Talk:Kentucky/Archive 2

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

Kentucky is amazing

   * Christian – 86%
         o Protestant – 70%
               + Baptist – 35%
               + Methodist – 5%
               + Pentecostal – 4%
               + Church of Christ – 3%
               + Lutheran – 2%
               + Presbyterian – 2%
               + Other Protestant – 19%
         o Roman Catholic – 15%
         o Other Christian – 1%
   * Jewish 0.01%
   * Other Religions – <1%
   * Non-religious – 14%

101%

Somehow they manage to have more religion than people! Citizen Premier 13:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Don't we know it! :) Alan Canon 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupid questions

The article refers to two terms that aren't defined or linked to other WIKI pages. Can someone who knows something about something please define:

a) CSA b) Commonwealth

-- Dweller 17:04, 17 May 2006 (GMT+1)

Good questions, (not stupid). I added a wiki link to Commonwealth (United States) in the article. I think CSA means combined statistical area. Not absolutely sure. Will try and find out. FloNight talk 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assassination of Governor William Goebel

Added significant historical information related to the assassination of Governor Goebel. Author Irvin S. Cobb interviewed several eye witnesses; this is, in my opinion, very important historical information on Kentucky’s history, though "History" my eventually need a "Main Article." I also do not see anything related to why Kentucky decided to separate from the Commonwealth of Virginia. As a Kentucky historian, this is all important and relevant information on the history of this commonwealth.

--Kentucky1333 21:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting facts about Kentucky

Garrett Morgan, born to former slaves in Paris, invented the first gas mask.

Not true. According to http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html , Charles Anthony Deane invented the very first gas mask in 1823, known as a "smoke helmet". WhyNotFreedom 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And what has this to do with Kentucky anyway? Was Garrett Morgan born there. No, it says Paris. Did he live there? Maybe. If so, it's surely worth saying so! -- Dweller 10:12, 23 May 2006 (GMT+1)

Garrett Morgan was born in Paris, Kentucky. Alan Canon 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that I made that mistake, I've amended the entry to make it clearer for other people who may also be unaware that there's a Paris in Kentucky. Dweller 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read that site, and I will make the appropiate changes. 199.219.144.50 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:4.154.87.108

My first posting on this issue was very simplistic and not meant for dissection, so I feel it necessary to comment in further detail.

For starters, we must admit that cultural buffer areas do exist, that the Deep South and Far North cultures don't exactly stop at a line. Coming from a small town 30 miles north of the Tennessee border I would say that Louisville a composite of the South and lower (not upper) Midwest culture. It is similar to Nashville and has very few similarities to Great Lakes cities like Milwaukee, but then again lower Midwest cities like St Louis or Indianapolis also have little in common with the Great Lakes area. Several other points to consider:

1. Louisville has a very large German Catholic population, a common trait of the Midwest. There are several areas of the South, notably Texas, Louisiana, and North Carolina which also received a large number of non Anglo/ Celtic immigrants.

2. Louisville's economy and population growth lags behind true Sun Belt cities, and even several Midwestern cities. In the 1990s the Louisville CSA was outgrown by much smaller southern cities like Knoxville and Raleigh, and was nearly outgrown by Lexington (114k to 89k). Louisville's very gritty blue collar culture and high poverty rates (among whites and blacks) need to be compared with Birmingham or Chattanooga and not Charlotte or Atlanta for a proper comparison.

3. Many Louisvillians consider themselves Midwestern. Since the consciousness of being Southern and 'distinct' is in many ways the very essence of being Southern itself, the fact that a significant proportion of Louisvillians feel they are Midwestern is an issue.




1. Memphis has a very large German population and even a German Town. Is Memphis Midwestern???????? New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Houston, and Dallas are more Catholic than Louisville can ever hope to be are they Midwestern?????????? I THINK NOT. 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.


2. Louisville's population is growth isn't the fastest, But it's growing at 4% which is for the most part up there with the sunbelt cities our size. We are just behind Memphis and we are certainly growing faster than Deep Southern cities Birmingham and New Orleans (Pre Katrina). Knoxville is nowhere near the size of Louisville with a population of around 700K and Raleigh is just annexing land into it's city. Louisville is not a Charlotte (population 2 Million) nor Atlanta ( population 5 Million). Louisville is in the league with other Southern cities suchas Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Birmingham, ECT. Their are only maybe 2 Midwestern cities Louisville's size which would lead one to beleive that Louisville had the same growth rate of Southern cities during the Industrial period. After all Louisville Prides it's self as the Gateway city to the South and has done so for centuries.

3. Many isn't most Dude, Louisvillians are proud of their Southern History, Culture, Architecture and Hospitallity. Louisville for decades had a huge lit sign procaliming us as "the Gateway city to the South" in our downtown for all incoming visitors across the River in the Midwest. Most outsiders also view us as Southerners this can be seen on a few poles across the web and there was a recent one done on Skyscrapercity .

