Talk:My Old Kentucky Home/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktaylor35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

WRONG: "...sometime between 1921 and 1930"

RIGHT: In 1924, Foster's song became a tradition at Derby. The University of Louisville began, and has played, "My Old Kentucky Home" at Derby almost every year since 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.210.110 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why there isn't a reference to the song's original title "Poor Uncle Tom, Good Night" (as well as the lyrics to that song). The idea of the song being inspired by a visit to the Federal Hill Mansion isn't proven, it's more likely an urban legend or folk tale of sorts, however there is actual proof that he was at least originally inspired by Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Definitely think that needs to be adressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.68.172 (talk • contribs) 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Weep No More...

Is there any proof that UK fans consider if a breach of etiquette to sing anything preceding "Weep no more..."? I have never heard this is my life and I have heard many crowds sing the opening lines of the song.

Lnkinprk777 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard that. I attended UK in the 70's and we sang the whole thing. --rogerd (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All the Political Correctness is Amusing

"the darkies are gay" has been changed to "the people are gay." The article should address whether there has been any controversy caused by characterizing Kentuckians in that way, in light of the current connotation of the word "gay" in our society.

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the lyrics should be changed to "The African-Americans are homosexual"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe he is suggesting that the lyric may need to change to "the people are merry", but that doesn't rhyme with "day", so it may need to be "the people pound hay". Flight Risk (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised lyrics

The article mentions (with a reference) that the words were changed by the General Assembly in 1986. However, I attended the University of Kentucky in the mid 1970's and the song was played at football and basketball games with the "people are gay" lyrics printed in the program, so think it goes back somewhat further than 1986. --rogerd (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Audio

I see that the audio that I recently inserted was removed. I inserted it without considering which version of lyrics it used. So, I'll look at that question later, and perhaps upload a different version. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted the 1853 lyrics. It took me awhile to format it so that it looks okay on both desktop and smartphone, but I think it's okay now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be listified

Adding various, arguably trivial lists to the article isn't just about my "opinion". It's based on a few concepts: 1) this isn't a 'list' article; 2) discussion of the song's impact (or any discussion in an article) is usually best expressed by prose, not lists; 3) much of the content in the recently added lists is indeed trivial, i.e., not notable. (adding every possible connection to/from this song isn't what an encyclopedia article is for). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that labeling this content as "trivial" is subjective. While this list could be written in prose, its arrangement was designed to allow viewers to make a factual and relatively fast understanding of how the song "My Old Kentucky Home" has come to effect and be effected by pop culture over the past 150 years. This song is more than just a stale song written 150 years ago since it's meaning, lyrics, and influence have changed over the past 150 years because the people and films that have presented and altered from the time of its creation to modern times. I believe this to be important information and will continue to press for its inclusion in this article because to leave it out based on thoughts about it being "trivial" seems to be a road that leads to a subjective and (this is a term I HATE to use) elitist tendencies towards what is good content and what isn't. I believe this information should be reviewed and if you have any suggestions, I'm happy to work with you on its inclusion. Firthpond1700 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Firthpond1700: First, if we are to work on this in good faith, the content should be excluded until we work out what should be included. You have basically added it all back based on your opinion that it's not trivial and that you think it's important to include all of the items in all of these lists. In an encyclopedia, we include what is notable based on reliable sources indicating such, not our personal opinions.
Second, this is not a listicle, it is an article. An article should primarily be prose. And encyclopedic prose focuses on highlighting the notable things that can be backed up using reliable sources. Are all entries in the list of cover versions, spin-off versions and film appearances notable? Because if they aren't, I'm going to have to ask for reliable source citations for each and every one of them. Instead, you could reduce these lists to a short discussion that the song has been covered by many artists (with a discussion of particularly notable covers, if any). Same for spin-offs. For film inclusions, which of the films in the list are notable enough to discuss with regard to the song's inclusion? Probably very few. These lists need to be changed to prose, with proper weight given to what's truly notable. Most of it is trivia in encyclopedic terms, 'trivia' meaning most of the list content doesn't deserve the weight you are awarding it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman and Firthpond1700: Might I propose a compromise? I think Stevie is right that the main article is probably not the place for such an extensive list. However, I think Firthpond is right that the list potentially meets our notability requirements. What if we moved the list to Draft:List of renditions of My Old Kentucky Home – I'm sure there's a better title, but this is just off the top of my head – and see if a viable list article can be created? If the article withstands any challenges at WP:AFD, then we can link it to the main article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As long as any discussion of these things is kept as prose in this article (or if a list article is done, a "See also"), I'm fine with it. However, I am unaware of any precedent for this kind of list. I'm not opposed to doing this, but whenever you strike out on something new, it carries some risk of being rejected. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I will attempt a prose version. It will take significant work to verbally tie this all together, but I'm willing if it means that this content can be included. It will also take time, but I hope to have it completed within weeks. It may be that such a separate list article could be useful if I need to reference the amount of songs that have taken inspiration from the original "My Old Kentucky Home, Good-Night!" piece. Firthpond1700 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

With a month and a half gone by with no improvements, and the article looking bad because of the inclusion of these lists, I have removed them again. That doesn't mean a separate list article can't be created under guidelines-acceptable circumstances, of course. If this material is restored (reinstating the dispute), I will start an RFC to resolve this matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be at this point the only person with a problem with lists in this article. I would suggests moving forward with your RFC seeing as how it would be more appropriate at this point for someone besides yourself to make this call. Firthpond1700 (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Firthpond1700: Well, this is disappointing. You had stated you were going to rewrite these mostly trivial lists into prose but have ended up simply reinstating the lists. I honestly don't understand your insistence on including this fluff. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After attempting your suggestion to prose several times, it made more sense to have lists. The prose could go on and on endlessly in regards to why the song was covered from one artist to the next - thereby creating an article that is not easily digested. I likewise don't understand your insistence all calling it "fluff." Obviously the song is VERY influential if that many music artists, movies, and shows have covered it and my providing a list, evidence is established that the song is, in fact, a VERY influential song. Firthpond1700 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Rendition lists

PROSIFY AND TRIM DOWN
(non-admin closure)

There is consensus to use a prose format, presumably for the sections currently named "cover artists" (already done), "adaptations" and "appearance in media" (the relevant guideline was not quoted, it is actually an entry in the MOS: WP:PROSE). There is also consensus to strictly trim the content, as per WP:SONGCOVER: each entry needs to be referenced, and non-referenced entries may be removed.

