Talk:Kentucky/Archive 3

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)

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)

There was also a change recently to the opening paragraph regarding cultural links to the Midwest. I inserted as a source John Garland's "The North American Midwest: A Regional Geography" which very clearly includes Kentucky in the Midwest region economically, geographically, climatologically, and culturally. I have specific cites if anyone is concerned about this. This book is one of the sources cited on the Midwest page.

--70.168.88.158 22:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.255.2 (talk • contribs)

This comment is totally false. There is no meaningful difference between a commonwealth and a state. The words mean the exact same thing in American political usage. It has no impact on the system of laws or the status of the state. All of those Virginians who tried to secede (US Civil War (as well as the 2/3rds of Kentucky that also tried)) would be awfully surprised to learn that "Commonwealth status granted them a easier time." Clearly it didn't and doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.252.237 (talk • contribs)

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.. The most likely etymology is that it comes from an Iroquoian word for "meadow" or "prairie" (c.f. Mohawk kenhtà:ke, Seneca këhta’keh). 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)

Dispute over source

The person who runs this page apparently has never crossed the Ohio River In Henderson, Kentucky, or they would know that the Ohio River doesn't cover Kentucky's entire northern border. You are still in Kentucky after crossing the Ohio River. If you don't believe me, take a drive down there and see for yourself, or see where exactly Ellis Park (horse racing park in Henderson, Ky) is. How about you take a look on any site that offers satelite views. Like mapquest.com for instance. If you are going to have and post "facts" about Kentucky, how about you take a look for yourself genus.

Oh by the way, Kentucky is a southern state, not midwestern.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.214.91 (talk • contribs)

First, nobody "runs" this page. It is a collaborative effort. Second, I have crossed the Ohio at Henderson several times on my way to Evansville, and I'm aware of the phenomenon you reference. The point is, the information was added in the caption to an image, which made the caption unnecessarily long. It may well bear mention, but should be incorporated into the prose of the article. Also, your disrespectful tone will win you few friends in this project. Last, if you'll notice, there has been significant discussion already regarding whether Kentucky is southern or midwestern, with sources presented on both sides. You'll need more than your opinion to make a dent in this one. Acdixon 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The source given that claims that Kentucky is culturally Midwestern also makes refers to Kentucky as not Midwestern.

CHAPTER 3 Settlement Forms and Patterns

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN

"Many of the settlers who moved into southern Illinois were from Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and the Carolinas. They were attracted to the Midwest by favorable descriptions of the area and by a land system which enabled the pioneer to purchase good land easily and cheaply from the public domain. "

"The migration of settlers from the South into the Midwest gradually declined after 1830."

74.128.200.135 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard 74's comments. The source mentioned (Garland's The North American Midwest) does include Kentucky in it's definition of the region. Here are a few instances, without cluttering the page:

On page 19: "Over the entire Midwest, summers are warm, and, during the hottest weather, regional contrasts are often surprisingly small. Indeed, the highest temperatures experienced are almost as great in North Dakota (with a record of 121°) as in Kansas (122°) and are higher than in Kentucky (114°). Central Michigan has occasionally been as hot as Kentucky..."

Page 24: "The month of most frequent occurrence of tornadoes in the Midwest shows a progressively northwestward shift ( Fig. 16 ). In March tornadoes are most frequent in Kentucky, in May in Illinois, in June in Wisconsin, and in July in North Dakota."

Page 29: "The density of rural settlement in the Midwest is relatively uniform. Except for variations toward the margins and certain isolated "islands" of population density, most of the region has 5 to 25 persons per square mile. The density is greatest in the southeast where considerable portions of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and lower Michigan have 25 to 50 persons per square mile."

Page 53: "[The Midwest] here defined for statistical purposes to include the East North Central and West North Central groups of states, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, plus the states of West Virginia and Kentucky."

Page 63: "Among these outlying cities, food-products specialization, including extensive distilling in Peoria and Louisville, is greater than elsewhere in the Midwest."