4. Also I think it's safe to say that you can't dispute he facts that I displayed on my previous post, showing that Louisville has a Southern History plain and Simple. We are below the Mason DIxon Line making us Southern. Texas also a state somewhat divided has a few residents that identify with the West instead of the South that makes Texas no less Southern than Louisiana. This is also a vigorously debated subject in Virignia (Richmond). This city the former capital of the Confederacy also has a "few" residents with a fear of being labled as Southern even though it would be rediculous to lable that city anything different. Yet the state of Virginia is shaded completely red on the map of the Southern states. If you look at U.S. dialect maps Louisville and even Southern Indiana are always grouped in with the South (more specifically the Upper South).

I have heard every desperate reason to why Louisville is a apart of the Midwest and all of them can be countered, simply because you can find the exact same characteristic in other Southern cities. Now I'm not saying that Louisville is not influenced by the Midwest, It's that very influnce that makes us different from Birmingham. I'm saying however that Louisville's Southern traits over power it's Midwestern traits by a signifigant margine. If you were to compare Louisville's History, Architecture, and Culture to Minneanapolis (A hardcore Midwestern city) and New Orleans (A hardcore Southern city) Louisville indoubtibly has 3x's more in common with New Orleans than Minneanapolis, One would have be quite ignorant of the city not to see this point. Again dude Louisville is a Southern city plain and simple, more specifically a Mid-Southern city (Nashville, Richmond, Memphis). If you choose to identify with the Midwest that's your buisness, but if you call Louisville a Midwestern city that's when I step in with the facts.

Important Cities

I can tell, or I hope at least, that most of the people who have edited this wiki are from the triangle. I find it hard to believe that any REAL (IE not Bowling Green) Western Kentuckian would completely ignore half the state. ;)

Really though, someone needs to edit the important cities area a little. I can understand maybe not including cities like Murray, Paducah or Henderson as important, but you have to at least include Owensboro. Owensboro is the third largest in the state, the commercial center of North Western Kentucky, the only place to find the best BBQ ever, and has in the past several years picked up an amazing pace of commercial growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.181.104 (talk • contribs)

I don't think Owensboro was intentionally left out. Perhaps nobody could decide what to say about Owensboro and how to fit it in. Perhaps you will consider adding in this content since you are closely acquainted with it? — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures suck

More good pictures are needed on this website. IF no one else is, I will try to take some pictures of the Versailes Castle, Old Frankfort Pike, Pisgah Historic Cemetary, and one of the distilaries and upload them in the next few days. 4.225.126.175 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

External site link

Before I just go ahead and add this, let me ask... one of my clients has an educational website, a corner of which has a PDF map generator which I developed. Would it be appropriate to add a link to the Kentucky map generator in the "external links" section? The map is generated on-the-fly by the server based on user criteria, so it's not a static document or image that I could actually give to wikipedia. Here is a link to the form that creates the kentucky map: www.worksheetworks.com/geog/usa/kentucky.html Thoughts? If it looks like spam then I do not want it added. Rhassinger 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The old saw goes: "Wikipedia is not a web directory". Just because a site relates to Kentucky doesn't mean it should be linked here. External links should be about extending the encyclopedic content regarding the subject 'Kentucky'. On the other hand, if the map that's generated is useful in describing Kentucky (in a way the article currently does not), a direct link to what is generated, or an image of that, might be useful. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

This sentence in the History section seems to be a pretty broad generalization and is unsupported.

--The majority of the Commonwealth's citizens also had strong Union sympathies.-- -Crunchy Numbers 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of the war, this statement is very true. In the election of 1860, most Kentuckians voted for John Bell of Tennessee of the Constitutional Union Party. Kentuckians wanted to keep slavery and stay in the Union. By the end of the war, the sympathies had dramatically changed toward the Confederates. Perhaps this subject should be covered more in-depth in the History of Kentucky article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy section: major problem?

from the Economy section:

  • Historically, a major problem with Kentucky's economy has been that fact that outside the Ohio River towns and Lexington, most rural counties never developed a widespread and localized industrial economy; meaning that up until World War II most families still depended on subsistence farming for survival. This is also the reason that most rural counties have only one sizeable town and still have median household incomes that are often half the U.S. national average.

Why is it a major problem that a rural county is rural? Alot of those people making half the national average have a nice house with land and friends and family near by and low living expenses. How many people making the national average are living in an apartment complex in the city somewhere? -Crunchy Numbers 15:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


If you look at a map of US Ave Income by County, Easterm & parts of South Central KY stand out (along w/ the Mexican border) as the poorest region in the US by far. Also, those counties have an absloute pandemic of drug problems, both addiction & trafficing. I am from one of those counties (Casey County), and just this year there have been 10 teenagers die from Meth overdosing and nearly every store down there has been robbed. Last month my cousin discovered an abandoned meth lab in the house over the hill where my grandparents used to live. Last year we found cultivated marijauna plants growing down there, and my relatives are constantly having things stolen by drug addicts from right off their front yards, even gas syphoned out of their tanks... I simply do not feel safe down there like I use to. Also, most of those small counties have as many murders as Lexington does. It is much worse than most places in the US & it is due to a complete lack of good jobs. I would like to pretend this isn't the case but it is. If anything, that section I wrote glossed over the problem 4.225.121.12 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rural areas of most states, even most in the South, have factories and industry spread throughout the state