This being said, maybe the 41 (!) "citation needed" tags were a bit of overkill, borderline WP:POINTy.

TigraanClick here to contact me 12:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC is to decide what should be done with lists included in the article with the titles "Cover artists", "Spin-off versions" and "Appearance in popular film", per previous discussion. Choices are presumed to be 1) keep as is; 2) remove; 3) convert into prose, highlighting items that are individually notable; 4) moving lists to a new list article. Other approaches can be considered as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Convert into prose. Moving lists to a new list article may be reasonable as well, but per my previous discussion, I think condensing text about renditions into prose, highlighting some individually notable items, is what we normally see in articles about songs. At present, the lists appear to be mostly non-notable trivia, and that's not generally what we're supposed to include in encyclopedia articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. While I don't actually suggest leaving the completely work "as is," I would suggest lists similar to what is featured in the article of what can be determined to be more notable works by various artists in regards to covering the song, "My Old Kentucky Home." This song has been and continues to be a very influential work which has garnered covers by many notable artists, has been featured in popular film, and have inspired multiple other new songs as well. Very few songs in the American songbook have achieved such notoriety, and a digestible list may be the most effective way to communicate the importance of this song to article readers rather than the use of endless prose. Other similar songs such as "Sweet Home Alabama" have Wikipedia pages that include prose and may be an option from which to draw inspiration to alter this article's lists. Firthpond1700 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert into prose (as per guideline, somewhere), delete all unreferenced and redlink items i.e. all the rubbish. Add enough information to show the breadth and depth of importance of this song i.e. encyclopedic information. We don't need a blow by blow account of every recording and performance of the song, it is totally irrelevant to the song. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Either move to list article (to see if it can stand on its own, per my proposed compromise above) or, failing that, convert into prose. I see no need to clutter the article with a nearly interminable list of renditions. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Under no circumstances move lists to another article namespace. If it is about this song then all the information should remain together unless WP:SIZE is relevant i.e. the article is twice or more it's present size.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert into prose One section of "Legacy" or similar is sufficient to include all noteworthy (as determined by the importance given them by reliable sources) covers, appearances, etc. A separate list would not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all mentions in all sections unless they meet WP:NSONGS. Here are the precise inclusion criteria: WP:SONGCOVER: Any cover that either (1) is not discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song, or (2) does not itself meet the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS, needs to be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though a resolution has been determined and these lists should be converted to prose. I will begin work on this and convert them all as soon as possible based off similar Wikipedia entries. Any guidance would be appreciated.Firthpond1700 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that prose has been added to list items, but the point is to convert the lists themselves into prose, only highlighting significant (by reliable source coverage) other uses of the tune, in the form of several sentences. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NSONGS, try to figure out which are the most significant other uses to discuss. I would combine all three of these list sections into one prose section (e.g,, "Legacy" or "Renditions"). In "External links" or perhaps a citation, you can link to a full list of these uses, significant or not. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why this entry should be any different than the format of the articles Sweet Home Alabama, Georgia On My Mind, or at least point out parts of those articles I should emulate but have not yet? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding exactly what it is you want, here. The section you envision called "legacy" is going to be massive. A lot of the works listed, with the exception of very few listed, will be notable enough to remain as part of this entry. More such discoveries are occurring everyday - in fact, there's a great story about the covering of MOKH by Liberace that now needs to be added after discovering it last night. It's important not to underestimate the magnitude of the song My Old Kentucky Home's impact on American culture. One journalist in particular after having heard the work of Bing Crosby once said, "America, at last has a song writing tradition that consist of something besides Stephen Foster's "My Old Kentucky Home." Firthpond1700 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as the section name is concerned, there is no strict guidance -- we cover what is significant determined by reliable sources -- the content that results should make it apparent what the section's name should be. As far as content is concerned, trim it to the most significant renditions and link to lists or coverage of the rest. This is an encyclopedia, not a research paper, and therefore coverage is expected to have some brevity to it, and not be overly weighty compared to the rest of the content. However, if you think that there's a lot of content that is very necessary to include due to heavy significance, and If that content seems like it's going to end up being too massive to contain in this article, then perhaps a spin-off article can result. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
One approach you can take is writing out all the truly significant, reliably sourced content about these renditions as paragraphs, eliminating the lists, understanding that surely most of the entries won't meet this bar. Then, you can come back here and we can come to an agreement on parts of it that may not be necessary to keep and/or can be cited out (so the reader can find out details themselves) to make it the most encyclopedic. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologies for missed discussion on lists, revert accepted, but

...the accepted reversion of the list to prose material does not extend to the location and content of the Lyrics section.

When the Lyrics section was moved up earlier, a follow-on editor edited to return the list tags, and left the move of the Lyrics section, and its editing in place. This makes two editors in tacit agreement that there is nothing wrong with this change of location and content.

When a third editor arrived, there was a reversion that failed either to discuss the reversion, or to AGF. Instead, that edit summary accused this editor of an agenda.

The only agenda I bring is that the article (i) be based on sources, not editor opinions or perspectives, and (ii) that the article be about the song, beginning with the original, and only then progressing forward toward spin-offs and covers. In support of this, the Lyrics section was moved above the list-heavy sections, so a reader can see what the article is actually all about.

(Here, though I could not find one, I would place a link to the original, and any further major melody variations, and I will leave this to otehrs with greater resources.)