I have other quotes if there really are questions on this source, but based on 74's edit history, I don't believe that he truly has a problem with the source, but is rather looking for ways to cause argument for the sake of it. --Gator87 07:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as telling people to disregaurd my comment I'm going to let it slide. However I like the source personally, because it provides an in dept look at the Midwest. The only problem I had with it is the contradictions made between rather or not Kentucky is the Midwest or South. In the section I referenced earlier it clearly refers to Kentucky, Virginia, and the Carolinas as the South.

In this section, it includes eastern Tennessee in with the Upper Ohio Valley, asa cultural reference?

"In a peripheral position with reference to the Midwest, the Upper Ohio Valley occupies the borderlands of eastern Ohio, western Pennsyl­ vania, most of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and a small part of Tennessee." [4]

While still noting

"The southern limits lie in the eroded hills of West Virginia, Ken­ tucky, and Tennessee, far beyond the limits of continental glaciation, where, in general, the resi­ dents of much of West Virginia face west for their contacts, rather than east. This is true through­ out the hills of Tennessee and Kentucky as well, although in these parts there is a strong cultural kinship to the South." Louisvillian 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is a little stale, but I thought I'd add my 2¢ anyway. I think the confusion here comes from 2 things; firstly, is there any definitive source on what is southern and what is midwestern? It seems unlikely that there is, but maybe I'm wrong. Secondly, putting aside geography for cultural similarities, the cities of Newport and Covington are just across the Ohio River from the much larger midwestern city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and more or less considered to be culturally in the midwest, likewise for Louisville, which is adjecent to Indiana, although again it is unlikely there is any definitive source, and I'm sure some Kentuckians would object to this characterization. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speed Limit portion out of date

According to the wiki entry on state speed limits, the increase of the maximum speed limit to 65 MPH to 70 MPH was passed earlier this year, but none of the roads have yet been resigned to the higher limit. Jon 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more out of date now, the new signs should all be up by July 5th (for those areas being increased) per the state speed limit entry Jon 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Be bold!. I've been posting about this on newsgroup misc.transport.road and elsewhere, but I hadn't heard anything on the signs being put up this week. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated it based on info from a CJ story. Might need some more tweaking. --W.marsh 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I was the one who added the original information, but I hadn't followed it closely enough to update it since then. Acdixon 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KYUnbridledSpiritBrand.png

Image:KYUnbridledSpiritBrand.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

I wonder if someone could clarify the ancestry demographics included in the article, as the categories seem contradictory and more than a bit fuzzy at first glance. “The five largest ancestries in the commonwealth are: American (20.9%) (Mostly of British ancestry), German (12.7%), Irish (10.5%) (Most actually of Scots-Irish descent), English (9.7%), African American (7.8%).” Specifically, it is not clear what is meant by the designation of “American” ancestry, especially when we see that this 20.9% is “Mostly of British ancestry” but go on to read that another 9.7% is of English descent and most of the Irish descent is actually Scots-Irish (i.e. also British to an unspecified extent).

The clarification available through the link (to “Maps of American Ancestries”) is helpful but the map drawn from the Census Bureau contradicts the body of the text (and in the Kentucky article). The map notes that “American ancestry is mostly English, French, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish” and thus most definitely not only British, while the article suggests that most consider “American” to mean mostly English, Scottisch, and Welsh (and thus British).