Kentucky Educational Television

I think there should be a link to Kentucky Educational Television, in part because it is the largest PBS network in the country. Do y'all think it is appropriate for the Kentucky article, and if so, where should it go? Lamont A Cranston 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a discussion of it naturally goes under "Education", but that section right now is just a collection of links. Perhaps it could be listed as a "See also" at the top of this section for now. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added it as a "See also" under Education. By the way, there is a link to a left wing blog at the "See also" at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure it's an appropriate external link. Lamont A Cranston 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bluegrass Report link

I am not happy about it, but I have added an external link to Kentucky Progress, a Republican blog (it has no Wikipedia article, unlike bluegrassreport). WP is accused of a systemic liberal bias, and I want to reduce that impression. BTW, I hate Kentucky Progress (how can a Republican blog have "progress" in the name?). Lamont A Cranston 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at balance here. However, we also have to be concerned about notability. I'm not sure what makes Kentucky Progress notable. It's nowhere near competitive with BluegrassReport.org and I can't think of anything that makes it "famous". I would be happy to see a notable conservative blog be listed here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are generally considered NOT to be Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. There are exceptions. If Joe Schmo is accused of being a human being, and in his blog, he insists that he is really a parsnip, it is reasonable to say in his bio, "although Joe Schmo is accused of being a human being, he insists that he is really a parsnip<ref>[http://joeschmo.com/blog/today.html Joe Schmo Blog]</ref>. On the other hand, since Wikipedia is not a link farm, blogs normally are not appropriate as ==External links==. If the Kentucky governor's office has an official blog, you might want to make an exception for that, but probably not.
There are two reasons why Wikipedia would be accused of systemic liberal bias.
  1. It's full of blather. You can fix this by eliminating original research and citing sources for everything that's posted.
  2. If you're biased, you accuse everybody else of being biased in order to put them on the defensive. You know, by labeling your political spin the "no spin zone" or saying "we present the facts, you decide" right before you deliver highly-opinionated glurge. You can't do anything about this; all you can do is to eliminate POV glurge, no matter what the POV, and let people see that you've got cites for everything you claim. The problems with freedom of speech are best cured by more freedom of speech.
Consequently, I'm going to suggest that you eliminate blogs, rather than introduce them. I don't have a problem with blogs being highly opinionated; in fact, in as much as a blog is supposed to be a form of personal expression, it seems pretty much a waste of electrons when they are impersonal and non-opinionated. But that's not what Wikipedia is all about.
But thanks for trying. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world ClairSamoht 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A "See also" is not a source. It's a see also, that is, a related subject. And BluegrassReport.org is a related subject. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you will review Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, Stevietheman, the blog at http://bluegrassreport.org is an appropriate external link on [[BluegrassReport.org]] or an article on [[Mark Nickolas]], since he's the owner of the site. Since Wikipedia is not a web directory, a link to the blog is not an appropriate external link on [[Kentucky politics]] nor on [Kentucky].
A seealso is an INTERNAL link, and it's OK to link internally to related Wikipedia articles (since they are presumed to meet the Wikipedia policies and be verifiable, have no original research, and be NPOV. But a seealso looks like this:{{seealso|Bluegrass Report}} produces
See also: Bluegrass Report
rather than [http://BluegrassReport.org Bluegrass Report], which is a link to the blog.
If it's used as a cite, then <ref>[http://BluegrassReport.org/somepage.html Blogger admits matriculating]</ref> is appropriate, but Wikipedia:Reliable Sources severely limits the circumstances under which blogs may be considered reliable sources.
Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world ClairSamoht 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The current link provided in the See also section is to the Wikipedia article for BluegrassReport.org. Is there an issue here? I don't see one. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with it being there is that the BluegrassReport.org article isn't about Kentucky in general. I deleted it there, and added it to the "politics" section instead. That's not the proper thing to do; it should really be linked as part of the politics discussion. That style of seealso is for articles that continue the discussion, rather than articles that are related somehow.
The scouting in Kentucky link is more about scouting than about Kentucky, and it doesn't belong where it is, either; maybe it belongs in a section about recreation. I didn't take the time to search for a better place to put it.
A see also section is for links to Wikipedia articles that are sufficiently on-topic to belong on the page, but are sufficiently long enough that they've been broken off into their own article. Articles like List members of Kentucky Legislature, Kentucky constitution of 1812, Kentucky Lottery Commission, Kentucky history, and Kentucky geology would go there, since they are about Kentucky or the Kentucky government. Articles like List of Kentucky Derby winners, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Bluegrass music shouldn't go there. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image display / organization

