Talk:Kentucky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kentucky article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Kentucky Portal Kentucky is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Kentucky may be able to help!

Kentucky has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

List of Wikipedians in Kentucky

	To-do list for Kentucky:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Better source the article. Redraft the History section to provide a better summary.

Archives
Comments started through end of 2005 Comments from 2006

Contents 1 Kentucky State Symbols 2 East-Central 3 Please help reference this 4 Commonwealth state? 5 Origin of the name

[edit] Kentucky State Symbols

When I re-formatted the Kentucky State Symbols Section, creating a table to show the information, I checked Wikiarticle List of U.S. state insignia, I noticed there is a list of state grasses.

If any states has a state grass, I thought it would be Kentucky. After all it's the "Bluegrass State." But of all the states that have declared a state grass, Kentucky wasn't listed.

I searched the web, and found the website sited as the source for the "Year Adopted". Nope no state grass has been officially adopted.

However, the state insignia article noted some state symbols listed by popular acclaim. Though I have never heard of anyone referring to bluegrass as the "state grass," I strongly feel as a native and life-long resident that bluegrass is one of the symbols of the state. I listed as "State Grass" rather than "Official State Grass" and put "traditional". I'm feeling a little guilty because it has the feeling of "some argue" to insert a personal opinion.

That said, horrified as I was to learn that milk was the official state beverage, and as sorely tempted as I was to add "State Sprit|Mint Juelp| |Traditional", there's also bourbon. But for a state grass there is no else in contention (cannibis isn't technically a grass).

Scott 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East-Central

Encarta says Kentucky is a "state in the east central United States" [1]

And my Webster's New World College Dictionary from 1999 defines Kentucky as a "state of the EC U.S.". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf (AS IN THE OFFICIALS)

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/compub.htm (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_South_Central_States (even Wiki recongnizes the officials)

LMAO Steven if you honestly don't know that Kentucky is OFFICIALLY apart of the East South Central United States of America, then you have lost all credibility in this debate. The East South Central consist of the following Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama. Thusly the correction should stand Steven, am I right? 74.128.200.135 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A Webster's definition has more weight with me over a Census-defined region. After all, the Census does a lot to screw with city definitions that fall outside what some cities legally are, Louisville being a case in point. This is about actual geography, not government-decided regions. I am opposed to the "correction", as it's not correct. Further, you may want to dispense with the personal/debate-like approach, as that tends to hurt your position more than help it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stevietheman that the tone of this discussion has gotten kind of ridiculous, especially for the topic being discussed. I mean, honestly, we can't even decide where the state is? LOL

Anyway, that being said, I believe these sorts of issues are decided in Wikipedia by a consensus of the editors, since both sides have a credible source. My two cents is that we should use the government designations. I've always considered Kentucky a Southern state myself. Acdixon 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear that we're talking about geographic position (East-Central) in this topic rather than grouping (border state, majority Southern, with Midwestern influence). In the case of position, I think a case of "lying eyes" can be made. I look at the map, and Kentucky appears to be positioned above the center of the east, which really would make it East-North-Central, but that's according to my "lying eyes". I would think if Webster's says EC (East-Central), we should keep it simple and neutral that way. Besides, the Census Bureau is funky with how they organize and group states and regions in the U.S. -- don't we know this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FACT FACT FACT FACT. You do not control how states are defined by our government and it's really making you look like a biggot. You are going against a government designation, because you feel they aren't credible and because Webster's encyclopedia is your preferred source LMAO.

Since 1903, the official census-taking organ of the United States government has been the Bureau of the Census. The Bureau is headed by a Director, assisted by a Deputy Director and an Executive Staff composed of the associate directors.

The Census Bureau headquarters is located at 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland. There are regional offices in 12 cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, and Los Angeles. Additional temporary processing facilities are used to facilitate the decennial censuses.

The Census Bureau also runs the Census Information Center cooperative program that involves 58 "national, regional, and local non-profit organizations." The CIC program aims to represent the interests of under served communities. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_Bureau

Can you not grasp the concept that you are ignoring "FACT" and putting your opinion before that. You have no right to continue to put this now purposely misleading information on this page. The census Bureau is the offical region designator, even school books go by this.

You try to justify your purpose for posting this misleading (as in nonfactual) information with some crap about the central region of the U.S. THAT ISN'T EVEN A REGION and if so what states constitutes that region. You're avoiding any and every FACT that lables Kentucky as Southern YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN THE WRONG STEVEN, JUST FACE IT. Oh and Steven stop imposing as another user (by not signing your post) just so you can create a false concensus. 74.128.200.135 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear before, my position is that the U.S. Census presents a geographic region of which Kentucky is a part (and I don't dispute what the bureau does for its purposes), but in this article we are talking about a geographic positioning of Kentucky by itself. If you take the state by itself, where is it positioned? Have a source for that? I presented two for its national geographic position by itself; therefore, I'm not saying "it's my opinion". To say that Kentucky itself is "east south central" because it is in a grouping called that doesn't make the state by itself "east south central" in terms of its spatial position in the country. Look at a map of the United States: Your eyes will say "east north central". But another worthy encyclopedia and the venerable Webster's dictionary says "East Central United States".