I recognize that these categories can be incredibly problematic (especially insofar as they force people into particular boxes), but emphasis on the fact that these are self-identifications would probably help matters. A link to the source would be useful as well. Cheers. Trouser34 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well the descriptions are just those reported on the census, e.g. Bob Jones says his ancestry is "American" even though his family came to America from England in 1750. He probably doesn't know that, most Americans a few generations removed from the boat ride really don't know, and/or they don't think it's relevant so they just say "American". But you can see with people who are third or even fourth generation they're more likely to say what European country they're from (e.g. Italy, Ireland, Poland, etc.) So someone who identifies themselves as of English descent is classified separately from those who say "American". I think the article should say that people who give their ancestry as "American" are mostly from at least fourth generation Americans and usually much more than that, so their ancestry is highly likely to be British isles, France or to a lesser extent, Germany. It's a tough issue that pops up a lot when dealing with these census numbers... a lot of it just has to do with people giving the answer "American" when there's a much more precise answer possible. Hopefully this sort of clears it up. --W.marsh 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the bit about mostly Scots-Irish was added by an IP editor, reverted as vandalism, and has since been re-added by the IP editor. I don't know enough about it to change it, but a statement like that definitely needs a source. Acdixon 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well also it's not just the generation thing. There were German and Dutch immigrants early on in America, and if your last name is Schneider or Van Dyke, your probably gonna know. But a lot of people don't know the difference between Scottish, English, Welsh and sometimes even Irish last names (also Scots-Irish might not know if they are Scottish or Irish, as, while they are Scottish, there is still a good chance that they have some Irish in them too). But anyway, I changed the things in parentheses. Kentucky, and all of Appalachia, has a large Irish immigrant population; not Scots-Irish but 19th century Irish immigrants. They also have a large Scots-Irish population, but that makes up most of the "American" population, not the Irish. I mean while most people think of Irish as living in Boston, Brooklyn, Hell's Kitchen and the like, the South has a pretty large Irish population too. For one thing, because the South has such a considerably larger Black population, it doesn't show up as much, but it's definitely there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil War summary a bit biased toward Confederacy?

It would appear that the content summarizing Kentucky's involvement in the Civil War reads with a near-sympathy toward the Confederate side. It it were balanced, it would additionally stress effective Union control of the state during most of the war, the military rule of 1864-1865, and the defeat of John Hunt Morgan at Cynthiana. I'm not an expert with this history, but I'd like to see if anyone would help me co-write the summary so that it can reach a better balance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me finish my work on Kentucky in the American Civil War and I'll be glad to help. Like you said, I'm no expert, so finishing my write-up of the full history will be necessary before I can help summarize it. That said, everything I've read so far gives Kentucky's involvement in the war from the perspective of Confederate actions, since the Union was in a defensive posture and largely only reacted to Confederate invasion attempts and raids. I also haven't gotten to the 1864-1865 period as yet, so maybe it will balance out then. Acdixon 14:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. No rush. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky has always been a Southern state . The only reason we did not leave the union is because we saw what happened to Virginia a bunch of yankees from the extreme northern pan-handle of West Virginia talked a bunch of propaganda to poor un-educated Mountain people into to thinking that it was a good idea into leaving Virginia. We thought thought the same thing would happen to Kentucky . When 1865 came around we saw what happened to our sister states during reconstruction and we were horrified as well as sickened and disgusted with the union. It has always been said that Kentucky never joined the confederacy until after the civil war and quit giving respect to the north forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.140.208 (talk • contribs)

My understanding is that Kentucky, a border state, due to earlier influence by Henry Clay, wanted to keep the Union together but also keep slavery and not disrespect the culture and political atmosphere of the South. In other words, Kentucky tried to placate both sides. It wasn't Reconstruction that began the problems with the Union, but rather the military rule by Burbridge in the last year or so of the war. It helps that I frequently converse with a Civil War historian on these matters.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty consistent with what I've read so far, Stevie. The allegiance was not necessarily to the Northern cause, but to keeping the states united. Because of their economic ties to both sections of the country, Kentucky had the most to lose from a war. Politically, though, most Kentuckians favored states' rights, including the right to decide the slavery question. Acdixon 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the apparent labored description of the Civil War history in Kentucky is an ironically accurate reflection of what the feeling in Civil War Kentucky must have actually been like at the time. Kinda funny how that works out- fact is, most Kentuckian's sentiment is and was toward the South (and at the time likely the Confederacy) but the resolve to put feelings into clear action never was strong enough; so, I don't think the description is biased, if anything is is accurate in text and spirit due to the fact that there never was a clear "balance" (that sounds like modern day politically correct crap to me to be honest). Personally, I think that this interesting tidbit if skillfully included into the section would add a unique historic perspective to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.252 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kentucky's southern heritage would imply that there was probably more Confederate sympathy there than Union. I mean, that's not definite proof, as West Virginia was pro-Union enough to split from Virginia, and they are still culturally Southern for the most part. But the fact that Kentucky is remembered in history as a neutral state, while the other border states, Maryland and Delaware, are always remembered as Union states, would imply that the Confederacy clearly had more influence there than it did in the other Border states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