I am not happy with the way the images look in the geography section. I'm currently on a PC with the latest version of Firefox, and the two maps overlap one another and align oddly. Is there a way to force the second map to drop down below the forst one? Lamont A Cranston 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I use the latest version of Firefox in Windows, and that section looks fine to me, but then, I'm using the "Cologne Blue" skin -- maybe that makes a difference.
While we're talking about the images in that section, the one you just added looks to have a licensing issue and may well be "speedy deleted" shortly. It's a great image, so I hope you can find a way to retain it here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm using the Monobook skin, and the top map stays on the left, while the second one is to the right and below the top one. Unfortunately, the copyright holder specifically said that KGS needs credit, so I think a GNU license is out of the question. I'll try to make a comparable image if I get some time to play with GIMP this evening. Lamont A Cranston 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: the licensing issue, perhaps you could tag the image with {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} -- this would require that the copyright holder be credited with each use, and also allow the image to be used commercially by Wikipedia and others. KGS will *have* to allow commercial use of the image (with attribution), or else it can't stay. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I know very little about the different types of licenses. I don't want to bother the KGS people unnecessarily. Here is how our exchange went:
  • "I am one of the many contributors to Wikipedia’s article on Kentucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky). As you may know, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I would like permission to use the image located at http://www.uky.edu/KGS/geoky/physiographic.htm to help illustrate our article. Wikipedia only uses images which are in the public domain or which Wikipidea has been given permission to use by the copyright holder. Can you tell me who the copyright holder for this image is, or who might be able to help me locate the copyright holder?"
  • (response) "I handle the kind of request that you sent to our web coordinator regarding using the Physiographic Diagram of Kentucky. This diagram is a product of the Kentucky Geological Survey and copyrighted by us, and I will be glad to grant permission for its use with the understanding that appropriate credit is given to KGS. You can download copies of the diagram as a .pdf or .djvu file by searching for the keyword "physiographic" at our publication search site: http://kgsweb.uky.edu/PubsSearching/PubsSimpleSearch.asp The .pdf file, incidentally, is very large. If you will provide me with a mailing address, I will send you a letter documenting permission to use the diagram for your stated purpose."
Do you think that is explicit enough, or will I need to contact them again? There is also the possibility that I just make an image of my own, which I don't think would be all that difficult (I just can't do it until I get home to my Mac). Lamont A Cranston 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say that their permission was not clear enough. Might be better to create this image on your own. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The image display problem has been fixed by Seicer using a code I was unaware of: {{ImageStackLeft|150|[[image1]][[image2]]}. I wanted to pass this along so others would be aware of it. Lamont A Cranston 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea there was a thread devoted to the image issue. Glad to be of some help. :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion updates

The changes to the Religion section are welcome, but I am having trouble understanding it. The numbers don't add up, and the religious groupings seem a bit jumbled. Hopefully, the author of the changes or somebody else who knows a lot about this topic will jump in and clean it up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The numbers add up but it was confusing. Some of the percentages are included in other percentages but if you add them seperately you end up with more than 100%. Hopefully it is better now, could probably use some polishing. I removed several phrases that seemed to put down smaller religious groups by saying "they don't even amount to 1%".-Crunchy Numbers 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! Reads a lot better. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From the last effective revert by ClairSamoht (Listing major denominations is not redundant.. If you want to remove something, there are PLENTY of paragraphs with no citations to support the facts.)

You were the one who removed what I wrote. I guess I should have just challenged the previous statement you made in the edit comment about how you were fixing errors I had introduced when you were really just reverting my edits and removing most of what I had added without stating why. Instead I deleted the paragraph you added and labeled it as "removing errors" and that was unprofessional of me. But now I want to point out that you were the one who removed the mentions of Jewish and Muslim Kentuckians and several other groups and instead put in multiple references to the Southern Babtist. People can go to the southern Babtist article if they are interested.

Lets not get into an edit war. I feel I added contructively to your original update. If you don't want people to edit what you write don't put it in wikipedia but you can't just delete other people's contributions.

I didn't say anything before but when I saw your original update I thought it was vandalism. Here are a few lines that were troublesome.

The most popular church in Kentucky is "none", with 46.57% of the population not affiliated with any body.

"none" isn't a church - was this supposed to be a joke?

Only 8.77% of the state's residents belong to a mainline protestant church,...
No other religion claims even 1% of the state's population.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claim 17,996 members and there are an estimated 11,350 Jewish Kentuckians; together, they don't even amount to 1% of the state's population.[1]