The possible controversial aspects of that edit, besides the change of location were:

  • adding a wikilink to the term "darkies" where it appears and is defined within wikipedia (removing the awkward, and non-wiki presentation "[→ people]"), and
  • removing the modern version that was presented, because it was nothing more than the first stanza and refrain, with the one altered word (presenting instead, the description of modern versions as a sentence, saying this).

Ironically, in returning the Lyrics section to its less prominent place, the same editor also removed the wikilinks and shortening of the modern description, returning the original (and here claiming I had an agenda).

My agenda is clear. Provide readers with a clear understanding of the song, beginning with the original version that is described in the lede, then progressing to modern manifestations.

Finally, note, my only additional edit today will be to create a Further reading section, to add an NPR story on this, that appeared end of last week, so it can be evaluated as a future source for editing.

Cheers. And please, no edit warring. Discuss matters here. I assented to the earlier list discussion. Do the same here, regarding Lyric section location and content. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Matter appears settled, thanks to Firthpond1700 for amicable resolution. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Matters for the experts to settle

The content of the Adaptations and Covers sections need to be compared, and a clear explanation given as to what is desired/expected in each section. This comment prompted by the fact that the Nappy Roots (2006) work currently appears as an entry in both sections. (?!?) Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Nappy Roots version is an adaptation that seems to fit under "adaptations," Leprof 7272 no? --Firthpond1700 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A short while ago, I removed Nappy Roots from the list of covers, but was hesitant about removing it from the adaptations until I gave it more thought. Under its technical meaning, an "adaptation" uses material taken from the source, but blends it in some fashion with new material. Nappy doesn't do that here -- he uses none of Foster's lyrics (except the title) and he doesn't use Foster's melody. I think, at best, one could say that Nappy's song was inspired by Foster's. But that's not enough to call it an "adaptation". Before removing it, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going off-wiki now, and probably will not come back for a few days. But I really am interested in hearing your thoughts on this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks with no discussion, so I've gone ahead and removed the Nappy song from the list of adaptations. At some point in the future, we might want to have a discussion about the other items in that list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I had actually not noticed your desire to start a discussion about the Nappy Roots adaptation. I will be reinstating this until we can come to a resolution about how this information is included in the article. While it may or may not fit the definition of "adaptation," which, I believe it may due to the fact that the piece is entitled with the same name, and makes nostalgic references to "home" as does Foster's, I'm thinking this is worthy of more input, and if not an adaptation, then at least mentionable somewhere in the article as a modern connection of the impact of the song itself to inspire artists even today. Firthpond1700 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. The main difficulty you are going to face in keeping that item in the article is the general prohibition against original research. Because the Nappy version most certainly does not fit the technical definition of an "adaptation" (it uses none of the original lyrics or melody), the only connection it might have with Foster's song is by way of inspiration. But without a quote from Nappy saying "Yes, my song was inspired by Foster's", you will be engaging in original research by declaring it to be so. As for the notion that the "proof" of the connection is the nostalgic reference to Kentucky, that's an extremely weak connection (and probably a bit of original research, too). I'll be happy to hear your thoughts on this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd pause at saying that it's original research to connect Nappy Roots, etc's, version of MOKH to Foster's MOKH. I don't think there's any doubt that "My Ol' Kentucky Home" is inspired by "My Old Kentucky Home." However, without a direct quote from any of the writers currently available about any further connection beyond the title, I see your point. My question is, if it's not an "adaptation" by definition, then what is it? Perhaps a sections entitled "Inspired Works?" Some of these works are indeed adaptations, but some merely reference the original MOKH, but are nonetheless important because they show how the song has created such a widespread impact and influence though multiple decades. Firthpond1700 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got a few lines of thought that I'd like to relate ... and I hope I don't get them too scrambled up in a single post. First, I came to this article because of the RfC regarding list vs. prose. Your post suggests that you're still attached to the "lists in sections" approach, whereas I thought the consensus was to stay away from that. I was more attracted to the idea suggested by your earlier post -- that of describing a "modern connection" to Foster. Something like that would be perfect within the "Legacy" section. Foster's song was immensely popular, so much so that other songwriters found it easy to reference it in their own work. That, to me, is the real truth of the Nappy matter. "Old Kentucky Home" (the phrase itself, as distinct from the song) has become embedded in the country's collective consciousness, and it isn't surprising that other songwriters might borrow it. But when they do, they're not necessarily making a direct connection to the original song. By way of example -- remember the Doors' 1967 "Light My Fire"? That line about "lighting" someone's "fire" was re-used in a gazillion songs in the late 60s and early 70s, but I would never say that those songs were "adaptations" of the original, or "inspired by" it, or even that they were "homages" to Jim Morrison and the Doors. Instead, those other writers were just using a phrase that caught on -- nothing more. And so too (I suspect) with virtually all of the songs that currently populate the list of "adaptations". It takes a lot more than a similarity in the titles to establish a connection between two works, and that connection has not been established for any of the songs currently on the list (including Nappy's).
Lest I go on rambling, I'll go back to the idea of expanding the "Legacy" section. Part of the process of "telling the song's story" will be noting that the titular phrase has been borrowed by other songwriters over the years, even into the current day. We don't need a list for that -- we just need to select a small number of notable examples to back up the point. Nappy's song could certainly be on that short list, and could be there without us having to debate how to label it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully not heading towards listifying. Perhaps a paragraph on how it came to be a part of the "collective consciousness" is in order? There is currently no legacy section, but such a section could probably condense some content into a more encompassing section and make greater sense of what at the moment seems to be an article that jumps back and forth. I'm on board.Firthpond1700 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Adaptations

I've removed the unsourced list of dubious 'adaptations' from the article and am placing it here. The list appears to have been taken from a roster of sheet music held by the University of Louisville under the title "Songs about Kentucky". Apparently, if a song had the words "Kentucky" and "home" in the title (or, in one case, in the opening lyric), the Wikipedia editor deemed it to be an "adaptation" and added it to the article. Of course, it takes a lot more than having two words in common to cause a piece of music to be an adaptation.

