (2004-10-24). "A candidate's crusade: Six vie for Vermont attorney general pos". The Barre Montpelier Times Argus. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • "Constable sentenced to work crew". Rutland Herald. 2001-05-02. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • "Dennis Carver will set things right". The Barre Montpelier Times Argus. 2004-10-01. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • Allen, Darren M. (2006-09-09). "Kerin, Carver vie for GOP AG primary". Rutland Herald. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • Russell, Jenna (2007-10-29). "You'll stop there or be stopped". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • Occaso, Carla (2006-03-12). "Island Pond's constable keeps a constant watch on town". The Barre Montpelier Times Argus. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  • Margolis, Jon (1999-10-24). "Tickets Are Admission To Small-town Drama: Traffic Enforcement Divides Village". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
--A. B. (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed trap censorship[edit]

As usual, local c-of-c folks are deleting "The town was listed as one of the top "speed traps" in New England.(ref)[http://www.speedtrap.org/speedtraps/comments.asp?state=VT&city=Brighton%20(Island%20Pond)&st=23824 SpeedTrap Exchange(ref)" even though this was one of the reasons for finally removing the constable, whose practices were quite lucrative for the town. Elected people doesn't continue to remain in office year after year without support from the electorate, who were "co-conspirators" in this case. It is one of Island Pond's very few claims to fame in the late 20th, early 21st century. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being deleted due to censorship, it's being deleted because the reference doesn't support the claim. The link you mention is either broken, or out of date, as it only returns to the main page. Further, even if the link wasn't broken, I don't think speedtrap.org is a reliable source. Find a source in the Boston Globe, or some other paper, and reinsert it if you want. -- Bfigura (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bfigura, the site is not a reliable source. Instead, it's a user-created forum with no editorial oversight.
The site was recently discussed at WP:ANI (the discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#speedtrap.org). The site has also been reported at WT:WPSPAM (now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Feb 1#speedtrap.org) due to repeated link spamming into multiple articles. In short, there's really no encyclopedic value to the site. You are much better off finding other sources that might state the claims being made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Island Pond, 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:

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) 11:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Island_Pond,_Vermont&oldid=1203013643"