Those last three statements in my opinion are not written in a neutral tone. They sound like put downs.-Crunchy Numbers 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed -- those statements border on juvenile. Further, I am sick of the complaints from ClairSamoht about sourcing. If Wikipedia wants to pay us for the time and purchasing the resources to back up various things, then everything would get sourced much more quickly. Until then, people will just have to be patient, and if some content (most likely added in good faith) needs a cite, discuss it here, and eventually, someone will find a good source. It should be understood that this article has existed for a long time, and we can't be expected to clean it up overnight, especially with all the other articles we're working on. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If they are put-downs, who's being put down? The Mormons and the Jews? The Southern Baptists? Kentucky?
If you don't look at the numbers for other states, you may not realize it, but Kentucky is a stronghold of the Southern Baptist Convention - and for being unchurched. In Kentucky, residents belong to 83 religious bodies; in another nearby coal-mining state, Pennsylvania, they belong to 115. In Kentucky, 50% of the population chooses not to belong to any religious body; in Pennsylvania, it's only 40% of the population. In Kentucky, twice as many people are Southern Baptists as everything else combined. In Pennsylvania, half of all residents are catholic, mainline protestants outnumber evangelicals 3 to 1, and among the evangelicals, the Southern Baptists come in fifth place.
You might argue that the other religious bodies are slackers for failing to send missionaries to Kentucky - but you could equally argue that the Southern Baptists are slackers for failing to send missionaries to Pennsylvania. A Southern Baptist might point out that Kentucky is a state of god-fearing people who are going to heaven; a jew in Northern Kentucky might conclude that he'd feel more comfortable crossing the river and moving to Ridge Township. I haven't suggested either in the main article space; I have simply pointed out the unusually low numbers of those who affiliate with anyone but a Southern Baptist Convention church, and the unusually high number who choose not to affiliate at all.
The numbers aren't put-downs - but they are unusual. By noting that Mormons and Jews combined are small groups, the intent was to say, "We aren't overlooking everybody but catholics and traditional protestants; it's just that they are few in number". The present version of the page leaves people wondering. Saying that no other religious group stakes a claim to even 1% of the population says that your church isn't mentioned only because the membership is relatively small. If it weren't for the Wikipedia "notability" requirements, of course, the article could list all 83 religious organizations; if the article were called "Religious affiliations of the Kentucky population", all 83 would be notable, right down to the 39 members of the "Duck River and Kindred Baptists" and 12 members of the "Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection". But for an article called "Kentucky", itemizing 27 groups in order to include Muslims is inappropriate.
The ARDA numbers have a problem in that they have no data on the traditionally African American churches like the African Methodist Episcopal church. The ARDA mentions this because to not mention it makes it look like these groups don't exist. We need to mention it as well, because failing to mention it is a very definite violation of WP:POV.
You weren't the one keeps deleting that paragraph, Crunchy, but you are the one that inserted the bit about the Presbyterians being evangelicals, calling it "correcting errors". The citation says the information comes from the ARDA, so it really does needs to agree with the ARDA information. Wikipedia has these policies, WP:NOR and WP:V, that say you're not allowed to just make up stuff because you think it's true.


Stevietheman, if you have sources for what you write, it takes only 10 seconds to click on the <ref></ref> down below, type in [], and backspace one space to add a URL, and the title of the page. If you do NOT have sources for what you write, then you're vandalizing the site by deliberately refusing to follow the WP:NOR policy. Yes, I admit that I'd rather spend 10 seconds doing it right the first time, than 20 minutes trying to find that source again. If taking pride in producing something worth reading is juvenile, and vandalizing Wikipedia is mature, then I aspire to be infantile. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ClairSamoht, I didn't make up anything. The article you provided listed "Presbyterian Church in America" in the Evangelical category. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is Mainline protestant and is 40 times bigger. If you would have mentioned this as the root of deleting everthing I did before then I could have defended myself earlier and clarified the article.

If you don't want Muslims or Jewish people mentioned because the numbers are low and therefore not notable then I could abide by that but you just removed everything I did without stating a specific reason. 

-- Only 8.77% of the state's residents belong to a mainline protestant church...

The word 'only' is not neutral, it implies that this number is smaller than it should be. It isn't our place to say what the number should be, only to report what it is. If you remove that the sentence is fine. I have no problem with the numbers and quit saying that I do. I objected to the slanted "tone" that you used.

--No other religion claims even 1% of the state's population. What do you think of the statement "most women can't even do one pullup"? That word "even" gives it a negative tone.

SO WHAT if Kentuckians are "un-churched"??????????????? THIS ISN'T Wiki-church-ipedia. It isn't wikipedia's place to act as some kind of missionary or to help reach the sinners in Kentucky.

My intention was to add a few denominations from each of the groups on the page you provided. Other Theology was one of the groups. I also tried to make it more readable by providing a paragraph for each Theology group. You apparantly prefer to have two paragraphs that highlight the Southern Baptists and glance over the others.

You are right however that this is an article about Kentucky and not the religions of kentucky. Maybe we should leave out the mention of the individual denominations alltogether. We could just list the general Theology groups with the percentages of each.

Wikipedia does not require that every sentence that we write has to be referenced. The example you provide is of hearsay evidence of a conversation. The fact that Kentucky has many horse farms and distilleries doesn't need to be referenced because it is common knowledge. If you want to provide specific statistics on the numbers of each then you need a reference. Having a barnstar doesn't mean you get to kick everyone around. -Crunchy Numbers 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't write "Presbyterian Church in America". You wrote "The largest religious affiliation in Kentucky is Evangelical Protestant, with 33.68% of the population. Included in this group is the Southern Baptist Convention which accounts for 24.25% of the state's population with 979,994 affiliants. Other denominations included are Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, Church of God, Assemblies of God, other Baptist denominations, Church of the Nazarene, Presbyterian and Amish churches."
You claimed that you had "removed redundant paragraph that contained errors", when it wasn't redundant at all. If the PCUSA is 40 times as big the PCIA, then you were replacing statements which were correct with one that was 97.56% wrong.
I didn't remove everything you did without stating a reason. I wrote "Correct errors, so that data conforms to source".
Across the US as a whole, mainline populations are 66% as big as evangelical populations. In Kentucky, they are 26% as big as the evangelical population. When you see 26 people where you would expect, according to national averages, to see 66, the word only is appropriate. It is less than there should be, if Kentucky were typical, and not a little less, but a lot less.
You're right, it isn't wikipedia's place to act as some kind of missionary or to help reach the sinners in Kentucky - but if it isn't Wikipedia's place to help readers understand what makes Kentucky different from the other states, why not just replace the Kentucky article with a redirect to U.S. States?
"Wikipedia does not require that every sentence that we write has to be referenced." Well, I agree that we don't need references on talk pages. But on the other hand, this isn't GeoCities. When it comes to encyclopedic content, official policy is that all content must be sourced to be acceptable. Any editor may properly remove encyclopedic content simply because a source wasn't cited. Do you not know who Jimmy Wales is? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I just went back and reread the section on citations and on Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Mostly what I have done on Wikipedia is delete linkspam. I like to edit for clarity and neutral tone of voice also. From my own reading of the citations guidelines I see there are procedures for questioning material that might not be true; it doesn't seem to say just start deleting everthing that isn't cited. I think that might be a single sentence taken out of context. Both of us could probably follow a little closer the suggestions in the Etiquette seciton.
I also reread the two paragraphs that this has been about and they look pretty good now. I'll probably tweak the mention of 1% since that seems arbitrary. It could just say "The largest denominations were..."-Crunchy Numbers 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