A few of the items in the list were adaptations (or, at least, contained a recognizable musical quote). I've included them in the new write-up that appears in the article and have not included them below. In some other cases, I was able to either hear a recording or read the sheet music, and determined that the item is NOT an adaptation. These are indicated below by strike-through. For the others, I haven't been able to determine whether or not they are adaptations (though I suspect that most of them are not).

  • "Farewell Kentucky Home," George B. Gookins (1895)
  • "She's The Sunshine Of Her Old Kentucky Home," Harry Taylor, Howard King (1907)
  • "I'm Longing For My Old Kentucky Home," J. B. Mullen (1907)
  • "There's A Rose In Old Kentucky That's Blooming Just For Me," Ernesto Natiello, Chesney Brown (1914)
  • "You'll Always Find Alot Of Sunshine In My Old Kentucky Home," Ruby Cowan, Lew Brown (1918)
  • "My New Kentucky Home," M. Witmark & Sons (1920)
  • "Tuck Me To Sleep In My Old Kentucky Home," Words by Sam M. Lewis, Joe Young. Music by George W. Meyer (1921)
  • "My Ol' Kentucky Home," KD, Demi, Nappy Roots, Goodfella Child (2006)

NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You've crossed through Tuck Me Into Sleep in My Old Kentucky Home. I'd advise you to listen to that again. It has the exact same melody. A paragraph or statement about the song's influence in the creation of these other pieces should suffice. It's obvious that many of them are inspired by Foster's work. Firthpond1700 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Update: Some versions use the melody of Foster's composition, some don't.

For safekeeping, here's the original list for research:

Inspired Works

  • "Farewell Kentucky Home," George B. Gookins (1895)
  • "She's The Sunshine Of Her Old Kentucky Home," Harry Taylor, Howard King (1907)
  • "I'm Longing For My Old Kentucky Home," J. B. Mullen, (1907)
  • "There's A Rose In Old Kentucky That's Blooming Just For Me," Ernesto Natiello, Chesney Brown (1914)
  • "We'll Have a Jubilee In My Old Kentucky Home," Walter Donaldson, Coleman Goetz, (1915)
  • "You'll Always Find Alot Of Sunshine In My Old Kentucky Home," Ruby Cowan, Lew Brown (1918)
  • "My New Kentucky Home," M. Witmark & Sons (1920)
  • "Kentucky Home," Abe Brashen (1921)
  • "Tuck Me To Sleep In My Old Kentucky Home," Words by Sam M. Lewis, Joe Young. Music by George W. Meyer, (1921)
  • "Happy And Go Lucky In My Old Kentucky Home," Billy Murray & Ed Smalle with the Virginians (1924)
  • "My Old Kentucky Home (Turpentine & Dandelion Wine)," Randy Newman (1967)
  • "My Kentucky Home," KD, Demi, Goodfella Child (2005)
  • "My Old Kentucky Home," Nappy Roots (2006)

Appearance in Film

Cover Artists

Firthpond1700 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In other media

I've moved the radio, television and concert performances from the Cover section to the Other Media section. Frankly, none of this should appear in the article, including the unsourced listing of films. Editors who think this information is encyclopedic might want to start new list articles, such as List of televised performances of My Old Kentucky Home, or List of radio performances of My Old Kentucky Home, or List of films that used My Old Kentucky Home somewhere in the film, even if only briefly. But in the article here, these indiscriminate collections of examples serve only to reduce the quality of the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These will be made pertinent to the article when they are researched and included appropriately. At the present, they are serving as place markers it appears. Firthpond1700 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Old Kentucky Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Format of lyrics

It's been commented that the lyrics should be pinned to the top of the article, however, it appears that typical formatting in Wikipedia articles in regards to songs and especially state songs, find the lyrics at the bottom of the article. None appear to be at the top as is edited in this article.

Instances of the above include:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_on_the_Range (multiple versions also displayed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_(state_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_songs_of_Arizona (multiple versions also displayed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland,_My_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Delaware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Folks_at_Home https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_We_Have_Idaho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_(state_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Hail_to_Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail!_Minnesota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Waltz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_New_Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Fair_New_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_North_State_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Hymn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Ohio (multiple versions also displayed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon,_My_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_(state_song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas,_Our_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah,_This_Is_the_Place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_My_Home

Firthpond1700 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to State Song material

FirthPond, your first edit summary indicated that you would explain your reversions of my work here on this Talk page. You didn't do that, so I'll start the discussion.

Several of your reversions cause me to question your editorial judgment. I'll list them here, as follows:

  1. I cited the details of the 1986 Kentucky law to a PDF document on the web site of Kentucky's Legislative Research Commission, the governmental body that is responsible for disseminating information on Kentucky law to the public. You simply cannot find a more authoritative on-line source for this information. And yet, you revert this in favor of netstate.com, a hobbyist web site whose Kentucky page is partly sourced to a book intended for children. This preference for a non-authoritative source instead of an authoritative one is bizarre.
  2. You assert that Kentucky's "official" version comprises all three of Foster's verses. You further assert that this statement has been cited to a source. But those assertions are false -- unlike the laws of some other states, Kentucky's state-song law does not include any presentation of the lyric. There is nothing in the law that specifies that an "official" rendition of the song includes all three verses. You are insisting on including an unsourced statement that is demonstrably false.
  3. You also restored the statement that the modified lyrics are used at private functions and, here too, you assert that this statement has been cited to a source. But its use at private functions is irrelevant to a footnote that discusses the state law (unless you are implying that the state law extends its force to private uses, which it explicitly does not). And, of course, any source that documents the song's lyrics for official state purposes does not provide any sourcing for lyrics that are used at non-state functions. So, here too, you have declared that sourcing has been provided for the statement when, in fact, it has not.
  4. I see no plausible reason for removing the cite to the interview of Hines that was conducted by the University of Kentucky's Oral History Project. That interview includes a discussion of Hines' role in the 1986 modification of the lyrics (i.e., "darkies" changed to "people") and, perhaps more importantly, his reasons for doing it. Yet you removed not only the cite, but also the description of Hines being (at the time) the sole black representative in the General Assembly. This is highly relevant to the discussion, because it was precisely the racial connotations of the original lyric that caused Hines to take action. And yet, here too, you removed this information without benefit of any prior discussion.
  5. You restored the weakly-sourced statement that the Kentucky legislature's removal of the word "darkies" from the lyrics resulted in some "critical response". If true, this would be a matter for substantive discussion in the State Song section. But where is the sourcing for this controversial statement? Are we being cited to op-ed or similar pieces in major newspapers published at the time the 1986 bill was pending? Are we being cited to papers in academic journals or other works that address the history or the sociology of race relations in the United States? No, we are not. We are being cited to a single sentence spoken in a podcast some 28 years(!) after Kentucky passed its law. And that podcast, Studio 360, is one that deals with the arts and popular culture. This simply is not a strong enough source for this controversial topic. Here, again, you show questionable editorial judgment.

