Talk:Kentucky/Archive 5

Kentucky Bend / Fulton County exclave

Under the "Geography" section is this sentence: "Kentucky is the only U.S. state to have a non-contiguous part exist as an exclave surrounded by other states." This is not true. New York has two exclaves: Liberty and Ellis islands, which are completely surrounded by New Jersey. So the sentence could be rephrased to read: "Kentucky is one of only two U.S. states (the other is New York) to have a non-contiguous part existing as an exclave completely surrounded by other states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.176.43 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "US state Commonwealth"?

The other uses tag says "This article is about the U.S. state Commonwealth of Kentucky". This wording could be somewhat confusing. Using "Commonwealth" here also leads to confusion that Kentucky is somehow "not a state" or different from the other states. Would it not be better to simply say "the US state of Kentucky"? Archons (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Having grown up in Cincinnati, I know that being a "Commonwealth" is a matter of great pride to many Kentuckians and it gave the "Tri-State" media a convenient alternative way to refer to Kentucky ("down in The Commonwealth today . . ..

You might as well ask Louisianians to to stop calling their primary governmental subdivisions parishes and start calling them counties. I only searched in the window to the right, but there appears to be no discussion of the difference between a commonwealth and a state in Wikipedia, so this appeared to be as good an explanation as any:

http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kycommonwealth.htm

So, in the end, it's just a synonym, but it's synonyms that make our language interesting. 72.160.118.81 (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.118.81 (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky is officially called the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It is a tribute to our heritage and history. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Cleaned up Kentucky Government; deleted contents covered under "Main Articles" to assist in making this page shorter as flagged; a climate page should be created to further limit the overall page contents. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky Climate

This should be a section of its own in order to make the overall page easier to read and navigate. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky is not in the Mid-West

The Mason Dixon line is symbolic to the Ohio River. The Ohio River is the boundry line of the Northern and Southern states. I am not even sure if Ohio and Indiana should be Midwest, because the west does not offically begin until Missouri and they are well east of that. I think Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and the others in that regin are simply Northern or Northeastern states. If California is far west and New York is far east--The midwest would no way be Ohio! Geographically, Kentucky is a Southern State, just as Virginia is. Actually, Virginia is farther north than Kentucky.

I think people confuse Kentucky's civil war status with that of her geography--It was a border state during the war because it was neutral-divided. The border status was not given to Kentucky until the war as to define it. A perfect example was that Union soldiers from Kentucky objected strongly to be called Yankees--they considered themselves "Southern Unionist" as many diaries and their own written words note.

Our governor attends the Southern Governors Confederence, he does not attend the Midwest one. Kentucky is in Southern Living magazine, not Midwest Living version. UK is in the SEC and actually started the confederence. I could go on and on...The great Southern Exposition was held in Louisville in the late 1800s. There is a monument in Louisville near the Galthouse that states-First skyscrapper in the South. So, I am not impressed when people say Kentucky is a Midwest state. Perhaps those who live in Cincinatti or this new Kentuckiana (which is crap and has ruined Louisville identity) have helped bring this Midwest thing to light for Kentucky. The personality of most Kentuckians reflect that of the south--The accent, food connections of fried chicken, gravy and biscuits, etc..etc.., songs, music, personalities, landmarks-"Niagra of the South" waterfall, The Derby with Burgoo ...The cook for Confederate John Hunt Morgan invented the dish and and Mint Julieps.