I'm not going to edit-war over this, but everyone please help with de-biasing the cuisine section if you have available references. User:Louisvillian is long known for having an extreme Southern bias -- just check out his contribution history for proof. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While my opinion agrees mostly with that of Louisvillian (i.e. that Kentucky is primarily a southern state, culturally if not geographically), that issue has been thoroughly discussed on this talk page already, and I'm abiding by the consensus. That said, Louisvillian seems to raise a valid point that the statement claiming Kentucky cuisine to be a blend of Southern and Midwestern needs a source. This is somewhat different that saying the culture is a blend of the two. (My personal opinion is that Hot Brown, mint julep, and bourbon aren't exactly traditionally Southern, but my opinion doesn't count for much in real life, and even less so on Wikipedia!)

This highlights a larger issue, which is the fact that most of the information about Kentucky cuisine, both in the Kentucky article and the Cuisine of Kentucky article, remains uncited, despite promises to provide sources in two previous AfD debates. Louisvillian is right that this makes it little more than original research. The consensus to keep seems to have been based on the fact that it's a good potential article and could be appropriately sourced, but that hasn't happened. I'm not necessarily asking for a new AfD, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it either. It's better than having this same tired discussion again. Acdixon 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While we can agree to deal with these issues bit by bit, I am afraid that User:Louisvillian is not interested in anything but conflict. He has a longstanding history of confrontation rather than working with anyone on anything. He hasn't contributed hardly a lick of new material to any article. He just picks apart others' work. I will be happy to try and parse out these issues, but it needs to be without the vitriol of this user's presence. And we need to find some good reference materials as well. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steve. User:Louisvillian can't fathom to understand why his edit, seen here, is biased or incorrect. It's funny he only edits this page and not the primary cuisine subpage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve check my contribution history as you can it revoloves around more then one topic (I.E. Kentucky and the Southern U.S. Article). Just that fact alone debunks your ridiculous claim that I'm somehow hurting Wikipedia. In any means all I'm asking for is a source to back the claim made in the article about Kentucky's cuisine being comprised of a major Midwestern element. I've already cited the claim of Kentucky's cuisine being Southern (which took no time). But I was even trying to search for a source to back to other claim and came across nothing!Louisvillian 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well with the same issue on both this section and that main article I think it would be more efficient to take care of one then correct the other. How in the Hell is my source biased/incorrect when I have sourced it and if for some reasont that source is not valid I will gladly and easily find more to back the claim. But I'll tell you what is "incorrect" the constant reverting of a non sourced claim. This goes against Wiki rules and is considered original research! I've even given Steve an entire month to source this claim.. and he has done nothing! Therefore this claim is false like it or not! I mean you claim I'm only trying to start trouble, But all this could be avoided is you just source the claim!!! Until then I'm going remove the unsourced claim, it's not biased it's Wikipedia's rules and you know thisLouisvillian 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just provided a source for the Midwestern/Southern blend of cuisine found in Kentucky and removed that ridiculously biased nonsense that User:Louisvillian had added. I also edited the main Kentucky Cuisine article to remove the bias and inaccurate over-simplification of the state's cuisine. It is a source for a culinary school that teaches a course in "American Cuisine: Midwest and Mountain States - AC303" and it includes Kentucky in this list along with states such as Illinois, Michigan, etc. Not the best source but it is verifiable and NPOV, and, for the record, About.com is hardly a "solid" source. It is at http://www.iicaculinary.com/iica-ye2-sem1.htm#ac303, and it reads:

"American Cuisine III / Midwest & Mountain States (40 hours)

The foods of the nineteen states that comprise this region, often referred to as the "Heartland of America" are rooted in the area's geography. The cattle ranches and wheat farms provide the cuisine's foundation of high quality beef and grain. The states are: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky."

As mentioned in that source, it is probably also worth noting at some point in this page that Kentucky is generally considered a Midwestern Corn Belt state (at least the western parts of the state, I remember being amazed at the amount of corn in my youth from the area around Union County), which no doubt has influence on the state's cuisine... but I'm not an agriculturalist and am not qualified to speak to that point.