I could go on with less substantive, but still questionable, decisions (such as why you insist on using a blue-linked "expurgate", when that link merely tells the reader that, in some contexts, that word means "replace"). But I see from higher up on this Talk page that you are prone to edit warring over changes to your work, so I'll ask for the opinions of other editors who have participated in this article or in its discussion (other than the recent RfC).

@Acdixon, Anythingyouwant, Leprof 7272, and Stevietheman: The version of the article as it existed after I created the State Song section is here. The version that existed after FirthPond made reversions is here. I would greatly appreciate hearing your opinions as to which version is more appropriate for the article. If your answer is "somewhere in between", that's fine -- I'll be happy to discuss any questions you have about my work. For the record, FirthPond's reversion also included a change in placement for the Lyrics section. I have no objection to that particular change, and am asking only for opinions on the State Song material. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Correction made by NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that two sections were completely removed without any discussion here as well. However, the new placement of the Lyrics section is reasonable. As for the material you're discussing, I agree with your general premise that stronger sources should hold sway but that you two editors should work out how the material should be presented as you both are more familiar with it than others, apparently. I personally don't have the time to invest in absorbing it right now. But I do want to understand why the "Modern impact" and "Recording history" sections were removed. For now, I have restored this material. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
In general, I am a WikiDragon, so I appreciate editing by making lots of big, sweeping changes at once, as Firthpond has done. That said, I usually do so on articles about long-dead politicians that very few people care about in the first place. On higher-visibility or higher-controversy articles – both apply here – I find it better to discuss individual concerns one at a time. Otherwise, the conversation gets messy and very little gets resolved. Also, providing specific diffs helps, rather than discussing the general nature of the edits. I would encourage you to break these issues into separate discussions where they can be managed and resolved easier.
All that said, I will absolutely confirm your contention in point 1 regarding the LRC. This would be the most appropriate source, I think. I would also mention with regard to point 2 that I have never seen anything saying that the official state song version includes any particular number of verses, although my not being familiar with it is not authoritative either way, obviously. If the issues are broken down individually, I might be able to help in various places, since I do have access to the archives of the Lexington Herald-Leader going back to at least 1986, which is a time period of import to this discussion. I suspect I might be able to resolve some individual issues with third-party, reliable sourcing using the LHL. However, like Stevie, I don't have the time to commit to a wholesale review of the entire article. Bite-sized discussion is best, imo. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Acdixon, Anythingyouwant, Leprof 7272, and Stevietheman: Hello everyone. First of all, I want to express how glad I am to see the interest in this article that everyone has. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding this song, its origins, the life of Foster, how Foster interpreted his surroundings to write the song, how other people of the era felt about it, its original context, how it's evolved due to being culturally impacted in various ways, etc. I think there is a responsibility here to ensure that information is presented in a very subjective way that allows for the reader to determine for themselves how to interpret this song, which like any art piece, is up the the viewer (or listener) to decide. All art, good art anyways, informs the view and is informed by the viewer.

That said, like everyone else, I want to make 100% sure that the research done here isn't a quick jump to sources that may claim incorrect information. There are many claims in regards to this song, few of which have turned out to be true. It's likely obvious I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I do my best and sometime information I save - such as an explantation for my changes to this article - don't work out the way I hope. Please excuse my messiness until I can gain a better understanding of making proper edits. Mr. NewYorkActuary, I do hope you'll see that my edits are not malicious, I'm certainly attempting to cooperate with you as I've demonstrated. You are very impassioned about your edits, and that's great. I see you also have a history of edit issues, so let's agree to be better Wikipedians and move forward.

1) The reason your KRS source isn't the best source for this is because the KRS code was altered by HB477. I added the HB477 citation into the article many edits ago, but I believe it was swept during one of your major edits. It is correct to say that the official version has all three verses.

I couldn't get that to become a link citation on wikipedia, which is why I didn't use it as a source. If someone can figure out how to do that, please help. That was in my edit explantation post - or rather - if it had worked it would have been.

2) Essentially, this is the same questions/answer as number 1.

3) You can take this out if you like. It's simply a remnant of the earlier version.

4) The removal of this citation was likely the result of removing that sentence and replacing it with the former. It was not an intended removal. However, Carl Hines was not the only African-American legislator that year. Senator Georgia Powers was in office during that time.

5) I have no problem with removing that sentence.

Expurgate wasn't my idea. It was another editors that I too brought into question, but that editor (who you've listed in your ping) could probably better explain that choice of word. I simply think their edit was a good idea.

