Talk:State of Kanawha

Source of name?
This stub claims the state of Kanawha was "named for the Canawese ("White Stone") Native American tribe." Permit me to doubt. I don't have any sources to cite, but the name presumably derives from an important river in the region (the Kanawha River), a practice used to name some other states. Probably the river was named after Indian inhabitants of the river valley, and the state was named after the river. --Kevin Myers 00:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to wvexp.com: Kanawha River, the source of the name of the Kanawha River is unclear. It seems most likely that the Delaware Indians named the river as the "place of the white stones". The river is very popular for whitewater rafting. According to the records of the First Constitutional Congress, the name Kanawha was taken because the Kanawha river is the most prominent river in the State. They were following the precedent formed by other states where the most prominent or important river was used to name the State. Upon revision of the artcile, I have removed the source of the river's name as well as that is even in doubt. --Bryan Graham 18:08, Nov 15, 2005 (UTC)

 Extralegal: Deleted as POV: the opposing POV holds that the Virginia Legislature meeting at Wheeling in 1861 was the sole Constitutional Government, the majority of the Richmond legislature having disqualified itself.

Kahnawá Kahnawáˀkye in Tuscarora (Iroquois) and Mingo (Iroquois) means "waterway", "kye" is augmentive suffix. "Big Waterway". --(i)H-- is the base noun. In the dialect, the "h" does not drop out the way modern speakers do so today. Arrivals from Europe trying to learn the valleys terms simply say, Ka-na-wa (short vowels). It was easier for a non-English speaking arrival here to say it with three simple universal syllable havinf soft vowels.

It is neither Hindu (India) nor Arawakan from the Carib nor South America. I've seen all kinds of goofy ideas from people you'd think had the education to research the subject for themselves, coming here and asking us. No, "le's go overseas" and ask those highly educated strangers about Ka-na-wa. It is not Algonquan of the Lenape dialects from the east coast. It is not Shawnese from Kentucky nor Ohio-Indiana Algonquan. It is our local language, here, from the Iroquois, plenty of descent still lives here all these generation. Thankyou for your kind consideration and attention Conaughy (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Miami Collection of origianl treaies and documents is a good source. The Canawese is the Canadien French before the French and Indian War called the Canawagh (Cauhnawaga-Croghan related maternal) here on the Valley. Conoy is a name that occures later not earlier for an elemnt of the Piscataway Indian Nation on the western side of the Allegheny Mountains mostly of the lower Potamac below the "Anacostan Neutralls" (another Iroquois) who Kirke (1620s) (and then Captain Fleet after 1622, enslaved at first) had all his trade before the Baltimores (1631) arrived with their trading post on Kent Island. Conoy being associated with Kanawhans is another goofy idea by educated guess workers back then. Not knowing that the Tuscarora picked them up (Conoy) as they joined the 5 Nations. Later some Conoy would be allowed to join the Ohio Delaware. But, that's how Conoy got associated with the Iroquois. Conoy were an element of Piscataway. cheers Conaughy (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed names
The article does not mention Appalachia as a proposed name for the break-away entity. Is this this because that name is of more recent origin or because it was never proposed as a name? //Big Adamsky 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Kanawha (Historic U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Kanawha that currently exists. --Champaign 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the Roman Republic (in fact, we have three) although no such republic currently exists. We should not use parenthetical disambiguators when they are unnecessary, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. You guys were right. Although some of you (not naming names) are like broken clocks which happen to be right in this case, but for all the wrong reasons! People, and bots, like you are why there are still people out there that don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information!!! and why there are many people out there who would be willing to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia but don't bother because they're afraid doing so would be a complete waste of their time!!! To the rest of you, sorry, my sincerest apologies! Champaign (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents, leave it alone. Vaoverland 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Champaign went ahead and moved this article to Kanawha (historic U.S. state), despite having received only negative responses to his proposal. Champaign did the same thing for several other articles about historical entities in the United States (see his talk page). As the Septentrionalis & Vaoverland have pointed out, there is no need to add a parenthetical disambiguator to indicate that a state no longer exists. Calling this the State of Kanawha no more implies that it still exists than World War II implies that the war is still going on. The title State of Kanawha is quite precise and unambiguous, since there has only ever been one entity called that. Kanawha (historic U.S. state) is also arguably inaccurate, since Kanawha was never a state of the U.S.—it was only admitted to the Union after the name had been changed to West Virginia. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have concerns that there are many other articles to which such logic could be applied. How do we proceed per WP: consensus, and put this pack as it should be? Vaoverland 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a request to move the page back to State of Kanawha to Requested moves — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree as discussed above. Vaoverland 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see I supported this above; I still do.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move back to State of Kanawha. The move to Kanawha (historic U.S. state) was contrary to strong consensus. Andrewa 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this not at Kanawha (U.S. state) like Georgia (U.S. state)? Is there a reason to pre disambiguate as historic?  Is there another US state of Kanawha? Vegaswikian 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Category
Perhaps we need a category for this article and also Superior (proposed U.S. state), State of Franklin, State of Deseret, State of Sequoyah, State of Lincoln, State of Jefferson and any others I've missed. Some of these already belong to Category:Proposed country subdivisions, or its subcategory Category:Secession in the United States. But I think it would be good to have those (encyclopedic) proposals that were specifically for admission of a new state to the USA in a category of their own, perhaps as well as these others.

If so, what should this new category be called? Andrewa 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. That would cover both historic and new proposals, and as it's not likely to be a big category, I think that's a plus. Andrewa 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this an accurate map of the proposed state?
http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1048000/ --NE2 11:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. You should add it.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Is it really necessary to have a former subdivision infobox for a proposed state that never existed? Elevatorrailfan (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)