I guess to put it plan and simple--Take someone from Kentucky, who is born and has thgeir roots here and stand them against someone from Tennessee and a person from Michigan and let them all talk and see who the Kentckian fits in better with. I can tell you flat out, it would be Tennessee. I know it would be for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is clear on this matter. It says it is essentially a Southern state, but doesn't disregard the idea that sometimes Kentucky is regarded as Midwestern, at least in some areas of the state. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the sources are against it being in the Midwest. Here are some books that define the Midwest: [1] [2], [3]. Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that prevailing sources say Kentucky is a Southern state. But the counterargument of a minority of sources cannot be ignored. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure it can, per WP:UNDUE. I cannot read what "North American Midwest: A Regional Geography" says, and "Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century" say it included some Kentucky cities along the Ohio for purposes of comparing the Midwest to the rest of the "Manufacturing Belt" that this one author, in a primary source, defines for his purposes. Therefore I am going to remove this source from the already weak support for the sentence as a gross misuse of a source. Abductive (reasoning) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not undue at all. Kentucky does indeed have midwestern aspects and this is why it's sometimes considered midwestern. If one cannot absorb a particular resource, that doesn't mean it should be removed. Also, let us beware of POV pushing. Nobody is saying that Kentucky is a midwestern state. It is indeed southern, but only sometimes thought of as midwestern. If you think it's just southern, that's fine, but we have to write articles based on facts, not feelings. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source does not say "Kentucky is a midwestern state" or "Kentucky is sometimes considered to be a Midwestern state". It says that for statistical purposes, some Kentucky cities were included with the midwestern states for the purposes of a study on manufacturing. I will again remove this source, since it's inclusion is POV pushing, and an abuse of the source. Please do not continue with your WP:OWNership of this article. Two people at least have noted that Kentucky does not seem to be a Midwestern state, and you would be advised to find sources that actually say it, not that require WP:SYNTHESIS to uphold your position. Do you have the text of the claim from the other source? Could you please reproduce it here? Abductive (reasoning) 04:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Google searching for "kentucky is a midwest state" or "kentucky is a midwestern state" gets only this talk page, a couple of blogs where people scoff at the idea, and urban dictionary. Searching for "kentucky is in the midwest" gets a joke about the New Madrid fault moving it into the Midwest, and a half dozen more blogs, again scoffing at the notion. Searching by "kentucky in the midwest" gets about 60 instances of the term, mostly to do with sporting teams playing games in the midwest, or KU being in the midwest basketball regionals. Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering and accusations don't change facts. I am certain there are other sources which back up the point of midwestern aspects, and they merely need to be located; Google searching is not a complete method for location of Wikipedia references (you have heard of books, right?). Again, my position, commensurate with the article and with fact, is that Kentucky is a Southern state. I don't own this article, but the text is longstanding and accurate. Nothing is saying that Kentucky is a midwestern state outright. But if there's any way to rewrite the text to clarify this, I'm happy to see it updated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just made some edits which I believe should settle the facts more clearly. It now reads "Kentucky is a Southern state" so nothing is left to misunderstanding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are in the minority; no other editor says this. No source says this. Kentucky is not in the Midwest. Abductive (reasoning) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All your wikilawyering and accusations are tantamount to an edit war that only you have begun. There is no ownership issue here, as the fact that you like to keep removing is proven by the reference, as is much of the content in this article, most of which I didn't write. If this activity doesn't cease, we will have to look into Wikipedia mechanisms for resolving this matter. Again, just because you don't want to believe a fact, doesn't mean you are entitled to remove it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The West begins with Kansas--not Missouri. 98th meridian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.187.178 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time Kentucky was in what Americans called the "West". Henry Clay, for example, was a major "western" politican, and is still remembered as such. After the nation expanded west of the Mississippi River the old "West" morphed into the "Middle West". The process of the old West becoming the Middle West happened slowly, between about 1850 and 1900. During the 20th century the term "Middle West" morphed into the shorter "Midwest". Here's a source from 1916 that uses the term Middle West and explicitly includes Kentucky, with a map showing as much, even: Studies in Economic Geography, by Charles Redway Dryer, published by the American Geographical Society, 1916. Pfly (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think a source that is almost a century old is relevant here, any more than using one that is two hundred years old would justify classifying Kentucky as "western". If the source that Stevie has provided makes the Midwest claim, so be it. I don't have access to that one, but 1955 seems recent enough, I guess, to get the modern meaning of the "Midwest" designation. Stevie, would you please post the quote or whatever from your source so we know exactly what it says? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting this source be used in this article, just offering another term, Middle West, to think about. And that the "Midwest" is not as old a term as the (old) "West", which Kentucky was definitely once considered. Of course Kentucky has always been in the South, being originally the western part of Virginia. In the past there was nothing wrong with calling Kentucky both a southern and a western state. As in the past, today there is nothing preventing a state from being described with more than one regional term. My post above was intended to show how the concept of the Midwest came form earlier concepts which did include Kentucky. I will try to find the time to dig up more recent sources. Pfly (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, and I now see where you are coming from. I'd just like to get a definitive source and put this thing to rest. I'm not wild about the Midwest designation, but if the sources support it, so be it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Another idea is to put the Midwest idea in the Geography section instead of the lead, since it is such a minor point. It could also be reworded or expanded slightly to describe how the state has some degree of connection to the Midwest, historically, economically, etc. It shouldn't be controversial to say Kentucky is more closely linked to the Midwest. Saying Kentucky is Midwestern is guaranteed to irritate some people, and is not something usually heard anyway. Pfly (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If I go to the library, and the 1955 source does not say Kentucky is in the Midwest, then the statement is 100% out. It should be out even if that one source makes the claim, since no other sources say it. None. Saying I am the only person to complain is patently false; at regular intervals, IPs and other editors happen by the article, take out the ridiculous claim, only to be reverted by the article owner. Abductive (reasoning) 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hrm, there's no way to know how many sources say the Midwest includes Kentucky. I would think few do. But it took me all of 30 seconds on Google to find an example: Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary, 11th edition, 2003; entry:

• Midwest or Middle West region N cen U.S. including area around Great Lakes & in upper Mississippi River valley from Ohio — sometimes considered to include Ky. on the E to N.Dak., S.Dak., Nebr., & Kans. on the W.

My quick search turned up a couple other books that placed Kentucky in the "Middle West", but dated to the 1940s and 1920s. I know you are not the only person who has complained about this topic. It's come up now and then on various pages. Some people feel very strongly about it, some write very heated and angry rants. And it's not just Kentucky's regional status that people seem to regularly get bothered by. There are similar patterns of various people posting complaints (often ranging into angry rants) relatively frequently about Virginia and Maryland being placed in a region other than the South; Texas about being in the South, West, or Southwest; Arkansas being or not being in the Deep South; and so on. Regionalism is a topic I find fascinating, but it is difficult to work with in Wikipedia because so many people seem to feel so strongly about whether their state or city is or isn't part of some particular region. Pfly (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the source in the article is not "my" source. It is a source added at some point by another editor in good faith (I think) to back up the statement. And as you just found, there are other sources. I have always been open to a reasonable compromise on this matter, and I absolutely do not own this article (note that Abductive has never proved that position; it's a mere accusation). Anyway, I agree that this aspect of Kentucky is infrequently mentioned in sources, perhaps enough to move off to a section and taking it out of the lead. I am indeed open to this. Make it so if we can get a consensus on this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for mis-stating the person who added the source. Since you've been the most vocal defender of this point remaining in the article, I unfairly assumed you added the source. The point was that I wanted to see the exact text, but if you didn't add this source, you may not have it. If you do, I'd still like to see it.

Anyway, I also think moving this language to the Geography section is a good idea. Maybe we'll find ourselves expending less time on this issue in the future that way. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is out of the lead, the knee-jerk reactions (like mine) will stop. Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just stop doing knee-jerk reactions? That would help too. We're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia here, and we need to stay dispassionate about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have a consensus. Who would like to make the changes? I'm afraid I'm too busy with my business to attend to it at this time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes to reflect the consensus and added the Merriam Webster source. I've also removed the word "infrequent" because this is nothing but the continuing blatant POV of a group of editors who for the better part of 2 years have dismissed and ignored any and every source that classifies Kentucky as anything other than Southern. We have the Merriam-Webster dictionary proclaiming, in plain English, that the Midwest is "...sometimes considered to include Kentucky." Plain and simple. --Gator87 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Gator, I'll be frank. I think what you just did was in bad faith. The consensus was to move the discussion of Midwestern aspects to the Geography section. Kentucky is a Southern state and that needs to go into the lead. Do I like that this is the prevailing view? No. But it's the overwhelming fact based on the vast majority of texts on the matter. Discussion of Kentucky as Midwestern is indeed infrequent and not any POV. It's just a fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Per apparent consensus here, I moved the mention of the Midwest out of the lead and into the Geography section. Because the Midwest is mentioned right at the start of the Geography section, I placed the text before that, at the very top. I also moved the mention of the Upland South, thinking it best to leave the lead plain and simple. I mainly copied the existing text, but added the word "also" in an attempt to indicate that regions like the South and Midwest need not be mutually exclusive. Also mentioned Appalachia. Pfly (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky is definitely not in the Midwest...even southern Indiana seems more Southern than Midwestern (despite having been part of the Union)...and Indianapolis seems much like a Southern city which has been lifted up and dropped into the Midwestern snowbelt just for fun...and by the time you cross the river into Louisville, no question but that you have entered the Southland..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.159.162 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky's center

Does anyone know where the center on Kentucky is ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.66.165 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluegrass not a native grass

Bluegrass is not native to Kentucky. It's a European grass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.88.8 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the first I have ever heard of that; even in retail stores it is sold as Kentucky Bluegrass. Is this fact or something you heard? For it not to be native to Kentucky, that would mean Europeans would have imported and planted it which I personally find hard to believe. What is your source for this statement? --PaulO (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)