Not that it was asked of me, but I don't see a reason there should be a state song section. It should just be a part of the narrative in the "public sentiment" as it was before. There just isn't enough content on the subject to warrant its own section when it could be slipped into "public sentiment" again. Firthpond1700 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your first two paragraphs make me very nervous, @Firthpond1700:. I see a lot of edit wars start with "the sources are wrong". Wikipedia is here to report what is verifiable, not what is trueTM. If equally reliable sources give conflicting information, then we should note the disagreement. If the sources say one thing, and an editor who's really passionate about the subject says another, then adding something different from what the sources say because it is "rightTM" is original research. Also, Wikipedia has no responsibility to present the subject in a way that allows readers to interpret art. We report what reliable sources say, period. If the reader wants to appreciate the song as art, they need to enroll in a class at their local community college. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for the discussion.
FirthPond, you are quite correct in observing that Hines was not the only African-American in the Kentucky Assembly at the time. When he described himself as "the only one there" in his interview, he was talking about the House of Representatives, not the entire assembly. Thank you for catching my error -- I'll be sure to correct it when I restore the statement. As for the HB477 matter, I am reasonably certain that I did not remove any such reference in my edits. If you can present me with diffs that show my memory to be wrong, you'll have my apologies. But either way, it's good that you mentioned it in your post, because it gave me enough of a clue to track down the source of the confusion about the law. In February 2005, state representative Reginald Meeks did indeed introduce a House Bill 477 and it did indeed provide for what you say it provided for (i.e., three verses all set forth in the law itself). However, after being introduced it was referred to a legislative committee on tourism, which is where it died. It never did become law. The Kentucky Legislative Research Commission has an entry for the bill, at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/RECORD/05RS/HB477.htm . One thing that puzzles me about Meeks' bill is the question of what he intended to accomplish with it (because the 1986 act had already provided for the substitution of the most offensive word). So, was Meeks proposing even more changes to the lyrics? Firthpond, why not take a look at the bill and see what, if anything, Meeks was trying to change. If he was proposing other substantive changes, we might have the basis for another paragraph in the State Song section.
Acdixon, I'd like to take you up on your offer of newspaper research. Regarding the episode of having the word "darkies" sung in the Assembly, Hines mentioned in his interview that he had spoken afterwards with Bob Johnson of the Courier-Ledger, who then wrote a piece about the episode for his paper. I recognize that the Courier-Ledger is not the paper that you mentioned in your post, but perhaps you have access to this one, as well. The article appeared on March 12, 1986 (at page 18). I'm specifically looking for the identity of the people who sang the song -- one source identifies them as Japanese students, the others that I've seen are not so specific, saying only that they were "visitors". I imagine that a newspaper article would give a precise description. On a less specific note, I'm curious whether the Kentucky papers had anything to say about the Meeks bill in February 2005. Maybe not, but then again it might have been discussed either in their editorials or in their political coverage. In both cases, I'm not looking to impose any deadline on you -- feel free to look into this at your convenience.
Thanks again to all of you for the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: OK, just did a quick search and wasn't able to find anything about Meeks' 2005 bill in the archives I have access to. He is still an active legislator in Louisville. I wonder if he would respond to an inquiry by email. I realize any primary information obtained that way wouldn't be usable, but he might be able to point you to some relevant coverage.
I had marginally better luck with the 1986 article you mention. For clarity, it appeared in The Courier-Journal, not the Courier-Ledger, which doesn't appear to be the title of any newspaper in Kentucky that I could find. I did locate the article using my new Newspapers.com account (thanks, Wikpedia Library!) Unfortunately, the Courier-Journal archives are apparently among the hardest to get access to in the western hemisphere; the article exists in a section of Newspapers.com called "Publisher Extra" which does not come with the complimentary Wikipedia account. It can be yours for the cool price of $139 annually. Fortunately, the small snippet of the article I could see from the preview does indeed say the students were Japanese; in fact, the word "Japanese" is mostly visible twice in the little thumbnail preview. If anyone has access to the Publisher Extra section of Newspapers.com, they can create a "clipping" that would allow all of us to read the full article, I think. Might be worth asking at the resource exchange, given the article's potential import on this discussion. Additionally, the Lexington Herald-Leader archives also contain mention of the event. In the March 21, 1986, issue, an article discussing the passage of Hines' resolution begins, "State Rep. Carl R. Hines Sr. of Louisville says that when he heard a Japanese youth group singing the original lyrics to "My Old Kentucky Home, Far Away," he could not take it any longer." You are now talking about the two largest newspapers in the state reporting the same thing. I think you're on solid ground with the assertion that the singers were Japanese.
I'll try to keep digging on the Meeks bill when I have more time. Hope this is at least a little bit helpful. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Regarding the Meeks bill, don't spend too much more time on it. The bill received so little legislative attention (there wasn't even a House vote on it) that I wouldn't be surprised if there was no press coverage on it whatsoever. And after making my earlier post, I thought to check Meeks' web site. Although the site's archives go back to 2009, he doesn't mention the matter at all. However strongly Meeks might have felt about the song back in 2005, he hasn't said a word about it in the past seven years. Regarding the Courier-Journal article, I must apologize for not being more clear about my question. There was never any doubt that the singers were Japanese; the remaining issue was whether they were students (as one source said) or some other type of group. I also must apologize for garbling the name of the newspaper -- my handwritten notes did say "Courier-Journal" and I haven't a clue as to why I typed "Ledger". In my own searches, I got as far as the snippet view, but perhaps different snippets than yours. The ones that I saw are here. In snippet #4, there's a partial column that gives us "escorting _____ dents", and I presume that the full language would have read "escorting the students". But there's also another snippet that partially identifies what I assume is the Toyota Motor Corp. Although it seems plausible that they were sponsoring a visit by students, there was just enough doubt in my mind that I would have liked to have seen the full article. But your cite to the Herald-Leader solves the problem -- they describe the singers as a "youth group" and I'd be just as happy with that description (actually, more happy, because it's coming from a reputable newspaper and not that hobbyist web site). I also assume that FirthPond will not object to that change of description. Might I now trouble you for a page number and article by-line? Also, does the Herald-Leader article confirm the date of the fateful singing as March 11?
Thanks again for the prompt response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops ... how about the article title, too? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I see what you were looking for now. A snippet view of another article on page 9 of the same Courier-Journal issue twice specifies "Japanese students" and mentions "the House gallery yesterday", which strongly suggests that your March 11 date is also correct. The Lexington Herald-Leader article does not give the date of the singing. The students probably were sponsored by Toyota, since the incentives package to bring the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky to Georgetown, Kentucky, was also under consideration during that legislative session.
Speaking of the LHL article, the full cite, using the {{cite news}} template, is: "Racist Term Deleted From State Song Lyrics". Lexington Herald-Leader. Associated Press. March 21, 1986. p. A11.. No author given.
Pure speculation on my part, but I'm wondering if Meeks' bill in 2005 was to codify the earlier resolution into law. The 1986 vote was just a joint legislative resolution. I'm not sure it makes any practical difference, but he may have been concerned about the symbolism of it all. Including the entire lyrics in the bill would have cleared up any confusion regarding what was meant by "contemporary version". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Acdixon I think you have mostly just rephrased exactly what I said so I'm glad we're on the same page. Although I don't think that about community colleges and art interpretation. I think in this case because the nature of the statement is: Hines was the only African-American legislator. No, neither source says that anyways. It may be true that he was the only African-American legislator in the House at that time, but not in the entire legislature. I'm not sure why he being the only African-American in the Ky House is relevant anyways to the episode since he being the only African-American legislator wasn't a factor in the decision to make the change to the song. Is saying he was "the only" to suggest that the make-up of the legislation before that time is the reason that a song change was never approached before? I feel like that would be original research. Perhaps if he were the first African-American in the KY legislature and that he achieved legislation to change the song. However he was not. The first appears to have been Charles Anderson in 1936 who appears to have never attempted to take on the song. I would instead add information on the vote itself in regards to the numbers - how many said yay/nay so that a statement about it being unanimous, or not, could be included. ::@NewYorkActuary: It's probably something that should be noted on his own Wikipedia page that he was the only African-American house member in 1986, or other years too if there were any. Thoughts? I also presently don't see anything forming from Meeks' work or documentation of such that would add much to the article. I will however contact LRC and work on finding more information on the nature of that episode to see what it was all about to find more citable information. Firthpond1700 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Firthpond1700: why did you remove the "Modern impact" and "Recording history" sections? You have removed them twice without any explanation. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: I didn't think I have. All I did was remove the contested information in agreement, I hope. I will attempt to search for the error and restore them if possible. Anyways, I did contact LRC and the entire song was changed according to the Journal of the Senate, in which Senate Resolution 114 specifies that the state song constitutes all three verses and the refrain and shows the entire song and changed lyrics. Not just the first. So it is accurate to say that "The state song is comprised of all threes verses and the chorus." I have this in a pdf document and don't have a link available. How might I cite them?