nominated Cuisine of Kentucky for deletion

In case anyone here is interested.-Crunchy Numbers 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Still unsourced

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Help is available for showing the sources of content. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough! Tell us in talk what needs cites. Put up or shut up. Until then, reinstating the tag will be reverted into oblivion. I've had enough of this shit. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the lazy-editor syndrome. I had a user slap on a delete tag on Harveytown Park minutes after I created it and before I had any time to add any content. These users need to realise that they should contribute quality and content to Wikipedia, not tags throughout thousands of pages to boost their edit count. People (like myself) are tired of their poor efforts. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly a fixation, and it doesn't actually work to add useful content to the Wikipedia. Cites should only be demanded on controversial or disputable statements. Otherwise, let the community decide what's correct. If we can't be allowed to work it this way, many editors will likely quit due to the difficulty and stress of finding perfect cites for every other sentence. People should remember that we aren't being paid to do this work. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of counties

I know Kentucky has the third most counties of any state in the nation (a fact which I just added to the article), but I once heard that the reason there are so many was so that each county seat would be no more than a day's journey on horseback from every other contiguous county seat. I can't find this documented anywhere, but if someone could find it, I think it'd make an interesting addition to the article. Acdixon 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that as well, but have no documentation for that. nivek1385 08:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kentucky has the second most number of counties in the nation, actually. And my hunch is that it's mainly due to political graft. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm wrong. It is indeed third most number. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with cleanup

I'd really like to see a renewed commitment to getting this article into better shape with an eye toward another peer review. It seems we've still not addressed many of the issues from the previous review. I'll list my concerns by section to make it easier to comment.

Largest city projections

Do we really need the sections "15 largest Kentucky cities, 2010 Projected" and "15 most populated counties, 2010 Projected"? I agree with the reviewer that they are "listy." Will I really burst someone's bubble by removing them?

Agreed. They are "listy" and while I personally find the data to be fascinating, the article would flow better without them. Mescad 15:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Per this comment and no others, I have removed these sections. Acdixon 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting facts section

I also agree that we should be working to absorb items from Interesting facts about Kentucky into other sections of the article. Can we at least refrain from adding to that list? Hopefully, we'll eventually be able to relocate all of that information.

As for the Interesting Facts section, I did place U of L's medical acheivements at the top because someone else DELETED them off the same list. I was hoping that other people would list acheiments of their in state schools (of which there are many), not cover up anything U of L does. The items listed are international headline achiements, so I feel that they elevate the state enough to deserve listing.unsigned
I was probably the one who "deleted" them, although what I did was move them to the more appropriate location in Education in Kentucky per the suggestion from the peer review. When more was added about UofL's accomplishments, I copied them instead, but I maintain that they belong in the Education daughter article so we can eventually eliminate the "Interesting facts". Acdixon 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable natives

I added this section to absorb some facts from "Interesting facts", but honestly, the ones listed there ought to be the creme de la creme of people from Kentucky, which I doubt it now is. I propose we hold nominations for the Top Ten Most Important Kentuckians to determine who goes on the list in the main article, with the remainder occupying List of famous Kentuckians. Thoughts?

Here's my list (in no particular order) of the ten most notable Kentuckians from List of famous Kentuckians:

Just getting the ball rolling here; feel free to disagree. Acdixon 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

College sports section

Nobody is prouder of the college basketball tradition in the state than I am, but does it seem to anyone else like that section is getting out of hand? Looks to me like stats are being added in a simple spirit of one-upsmanship between Wildcat and Cardinal fans. Are "see also" links for both programs more in order here? Maybe even a new daughter article about the UK-UofL rivalry?

