Talk:Kentucky/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Disambiguation

I was going to add the following disambiguation, but I noticed that a lot of articles point to Kentucky.

{{msd:disambig}}

Kentucky is used to refer to:

So what do others think about putting up the above disambiguation on the Kentucky article?

There are other titles for the state of Kentucky, such as:

-- Maio 03:31, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Kentucky is used to refer to the restaurant. I would not say, "I'm going to Kentucky for lunch" or "I'm going to have Kentucky for lunch." In either case I'd use the full phrase, "Kentucky Fried Chicken," or the abbreviation "KFC". -- Ortonmc 03:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that most Americans don't refer to it as "Kentucky", but people from other country do so. For example, in Puerto Rico, people refer to it as "Kentucky"; for the simple reason that nothing else is named like that in the country. And yes, they do say "I'm going to Kentucky for lunch" and "I'm going to have Kentucky for lunch".
I've learned to always assume the worst from people's intelligence.. lets assume that a Puerto Rican uses the English Wikipedia and searches for "Kentucky", but the page that appears is the one from the state. As he has always referred to it as "Kentucky" and not "Kentucky Fried Chicken" or "KFC", the person simply couldn't find the information: hence, a reason for the disambiguation. Remember that not everyone knows about the state of Kentucky. A similar thing happens with Georgia (state or country), although it is obvious that the latter should have a disambiguation page.
I'm pretty much looking for input, as a lot of articles link to "Kentucky" and creating a disambiguation would create more work. Thanks for your reply. :)
--Maio 07:44, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
I think, in the english wikipedia at least, that Kentucky the state would have a lot more linkage than does Kentucky [Fried Chicken] the restaurant, so just put a single line at the top or bottom, italicized, preferably that says:
This is the U.S. state of Kentucky. Kentucky is also a common Caribbean nickname for Kentucky Fried Chicken.
--jengod 09:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Done. That option totally slipped to me, even tho I have used it in other articles! hehe. --Maio 21:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
You learn something new every day. I would never have guessed KFC is called "Kentucky" in PR. Given that, I like jengod's suggestion. -- Ortonmc 23:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Kentucky almost always refers to the state. I've moved the article back, since it's pointless if this redirects to the disambiguated title. I don't even think the disambiguation should be added on top. It can be mentioned wherever KFC is mentioned in the article. --Jiang 01:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Changing the introduction to delete reference to Confederacy

I read with surprise the statement that Kentucky was the 13th State to join the Confederacy. Kentucky never joined the Confederacy. Below I quote from Kentucky's Official Tourism cabinet webpage, which describes some of Kentucky history during the Civil War:

"On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops bombarded Fort Sumter, a Union position off the coast of South Carolina. Defending the fort was Kentucky native Major Robert Anderson. With the fall of the fort, war began. Following the capitulation of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. Governor Magoffin refused, stating, “Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States.” The next day, however, Magoffin had to turn down a similar request from Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. Although Magoffin stood for the state’s sovereignty, many Kentuckians favored neutrality and hoped the Bluegrass State could hammer out a compromise between the hostile sides. On May 16, the Kentucky House of Representatives voted that Kentucky would remain neutral during the conflict. Four days later the senate and governor approved the policy. Any hopes of mediation were eventually crushed, however, for a majority of the legislature supported the Union cause.

Although neutrality had been adopted, Kentuckians flocked to both armies. Soon, the Federal and Confederate governments began procuring arms for Kentucky sympathizers. On August 5, 1861, state elections ended the policy of neutrality. As Southerners boycotted the election, Unionist candidates won a sweeping victory."



User:Flaubert 6:15, July 30, 2005

  • Another reason for neutrality is the Kentucky is the birthplace of both U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Although admittedly, I'm not sure if it's a **major reason** for neutrality, it is an interesting historical fact,... Dr. Cash 19:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


Paleblue 03:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Actually, according to Clement Eaton, in his book Jefferson Davis, Kentucky did join the Confederacy. After it was clear that the Unionist legislature in Frankfort would keep Kentucky in the Union, a group of secessionist citizens met and declared that the true will of Kentucky was to join the Confederacy. They elected themselves to office and sent a delegation to the Confederate Congress. The Confederate Congress accepted Kentucky into the union. Kentucky had a star on the flag and everything. The Confederate Government of Kentucky was ineffectual to the extreme, from what I've read, but it did exist.