Here's the diff where you deleted these two sections. I don't see any agreement to remove these sections. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: Just repaired it. Not intentional, I believe a unclosed tag caused the error. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firthpond1700 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2016 (UTC)

State Song - Part 2

I've just added a revised version of the State Song section. A few items of note:

  1. All legislative detail has been relegated to the cited sources. Similarly, the political affiliations of the "players" have been relegated to their linked articles. In both cases, my reasoning is that the instant article is about the song, and not the Kentucky legislative process. As such, this detail is unnecessary and, indeed, distracting to the general reader.
  2. I used some, but not all, of the Herald-Leader bibliographic detail that was kindly supplied by ACDixon. I did this because the same level of detail could not be achieved for the Courier-Journal article (as discussed in yesterday's posts). So, I thought it better to conform both of them to the same basic level of detail. These cites appear in the footnote at the end of the first paragraph.
  3. A brief discussion of the Meeks bill has been added. We have all seen that at least one Wikipedia editor fervently believed that the bill had become law, which leads me to suspect that more than a few general readers might be under the same misapprehension. The brief discussion of the bill, along with the statement that it did not become law, will be helpful to such readers.
  4. As promised, I corrected the description of Hines, and so he is now identified as the sole African-American in the state's House of Representatives. Nonetheless, I fully expect that FirthPond will object to any such description of Hines, even if accurate. So, the opinions of the rest of you will be welcome. For my part, I think it is absurd to suggest that Hines' race had nothing to do with his actions. Hines himself links the two in his interview. And considering that the song itself was born of the racial politics of the United States, I see nothing improper in noting that race has continued to play a role in the song's "story", even after more than a century.

On a different matter, User:Firthpond1700: This is the second day in a row that you have made unfounded allegations against me. This time, the allegation appears in an edit summary suggesting that I had been responsible for an incorrect link regarding Bing Crosby. The article history is quite clear -- on April 13 of this year, you added the link , on June 11, I tagged it as not supporting the claims made in the text, and earlier today you corrected your link. The problem was that you cited one text, but gave a link to another. The error was yours, not mine, and I am offended that you attempt to blame me for your mistake. In an earlier post, you expressed an interest in collaboration, but false allegations will not achieve this. By the way, even with the proper link, the source still does not support the claim, because it states only that Crosby was scheduled to do a radio broadcast and says nothing about which particular songs would be sung. You might as well remove the Crosby item from the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


NewYorkActuary, I really think You should calm down a bit. It's just an article. People make mistakes.

1) It should be acknowledged that Senator Georgia Powers introduced in the senate changes to this song.

2) I will be adding that the song according to the Senate Resolution 114 and House Resolution 159 specifies that all three verses were changed now that I have that source.

3) I will find a better source for the Bing if everyone agrees that the source listed isn't the best source. There are many out there that recall the event.

4) As for Hines. That is original research. I see nothing in the interview where Hines comments or suggests that he being the only African-American in the House had anything to do with him requesting song changes.