I'd say that's my two-cents worth, but it's probably more like a buck fifty. Fire away! Acdixon 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The text seems OK to me, but I feel that the two large tables detract from the flow of the article. I'd like to see those removed and we certainly need "see also" links to articles about each of the two programs (if those already exist I missed them). Mescad 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what's ruffling your feathers, but there's really no "one upsmanship" going on. I was waiting for someone to put in UK's all time record (since I couldn't find the exact figure) and then have both team's totals added up in another column. I have the total now so I will do that right now. Western could be added as well since they have a final four. I didn't add them to "Also See" by the way. unsigned
These are fair enough observations. However, I still think this section may be getting too long. Yes, I'm impressed that the Cards may be playing for a national title this year, but that isn't so much about Kentucky as it is the Cardinals. How about a daughter article on Sports in Kentucky? That'll give a place for all the UK-UofL rivalry info, accolades for both programs, etc., while keeping the main article on topic. Anyone opposed? Acdixon 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. I was thinking the same thing earlier today. Something needs to be done. TenTech 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I welcome your comments and edits on my draft of a Sports in Kentucky article, currently found at User:Acdixon/DraftPage2. I need a lead paragraph for the daughter article, but I think it's otherwise ready to go. Acdixon 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have recently been trying to go back and cite all statements in this article that might be considered in need of verification. I have just a few left, and am asking for your help in getting them done. Hopefully, some of you added these statements and remember where they came from.

  • The "Origin of Name" section claims it is from The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Does anyone have access to this book to do a proper cite with ref tags?
  • "Also there is a section of Kentucky across the Ohio connected to Indiana near Evansville." I actually live near that area and didn't know this. Anyone know what the section of land is called?
  • "Kentucky's ongoing neutrality prompted some Confederate officers to remove the central star from their battle flags (see the battle flag of General Braxton Bragg)."
  • "Bush won the state's 8 electoral votes overwhelmingly in 2004 by a margin of 20 percentage points and 59.6% of the vote."
  • "The most solidly Democratic counties are in the mountainous eastern unionized coal mining region, especially Pike, Floyd, Knott, Menifee, Letcher, Perry and Breathitt, and the cities of Lexington and Louisville. The Jackson Purchase area in the far west was historically a Democratic stronghold but has moved Republican recently. Paducah author Irvin S. Cobb once wrote of the purchase area: "There was no doubt about our district. Whatever might betide, she was safe and sound - a Democratic Rock of Ages." The area was once referred to as the Gibraltar of Democracy." Do we even need this paragraph?
  • "In 2007, the Big Four Bridge in Louisville will be converted into the world's second longest pedestrian-only bridge" Can we verify the "second longest pedestrian bridge" claim?
  • "Kentucky will be home to the two longest pedestrian-only bridges in the world and the only two in the United States connecting two states" Can we verify the "only two in the U.S. connecting two states"?

Thanks for any help you can provide with this. Acdixon 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete fourth paragraph of History section

I know a lot of people who know more about history than I have put in some hard work on the History section and daughter article, so I thought it best to ask here before taking action. I feel that the fourth paragraph of the History section on the main article is too specific for the main article. It reads:

"On September 4, 1861, Confederate General Leonidas Polk broke Kentucky's neutrality by invading Columbus, Kentucky.[1] As a result of the Confederate invasion, Union General Ulysses S. Grant entered Paducah, Kentucky.[2] On September 7, 1861, the Kentucky State Legislature, angered by the Confederate invasion, ordered the Union flag to be raised over the state capitol in Frankfort, declaring its allegiance with the Union.[3] Kentucky's ongoing neutrality prompted some Confederate officers to remove the central star from their battle flags (see the battle flag of General Braxton Bragg).[citation needed] On August 13, 1862, Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith's Army of East Tennessee invaded Kentucky and on August 28, 1862, Confederate General Braxton Bragg's Army of Mississippi entered Kentucky beginning the Kentucky Campaign.[4] Bragg's retreat following the Battle of Perryville left the state under the control of the Union Army for the remainder of the war.[5]"

I think the third paragraph provides a nice synopsis of Kentucky in the Civil War. I would like to remove the fourth paragraph from the main article and move it to the daughter article or the Kentucky in the Civil War article. Any thoughts? Acdixon 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the content survives, I'm open to this. On top of this, I am concerned with the text "Although frequently erroneously described as never having seceded, the state did pass an Ordinance of Secession on November 20, 1861 at the Russellville Convention" -- The state did not do this! The Russellville Convention was not an official meeting of the General Assembly but rather Confederates. To say the state passed this is erroneous. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I wondered about this myself, but I'm no Kentucky history expert so I left it. Please suggest a more accurate text, as I am hoping to re-nominate this article for Good Article status by year's end. Acdixon 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you click the link Ordinance of Secession and verify with a GOOD history book. Also, the State remained neutral more because of the fact that President Lincoln would allow neutral States to retain ownership of slaves longer than states that were not neutral (a dirty little fact, huh- kinda brings to light the whole truth that slavery was only secondary to States Rights as an issue in the Civil War). Please pull the reference to General Braxton Bragg's battleflag missing a central star because of his frustration with Kentucky's "waffling" until I can provide a specific source to reference. I am confident that it is a fact and would like to see it included as it is an interesting "tid-bit" but I do appreciate the concern of credibility in Wiki. Also. please don't interperet my wording of this, it isn't meant to be harsh or insulting, I just have to get to the point because we're fixin' to start eating the turkey (Today's Thanksgiving Day). I'll try to get more specific details from my History professor, he has a PhD in this and that is where I learned of this and the central star on the battle flag thing (and, suggested people take a look at General Braxton's flag as it is a good example and likely could easily be sourced). I really have to go now. Have a great Thanksgiving y'all!