Old Abe 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC) They never joined because they were smart enough not to be hanged. Trust me I'm an expert on Kentucky. Bowling Green was the Confederate capital of Kentucky.

Paleblue 02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)I think this is an argument over semantics. At one point in time, Kentucky was not accepted by the Confederacy as a part of the Confederacy. At a later point, Kentucky was accepted by the Confederacy as a part of the Confederacy. There was a transition between these two states. Thus, it can be stated that Kentucky joined the Confederacy. Though, I suppose one could argue that Kentucky joined the Confederacy only from the point of the Confederacy. Which may be true.

That said, Kentucky was accepted by the Union as a part of the Union. Kentucky was also proclaimed by the government in Frankfort to be part of the Union. The Confederacy only ever controlled a small portion of the state, and that for only a short while.

I am doing my humanities sufficiency on Kentucky's involvement in the Civil War, with a focus on the reasons and consequences of her declared neutrality, so I'm knee deep in research about the subject. I have Coulter's The Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky at my shoulder as I type. Can you suggest any other sources I might find useful?

Ugly!

That List of famous Kentuckians is atrociously ugly! If there isn't room on this page to do it right, it really should be on another page. RickK 02:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

View the German Kentucky

hello there! this article could be much better. view the german entry to de:Kentucky and translate, if u want to. the german article go to be an excellent artcile in the german wikipedia!

watever dude!- saminator

Offensive Stereotype Removed

I removed this offensive material from the page: it seems obviously beneath the Wikipedia standard. However, because I don't like deleting material wholesale, I have copied the material here. Is there anything else I should do? Alan Canon 18:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The population of Kentucky is predominantly extremely premative hilljacks. The individuals who dwell within this Commonwealth are to blame for the excessive use of redneck terms and phrases, especially "Gitrdun". It is also neccessary to be said that the biological background of the population is underterminable due to the excessive imbreeding. In fact, 2 out of 3 family trees in Kentucky will never branch and occaisionally go in circles.

This is a case where a simple revert (aka "slap in the face") would have been just fine.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what idoit wrote that? That should be a ban.--Dp462090 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what an idiot. If you will look closely this individual lacks in his own use of the English language and primitive is not the only word mispelled. I would be glad to welcome this individual to Kentucky and prove him wrong. At the same time I think that I could correct his attitude by "getting the job done" providing him with a good ole Kentucky ass whipping. LOL. We are nice people in Kentucky and our family trees do fork, but what tree are you from? Obviously a thorned bush that is shallow rooted in poor soil. Pull out the thorn and get over your pretentious self. At least use spell check on your computer the next time you try to enlighten the world on your idiotic views, ok. If you had kept your mouth shut everyone wouldn't have know that you were so stupid.

Ticks me off. They call us premative but can't even spell primitive correctly. What hippocritical shame. Эйрон Кинни (t) 07:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

State Dog

Didn't the beagle become the state dog? -Hoekenheef 18:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The state government website has this link to a resource for children called, How the Beagle Could Become Kentucky's State Dog. It's a coloring book designed to teach about the legislative process. But it seems to be hypothetical, as evidenced by the number of the bill (SB1). In searching the recent legislative records, I don't find any mention of beagle, except to the above resource. My guess is that Kentucky doesn't yet have a state dog. --Tom Allen 11:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. -Hoekenheef 11:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KY and the metros

I'm the one who added the part about how the metros only make up 45% of KY's population. Here's the evidence. I'm amazed. I thought it was a strong majority. Copy and paste. -Amit [C:\Documents and Settings\Amit Thakkar\My Documents\kymetro.htm]

That would be a file on your PC, no one can access it.--Dp462090 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Judge-Executive

I referred to a Judge-Executive in my Cedar Creek Lake (Kentucky) article and created a link about to judge-executive. The link is red. Fine, I'll go find out more information about it and create an article about what judge-executives are.