Further, your familiar language (nobody calls me "Steven") and attack mode, again, isn't helping your case. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So what would Texas be, or Kansas, or even Virginia? There is no specific wording location for n individual state, you must group it in with a region. Then you are passing a highly subjective observation as "FACT". Not everyone is going to look at Kentucky and see that it lies flat and group it into it's own region as they don't do that for Virgnia and these states are nearly identical in shape and latitude. I think that you're trying your best to escape Kentucky being called the South. FACE IT Steven the East Cental is just and unofficial designated region, by an encyclopedia and for you to have actually sugguested that this undofficial region has more merrit than the U.S. CENSUS BUREAU OR "THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR" is utterly rediculous. If you look at Virgnia's pages no one there is grouping that state into an unofficial region, they are just calling it how it is A SOUTHERN STATE. JUST GET OVER IT "STEVE" AND FACE THE FACTS YOU'RE WRONG. 74.128.200.135 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yelling does not make a position more accurate. I've already explained why the Census source is a mismatch for what we're discussing, and that is the geographic position of the singular state, not a regional grouping. Basically what I'm saying is that any source that groups the state as a matter of discussing its singular geographic position is unacceptable.

Further, I have made it clear (in various talk pages) that Kentucky is indeed generally regarded to be amongst the grouping of Southern states, while that's also not universally held, with northern parts of the state being midwestern in nature. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to make an argument that I will seriously look at, provide a credible source that says directly "Kentucky is a state in the East South Central US", not "grouped with east south central states". Sway me with a source, as I've already provided two that say directly Kentucky is a state in the East Central US. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to see FACT Oh my God!! Just for amusement I did a google Search and typed in East Central and Kentucky. The sites were either pertaining to East Central Kentucky or adding the word South in there referring to the Government assigned region known as the East South Central that includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Come to think of it "Encarta", so because one Internet Dictionary defines this state as East Central (which anything but Southern is fine with you) it's law? You have only given an internet encyclopedia as a source, whereas I've given the U.S. Census Bureau as a source THE BIG GUYS, THE OFFICIALS. Dude YOU KNOW YOUR IN THE WRONG.

Please if no one was displuting your claim to Kentucky's boarder status you would claiming it to be some 50/50 state with the line cutting through Bowling Green. Please provide a credible source you say, YOU HAVE GIVEN AN INTERNET ENCLOPEDIA AS YOUR REASONING BEHIND PURPOSELY POSTING MISLEADING INFORMATION. You my friend are disputing a government assigned region with an internet encyclopedia. With that information from the encyclopedia that doesn't even cite the source it got the information from. As if that wasn't enough when I did a simple google Search not a single site I've came across has designated Kentucky as such. May I also state that it's 2 to one on this in favor of the Gov. definition. SO majority rules.

74.128.200.135 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cool off the edit warring and let the somewhat harmless edit stand for now. But I still disagree with it, and in time, more sources may be found to bolster one or the other side. I strongly believe you are still continuing to use a mismatched source for what we're talking about here. We're not talking region, we're talking position. And your yelling, put-down approach indicates to me that all I need do is be patient, you'll be blocked soon enough, and then your supposed consensus is gone. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"East South Central" is simply confusing and uncommon terminology. There's no reason to be overly specific and confusing. John Reaves 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Census Bureau is not the final, definitive arbiter of geographic regions. As I've said in other discussions, were this the case, both Maryland and Delaware would be, beyond debate, firmly Southern states, and yet the inclusion of either of them in the South has met fierce resistance on their respective talk pages and the Southern talk page. I would agree with the last editor that "East South Central" is a cumbersome term to those not fluent in the Census jargon for regional definitions, and in any event, by common logic the "East South Central" region is a part of the "East Central" region. Since there's debate, it only makes sense to go with the wider definition. Just my two cents. --Gator87 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It would appear as though the consensus has been reversed. However, I'll leave it to somebody else to change the text back to "East Central". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help reference this

Where it says Kentucky is "normally included in the group of Southern states, but sometimes partially included, geographically and culturally, in the Midwest", a cite or two is badly needed to fend off further challenges. I will give barnstars to anyone who attach good cites. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good sites as in not opionated, based off of pure facts, and I'll except it. 74.128.200.135 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's what I'm asking for. Solid refs only. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Midwestern United States affores a small bit of consideration to the notion that Kentucky can be considered in the Midwest. I think this is a classic caught-in-the-middle scenario. --AlexWCovington (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is said about Kentucky on that page that will contribute to this point? Kentucky is only mentioned once (when not referenced as the South) in that entire article. That wouldn't justify that text change. 74.128.200.135 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this should be a good source; I introduced it on the Midwestern page as a concrete source for the regional map, which includes KY and WV as striped states. It is from the Journal of Economic History, one of the most prestigious journals in that field, and it presents both a historical and economic analysis of the formation of Midwestern manufacturing power near the end of the 19th Century. For just a few excerpts: (pp. 924) - "The Midwest is defined as the manufacturing portion of the East and West North Central census regions plus West Virginia and Kentucky cities along the Ohio River." (pp. 928) - "Within the Midwest intra and interregional trade also grow enormously...300 percent at Cincinnati, 150 percent at Louisville, and 900 percent at St. Louis." (pp. 931) - Includes a table of the "20 largest industrial cities of the Midwest", Louisville is included as number 7.