Although it certainly does not support the statement that about the central star statement, if you click on this link: http://www.confederateflags.org/army/FOTCaotm.htm you will find battleflags that have a 13 central star and some battle flags that oddly have 12 stars and no central star (scroll to the bottom of the page).

--Actually, if someone has the time, a more acccurate description would be to state that Kentucky was a Confederate State to the Confederates (Ordinance of Secession thing) but was a Union State in the eyes of the Union; and, the feelings still go on today as evidenced in the above paragraph; surely, we could come up with a more accurate, concise, and descriptive few paragraphs of Kentucky's very unique Civil War situation. Also, there is no mention that both the President of the Union and Confederacy during the Civil War were both born in Kentucky. I'd be willing to collaborate but can only contribute sparingly because I am busy as a newly-wed husband, working full-time, and completing an MBA (Master of Business Administration). I need to log on, my name is Paul S. in Cincinnati (also, a place with considerable Civil War history- home to the "Copperhead" movement in the Civil war if I'm not mistaken). I hope we can all contribute to come up with this ideal entry. Bye now- Paul

Actually, the fact about both presidents being from Kentucky is mentioned in the Notable natives section, but a rewrite of the History section might facilitate incorporating it there as well. I think these suggestions are well-taken, and would result in a better article. As I said, I'm not much of a historian, but I did minor in technical writing in college. If we could get some properly-sourced facts out there, perhaps I could cobble them together. Acdixon 12:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a historian, but I've talked to a Civil War historian quite a bit about this subject. And the text in the Ordinance of Secession article -- "Kentucky's was approved by a convention of 200 people representing 65 counties of the state, but without support from the unionist state government." -- appears to back up the point that the state didn't pass this resolution, but rather a breakaway Confederate faction. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review my edits to the paragraph concerning the Russellville Convention (and the supporting sources used in composing it) and see if it seems to accurately reflect what occurred in the state. Acdixon 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears accurate to me. Thanks for revising it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable natives

A few weeks back, I asked for input on Kentucky's most notable natives (see above). No one even bothered to comment. Yet over the long weekend, we've now had people delete Tom Cruise and George Clooney and add Nick Lachey, - who has since been deleted - Ashley Judd, and E. A. Diddle. None of these edits were made with any explanation. The list of notable Kentuckians is long, as evidenced by List of famous Kentuckians, but the ones in the main article ought to be the most notable. I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case that Ashley Judd, Nick Lachey, or E. A. Diddle is more notable than Tom Cruise and George Clooney or even Colonel Harland Sanders (who I originally left off to keep the list shorter.)

So, can we now have the discussion about who the 10 or 15 most notable Kentuckians are? Or should we avoid the inevitable bickering and just add List of famous Kentuckians to the See Also section and delete Notable natives (per "good article" Minnesota)? This might help address the stability criterion for a good article. Please comment. Acdixon 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

golden triangle?

Where did this term come from?-Crunchy Numbers 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Not sure where it first came from, but it's been used in print... for example from the Courier-Journal:

Half of Kentucky's fastest-growing cities are in the "Golden Triangle" bounded by Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky. --W.marsh 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a cite for this CJ quote? If Crunchy Numbers is interested, other folks might be as well. Acdixon 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Flagships?

I'm an alum of Western Kentucky University, and it is nice to have some things in this article that don't involve Louisville or Lexington, but does anyone really believe that WKU is one of Kentucky's flagship universities, as suggested by a December 2 edit by 68.169.52.135? I believe my claims that UK and UofL are the flagships are justified, as they are charged with becoming a Top 20 Public Research University and a preeminent metropolitan research university respectively under the Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997. To me, that's the legislature saying that those two schools are the flagships. In order to avoid upsetting any of my fellow WKU alums, I've posted the topic here for discussion, but barring a convincing reason to leave it in, I'm removing Western from that sentence. Acdixon 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the caption on the Speed School picture incorrectly says U of L is "one of KY's flagships". I understand what you mean, but techniquely UK is the only land grant and flagship university. It would be better to say that U of L and UK are the major academic research universities, and have similar admissions requirements, and are the only two to have medical schools/ hospitals. Their endowments are both more than 4X the 3rd place school, WKU. The other state universities are also classified as being regional universities, that is they cater to a specific region of the state and generally have open admissions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.126.161 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps I'm not familiar with the official definition of flagship, then, which is entirely possible. Could someone enlighten me? I do want the sentence to be accurate. Incidentally, the reference to UK and UofL being the flagships was removed by 68.169.52.135 this morning. I'm tempted to restore it, but I'd rather have it right first. If the user's motivation is resentment for the Golden Triangle, nobody understands that better than someone from rural western Kentucky like myself, but the facts are the facts. Acdixon 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

  1. ^ Kentucky Members of the Confederate Congress (1861-1862)
  2. ^ Civil War Sites - Paducah, KY
  3. ^ Encyclopedia Brittanica (1911) - quoted in Online Encyclopedia
  4. ^ Louisville During the Civil War
  5. ^ Perryville - Civil War in Kentucky
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kentucky/Archive_2&oldid=1136871923"