Here's the funny thing: From what I can tell by searching Google, elected officials known as judge-executives are only unique to Kentucky. Even when I subtraced -kentucky and -ky from the search results, there were pages where Judge and Executive happened to be next to each other and the ones without Kentucky in them were still referring to Kentucky.

This could be an interesting addition to this wiki-pedia article or an interesting new article.

Here's my defination of that word:

"A judge-executive is a politician who is the elected cheif executive officer of Kentucky county governments." Judge Executive is a term which replaced County Judge in Kentucky counties.

Can anyone dispute this or add to this? I'm sure other state's county governments have officials such as that, but I don't know what titled they're called.

Cuisine of Kentucky

I have started a Cuisine of Kentucky page and wonder if any of you all think it should be polished up before I link to it in the main article. --Rakista 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

R vs D state

I removed the text: "As in other areas of the South, the Republican Party dominates state government and federal government." This misrepresents the current and recent state political party control. Fletcher, elected in 2003, is the first Republican gov. in 30 years. The next year, the person he defeated, Dem. Ben Chandler, won the U.S. Congress seat that Fletcher vacated to take office. The Kentucky Senate is controlled by Reps. The Kentucky House is controlled by Dems. Kentucky AG, State Auditor, and State Treasure are Dems. Sec. of State and Agriculture are Reps. The mayors of the two largest cities are Dems. Kentucky is a divided state. It is not dominated by one party.--FloNight 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Cumberland Gap

Neutral and broader description of this important passageway.--FloNight 04:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Region Kentucky is in

Is Kentucky in the South or the Midwest? You may answer the question right here. Heegoop, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on whom you ask. Like many places along a "border" between regions, Kentucky could be classified as either the South or the Midwest. In the article on the Southern United States, note that Kentucky is shaded on the graphic at the top of the page. Much of the complexity relates to the history of the U.S. Kentucky was a western (at that time) frontier state, formed by settlers from both the North and South. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born in Kentucky, and Kentucky (for a time) declared its neutrality in the American Civil War. I usually tell people that Kentucky is part of the "Upper South," to be distinguished from the "Deep South" (Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, for example). But it really depends on where you travel in the state. Culturally, Louisville is more of a midwestern city. Northern Kentucky (suburban Cincinnati, OH), is also more midwestern. Lexington is more southern in character. Then there's Eastern Kentucky, which is Appalachian, and thus culturally distinct from both the midwest and the south. --Tom Allen 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say South, because it is also commonly listed as such and is part of the Bible belt. As a border state in the Civil War, there are many differing opinions. Эйрон Кинни (t) 07:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis or Cincinnati are not the definiton of Midwestern cities as they are too often considered to have a strong Southern inflence and are the cities Louisville is compared to when some people categorize it as the Midwest (Cincinnai more than St. Louis; St. Louis got there Southern vibe from the black Migration to the North). Cincinnati as called by residence of upper Ohio Cincinatucky is obviously more mix of Southern and Midwestern. Louisville is more of a boom town to all, But maybe 5 Midwestern cities when it comes to population growth. Also Louisville is growing faster than New Orleans (post Katrina) and just about every major Louisiana, Alabama, and mississippi cities.

The fact is that Louisville has much more Culturally, Historically, and Architecturally in common with Memphis than St. Louis. Afterall most people view Louisville as a Southern city. Louisville was (back in the 19th century) actually defined as the manufacturing Captial of the South and the Gateway city to the South. Due to Louisville's location on the Ohio, which helped it to attract to Industry to the area just like other Southern River cities suchas Memphis and New Orleans and even non river cities like Birmingham. Louisville's title as the manufacturing Capital of the South also came into play when the L&N (Louisville and Nashville) (there was no L&C; Louisville and Chicago) was constructed that connected Louisville to Nashville and further South to Atlanta. Louisville also had one of the largest slave owning populations (there were no slaves in the North except for the southern edge of Missouri) in the country (even though it was just across the river from a free state) which was just a reflection of it's state which had the 3rd largest slave population after (Virginia and Georgia). During the Civil War Louisville was constently under question by the North for aiding the Confederacy, and was by no means trusted by the North. To this day a Confederate monument stands in the City's first suburb Old Louisville. Also unlike Midwestern cities Louisville does not have a sigifigant population of Eastern and Southern Europeans (from places like Poland and Hungary) that came during a European Migration period (WWII). Even small Midwestern cities like South Bend and Toledo received a substantial number of immigrants from those areas of the world.