We'll all disagree on Kentucky - I for one am from a family of Kentuckians who are also Midwesterners, not Southerners, and we would flat-out challenge to the grave the notion that Kentucky is anything less than a North/South border state (just like the other 33-40 % of the state's population who consider themselves Midwesterners...but I digress!) - but User:Louisvillian's edits, regardless of your own personal opinions, cause pointless conflict wherever he goes. I fully agree that the vast, overwhelming majority of User:Louisvillian's edits - virtually all of them, in fact - are (1. Highly, highly biased (2. Centered around the notion of proving that Kentucky is a twin state of Tennessee, when it clearly is not, while removing any and all information that links the state to the Midwest/North, (3. Generally not respectful of other sources, especially when those other sources disagree with his narrow-minded viewpoint, and (4. Never actually add anything to the article, but merely attack or criticize opinions that he does not personally agree with. Furthermore, he has a habit of becoming rather angry and cursing/throwing personal insults when somebody challenges him on his biased edits, as I have many times. I for one have had enough of these pointless conflict-causing/valueless edits and the accompanying childish fits of his.

--Gator87 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

come to my town in jackson and call someone midwestern i dare you lol. 75.58.6.131

Also Acdixon, you do raise a good point about much of the material in the Kentucky Cuisine article still being unsourced, however. I found a page that addressed burgoo before realizing that it's in fact just some type of user-defined cookbook. I'm still looking for more sources out there, but it's not exactly an area on which abundant study has been done!

--Gator87 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

repost to the same accusation! Well while you've so relentlessly tracked my every edit, you seemed to skip over the last few edits I've made which are not related to the subject at hand, so that little bit you just said was false! Even before those edits I've done nothing to damage to Wikipedia in any way shape or form, and if so Steve would have hopped on the chance to ban me. On Midwest Article, other than deleting redundant crap that Steve simply copied and pasted from the map's caption, I've stayed relatively quite there. In the Black Belt article I "added" a side explanation for Kentucky, you then add a little more to my explanation in which I commended you on (but ultimately ended up deleted in the final edit). The SouthEastern page, if anything you were the one who has reduced that article to about half of it's size, and that is apparent in the Edit. I find it funny how you attempt to take credit for this section when it was my damn idea to revive the long dead sub section in the first place. Oh yeah it was incident that put our view at odds in the first place.. hmmmm wonder what that was, Oh maybe it was the new map of the Southern U.S. states on the Southern U.S. article in which I think after viewing the history section of that page one can clearly see I was the driving force in it's creation [5]. LOl then what is with this whole hurt feelings crap on which seems to be most played by Steve? Everytime I've criticized something on these articles (which is a key component to perfection) I've offered a solution followed by sources have I not?

Well Uh Gator you've challenged me quite a few times on this point, and you've clearly backed out down from your statement of Kentucky being a "neutral border state" with no more affiliation to one region than another. In a desperate attempt by yourself to not go against the concensus of the talk page you have stated numerous times that you feel Kentucky has more Southern affilities then anything else [6]. You've also "challenged me" on forum in which you clearly left the debate after my second response which refutes your previous ones. I'm not here to toot my own horn or anything, But I think you're over playing your true contribution to your argument of a "neutral border state" compared to my argument of a "mixed Southern state". However if you feel you have more to add to your opinion then we both have active accounts on citydata.org who will be more than happy to host one of these debates.

LOL as the whole 34-40% of Kentuckians identifying with the Midwest...WOW I mean are you joking or did you just get a little to happy that you found a source for the cuisine section. The Changing usage study (conducted in 1986-to well 1986) has found that 34% of Kentuckians identified with the Midwest now if you're going to add another 6% to that margine then I can just as easily say that over half of the state's population identifies with the South with this study finding a range of 45% to 51% So yeah. LOL and you've made this statement without even considering the Southern FOcus study (conducted for 14 years and is still surveying) which found that 80% of Kentucians identify with the South.

John Shelton Reed

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

Seems to be Screaming SOUTHERN to me

Your's Truely Louisvillian 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Now we are going after hearsay? Source for the numbers? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[7] Seicer here is a source for those numbers and this Study is called the Southern Focus Study! Man it's mind boggling isn't it. Louisvillian 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)