There are other mentions of Louisville throughout the article. What I find the most important is the fact that it makes the distinction that portions of Kentucky - in this case, Ohio River cities (specifically Louisville and Covington) stand out from other regions of the state and are thus included in a historical analysis of the Midwest. I'll wait to see what others have to say regarding that source (the cite for it is below:)

• Meyer, David R. "Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manfucaturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century". Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1989) pp. 921-937. The Journal of Economic History, [2], JSTOR.

--70.168.88.158 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) --70.168.88.158 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent cite to me. Feel free to add it to the article. Acdixon 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth state?

Could any americans validate this quote? "Virginia, Kentucky Pennsylvania and Massachussets are all officially commonwealths. This grants them no constitutional power. They simply choose this word to describe themselves at the war of independence. It made it clear that they were no longer "royal colonies" answering to the King but states governed by the common consent of the people" "Virginia was one of the original 13 states and the first state to declare itself a commonwealth in 1776. Pennsylvania and Massachussets followed suit shortly afterwards, and Kentucky, which was originally a country of virginia, became a commonwealth in 1792" 82.18.180.58 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds correct. Are you looking for a reference? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No I was just wandering whether the statement was actually correct as it also said that since they are Commonwealth, they have aren't actually states - giving america 46 in total. 82.18.180.58 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are simultaneously commonwealths and states. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stevie is right here. Kentucky is both a commonwealth AND a state. However, it has commonwealth laws, which, though mostly close to or resembeling the laws of states, a few differ greatly. Commonwealths also would have a much easier time seceding (spelling?) from the US if they ever choose to, though I don't think we need worry of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.255.2 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Origin of the name

Recently I changed the text of the current "Origin of the name" section to the following:

The origin of Kentucky's name has never been definitively identified, though some theories have been debunked. For example, Kentucky's name does not come from the combination of "cane" and "turkey", nor does it mean "dark and bloody ground" in any known Indian language.^[1]. The most likely etymology is that it comes from an Iroquoian word for "meadow" or "prairie"^[2][3] (c.f. Mohawk kenhtà:ke, Seneca këhta’keh).^[4] Other possibilities also exist, such as the suggestion by George Rogers Clark, an early Kentucky pioneer, that the name means "the river of blood".

The only reason I removed the historical spellings was because no citation or reference was given for them; I have no objection against them remaining in the article if their inclusion is cited. Sorry for not discussing my edits on the talk page first (in my defense, I'll just invoke WP:BOLD :) ). I also removed that list of possible sources for the name, because (a) the Encarta Encyclopedia Online, the Kentucky Encyclopedia, and Algonquianist researcher Michael McCafferty (all three cited in my version of the section) all agree on the same etymology, namely that it comes from an Iroquoian language word meaning "meadow" or "prairie", and (b) that list had no sources provided. I'd be in favor of keeping a mention of Shawnee, since the Online Etymology Dictionary says of Kentucky's etymology: "of Iroquois or Shawnee origin"[3] (though it also says the meaning is unknown). I don't think the others on the list should be kept unless a reputable source can be cited for them, especially as they don't seem to be, as far as I can tell, accepted by many people today (though they may have been in the past, in which case that's a valid point to make in the article). But I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, so if I'm wrong, let me know!

I do think the info I added was justified, though. I gave references for it (although I'd rather the reference for Mr. McCafferty weren't the transcript of an email put up on an online site about etymologies...). Personally, I felt that my rewording/reordering was also helpful, but I don't really feel strongly about that or anything.

Thoughts? --Miskwito 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the spellings were all taken from the Encyclopedia of Kentucky, as were the possibilities attributed to George Rogers Clark and The Encyclopedia Americana. The first paragraph (as it existed before your change) was meant to be cited as a block. Also, each of the bulleted possibilities comes from The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and were meant to be cited with the sentence regarding debunking. Sorry if my citation style wasn't as it should be.

Also, I apologize for reverting your additions from Encarta and Michael McCafferty. It was just easier to revert the whole thing and hash it out here first. Now that you have the appropriate citation info from me, if you need to rewrite the paragraph(s) to work that information in, please do so. Acdixon 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaaahhhh...okay. Sorry about the misunderstanding! Take care --Miskwito 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)