Archtiecturally Louisville's first suburb Old Louisville with it's wrought iron, huge fountains, huge Magnolias looming over the streets and Victorian style architecture that are found only in the most prominent Southern cities of the 19th century like Charleston, New Orleans, Savanah, and even Richmond, NOWHERE in the Midwest. Also Louisville like New Orleans urban areas (at least in the West or older parts of town) are lined with Shotgun houses destintively Southern, found mostly in cities like New Orleans.

Culturally Louisville is much much more of a Southern city than Midwestern, Like i've said earlier if you compare louisville's Culture, History, and Architecture to that of New Orleans and Birmingham (2 Deep Southern cities) and then compare it to that of Minnianapolis and Milwaulkee (2 upper Midwestern cities) Louisville undoubtibly has 3x more in common with the Southern cities.

KNOW LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY IS WILL AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SOUTH!!!!

I also think that Kentucky should be completely red as Virginia is, when Virginia is sometimes considered the North. Missourri is more of a fifty fifty mix of Southern and Midwestern culture, where as Kentucky does have a "hint" of Midwestern culture (which would only be naturl considering it's boardered, by 3 Midwestern states). So I think that it would be more accurate if Kentucky was completely RED or shaded the same color as the rest of the South. On the Midwestern page it should be striped (or mixed), as Virginia is striped on the Northern map, But completely RED with the rest of the South.

The simple answer is...

Mostly Southern (call it 80/20), but with some Midwestern traits. For example, Kentucky's hilly topography with many streams and rivers are typical of the South, but the "United We Stand Divided We Fall" motto is totally opposite of most "State's rights" mottos in the South. Economically we area somewhere in between, having a better economy and population growth than most Midwestern states, but still behind true sunbelt states like Georgia, Tennessee or the Carolinas. Food and accent wise we are definatly southern.

As For Louisville,I think that the "old stock" native Louisvillians are midwestern in accent and attitude, but Jefferson's County nearly doubled it's population from 1940-1960 with people mostly from south central and western Kentucky which really altered the culture. Econmoically, Louisville today has less of a heavy industry based economy city than it use to be, but instead has employment concentrated in a few "high tech" automobile factories and in the service industry, making it less Cincinnati and more like Nashville. Brando03, April 20.


I don't think that I really got my point across for the state of Kentucky as I did for Louisville I have to say, I have rarely, if ever, been more offended in all my life. Kentucky is the South, has always been the South, and, so help me God, will always be the South. As Southern as Georgia, as someone said! I’m offended as a Kentuckian, as an historian, and as someone who has spent his entire life studying the history and culture of the South. Red-faced angry offended! There shouldn’t even be an argument, though, God help me, I know that there is. When someone can prove to me that the Ohio River has been moved south of Kentucky, as well as the Mason-Dixon line, I might entertain the argument. Until then, I am inclined to believe that anyone who would call Kentucky “Midwestern,” which is offensive to every fiber of my being (did I mention that?), is misinformed and doesn’t know much of what they speak. Truly, you don’t know the South if you don’t find it in Kentucky, and I don’t really care where you claim to be from or know. You can’t pigeon-hole the South! It’s much more than anything you might be inclined to believe. People want to judge every state in the South by the Deep South, I’ve come to believe. Well, the South exists in two (maybe, three) parts: The Deep South and the Upper South (some might add Mid-South, as I note a few of you have). The accents aren’t all identical, but the culture is--or is very well close.

Now, about Louisville. I do see why you’d think it has a Midwestern under-culture, but it is a major city. The same argument, I assure you, can be made of New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston. Major cities have major immigration, and people from all over the country--and the world--make their homes there. Sad as it is, it has shown its effects on the cities, but I assure you, at Louisville’s core, is the South. It has even been said that during the darkest days of the war, Louisville had more “Johnny Rebs” and “Southern Belles” than the entire state of Mississippi. As an historian, I might be inclined to believe that. Having mentioned Southern Belles, you’d be well advised to note Sallie Ward was a Louisvillian. Her portrait is often named “The Southern Belle.” That is because she was THE Southern Belle in the ante-bellum days. More Scarlett O’Hara than Scarlett herself! Literally, she was considered THE belle of the South! None of that is even mentioning that, as someone else noted, Louisville is a river city, giving it all the more reason to intermingle cultures. Nonetheless, to the trained ear, one can hear the traces of Southern accents in downtown Louisville, and thick as molasses accents among some of the older residence. Step outside the city limits--you can no longer judge the South by its cities. Anyone who lives in a Southern city will note the changes over the years. They’ve become melting pots, good or bad! Oh, and what is Louisville’s nickname? You don’t know? Let me tell you, “Gateway to the South!” That’s a take on its old days as a river port, and its being a Southern city, noted for two great Southern pastimes, horseracing and bourbon!

The Ohio river is a true divider of North and South. Just imagine how it held in cultures before the days of advanced transportation!

I have no desire to get into specifics of “Civil War” loyalties, other than to say a few things, beginning with no state, country, or person, in my opinion, has been more egregiously misrepresented in history than has Kentucky. Kentucky was no more divided than was most of the South, and certainly no more divided than Tennessee and Virginia. History is recorded inaccurate folks. That’s one of the first things one learns as a historian. Part of “to the victor go the spoils” is writing the history, and there’s a very strong argument that Kentucky was a Confederate state, not only because it was considered the Confederacy by the Confederacy following a secession, but also because that secession was reported in Northern newspapers.

If Kentucky had all the soldiers they claim, every man, woman, and child--maybe even horses and cattle--would have had to enlist in one cause of another. Historically, the South’s influences were so strong in Southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio than Lincoln feared he was going to have to fight them too. It was also a Kentuckian who defended Atlanta from Sherman!

I would also say that Kentucky’s accent and culture are identical--as is the climate--to Tennessee. That’s been stated time and again by people who are far more qualified than I. The accent is considered predominantly “Mountain South,” moving westward into “Plantation South,” and often a “Delta South” accent along the Mississippi. That goes for both states, though Rand McNally, I believe, published a book of maps aimed at Middle School aged kids, where the states were broken into regions (Kentucky and Tennessee were South), and they called Tennessee the Southern state most similar to the North. By the way, if I were from Tennessee, that would offend me too.

Lastly, I want to thank those of you who have defended Kentucky. I do appreciate your efforts, and, without question, I feel I can speak for the whole of the commonwealth. I agree with Indy, in that I am insulted! Geographically, cultureally, historically,. Kentucky IS Southern. This argument would have gotten you shot 100 years ago!


Also Brandon if you're going to simplify things then you shouldn't shove all the information handed before you away and give a totally different analysis. Louisville's history is given a factual indebt description on the post before yours that would clearly conclude that Louisville was Southern before the whole industrial 1950's and what not. From having one of the largest slave owning populations to being known and priding itself as the gateway to the South/and the manufacturing capital of the South for centuries. It's safe to say Louisville is indeed a Southern city with a hint of Midwestern influence and there's no doubt that Kentucky is a Southern state. (Above commentary written by ) Pollinator 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's nice to see a truly objective analysis... but, as one who's lived in a variety of places I can say contemporary Lexington is only slightly more "Appalachian" than Columbus, Ohio, but is a far cry from Charleston, South Carolina. I can't speak for western Kentucky, nor am I referring to the history, but as to the contemporaty Bluegrass area, I must respectfully yet strongly disagree with User:4.154.87.108. Pollinator 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)