5) I don't really understand the significance of adding Reginald Meeks attempt to change the song in this section. It wasn't successful, so it likely has no place in the article since it's non-contributing and didn't achieve anything nor did it appear to generate news coverage in regards to the song. Furthermore, the 1986 legislation specifies that all three verses comprise the song, also by showing all three altered verses with the refrain at the bottom. With this information, it wouldn't matter to even mention HB477 because both Hine's HR and Power's SR list all three verses and the chorus rendering the argument that by mentioning Meek's contribution, confusion is eliminated as to whether the song in its entirety was changed, or not. It was. Firthpond1700 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: 4, it would be synthesis to say that because he was the only African American House member, that influenced him in requesting the changes, if no reliable source says that. However, what you reverted was "at the time the only African-American member of the state's House of Representatives" -- this is a statement of fact that can be reliably sourced. One can argue that it isn't necessary to add this because the reader can read about Hines in his own article, but that, as presented, isn't synthesis or original research. I see this in articles all the time, where in the article, they note a fact about something that has some form of comparison to other facts being discussed at the same time. This would only be wrong if this statement of fact was being done to unduly re-orient the reader's view of what's being described. That's where the potential disagreement would be, based on guidelines, in my judgment. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point ::@Stevietheman: in regards to synthesis. I now have a much better understanding of that. I think you very much more clearly stated what I was attempting to convey in these comments: "this statement of fact was being done to unduly re-orient the reader's view of what's being described" and "One can argue that it isn't necessary to add this because the reader can read about Hines in his own article." Firthpond1700 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there anymore discussion on: 1) Removing "Carl Hines, at the time the only African-American member of the state's House of Representatives" due to it "unduly re-orienting the reader's view of what's being described" and instead placing it on his own Wiki page. 2) Adding Senator Georgia Power's contribution to the 1986 change. 3) Removing Meeks' unsuccessful attempt to change the song. Firthpond1700 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Meeks' attempt to change the song, if it didn't generate ANY news coverage – and apparently, it didn't – it would probably be WP:UNDUE to include it. We have no independent sources that even speak to his motivation for introducing the bill, so we're basically inviting the reader to make their own judgments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Re: 1, I'm unsure it unduly re-orients the reader's view. To me, it just deepens the reader's knowledge with an associated sourced fact. It's not making a claim that isn't true, and the association is reasonable. An example of unduly re-orienting the reader's view would be something like "so-and-so, charged with domestic violence in 1976, worked to push healthcare legislation in 2014 that sought to equalize premiums paid by men and women." Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, folks. There's been so much verbiage on so many different fronts that it's easy to lose track of the threads. Please allow me to recapitulate ... It was just nine days ago that FirthPond was telling us that Kentucky's Legislative Research Commission was an unreliable source for information about Kentucky law. His evidence? The fact that it didn't record the amendment to the statute that was made by the Meeks bill. He also stated that he had a citation for this evidence, but that he didn't know how to add it to the article. His post is here. When I presented comments on the new State Song section, Item #3 noted that if a Wikipedia editor could be so very, very wrong about the impact of the Meeks bill, there might be general readers who were also under a similar misapprehension. So, that was the reason for adding the Meeks discussion -- to provide encyclopedic value by correcting misinformation that might exist out there in the real world. ACDixon, you might well be correct about the lack of press coverage for the bill. But my purpose in adding the information was not based on press coverage, but on ensuring that readers were alerted to the current, and true, status of Kentucky law. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary, please observe WP:BITE. Let's analyze this: Not once anywhere will you find anything by me saying KRS is "unreliable." You removed the information in the article that specifies that the song consists of all three verses and the refrain. You cited KRS2.100 which does not specify how many verses comprise the song, as grounds to remove this statement. The KRS statue says, "The song, "My Old Kentucky Home," by Stephen Collins Foster, is the official state song of Kentucky." and then later commented to me that, "And yet, you revert this in favor of netstate.com, a hobbyist web site whose Kentucky page is partly sourced to a book intended for children." I reverted it back not because I favored the netstate version, but your citation of KRS2.100 did not actually conclude anything about the song having any number of verses or not, well , with the exception that it says the version written by Stephen Foster, which also would be three verses and the refrain. However, at the bottom of the KRS entry that you cited, an LRC note says, "The modern version of "My Old Kentucky Home" was adopted during the 1986 Regular Session of the General Assembly by the House of Representatives in House Resolution 159 and the Senate in Senate Resolution 114. This version substitutes the word "people" for the word "darkies." Why not then find HR159 and SR144, discover it's a better source for the statement that the state sanctioned song consists of three verses and the refrain, and use that citation instead of removing the statement? After a quick google search, I used HB477 to claim that it was all three verses, though I was wrong in using it as an example because it wasn't a law. There is no citable commonplace confusion about whether or not HB477 is "the current, and true, status of Kentucky law." that can be found. I really don't think you can cite just me as the one example of someone who thought that HB477 may be a valid law as a reason to claim that "general readers (may also fall) under a similar misapprehension." If your justification for including this unnecessary information in the article is cited solely on my misinterpretation of HB477 being a law (which I don't believe I count as a citable source on Wikipedia) with no other citation of others commonly misunderstanding HB477 for being a law, I offer this Wiki guideline: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." In fact, the title of the document on the LRC site is "BILL" and not "KRS 0.000etc." so it's quite obvious it's not a law. Changing my position after finding new information isn't a fault, it's a virtue. I'm essentially saying that you're correct in citing KRS2.100, but took it the extra step because I called Kentucky's LRC and have the resolutions which show all three verses and the refrain. That's what was in question here and the answer has been found. The song consists of three verses and the refrain according to HR159 and SR114.

What I would be more concerned with is that Georgia Powers deserves due recognition as being an African-American in the legislature alongside Hines who sponsored the senate version of the legislation. Leaving her out would be neglectful. I propose that the entry be written, of course with the necessary forthcoming citations, as:

"In 1928, "My Old Kentucky Home" was "selected and adopted" by the Kentucky state legislature as the state's official song. It has remained so, subject to one change that was made in 1986. In that year, a Japanese youth group visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song to the legislators, using the original lyrics that included the word "darkies". Carl Hines, at the time the only African-American member of the state's House of Representatives, was offended by this and subsequently introduced House Resolution 159 simultaneously with African-American Kentucky State Senator Georgia Powers' Senate Resolution 114 with both resolutions substituting the word "people" in place of "darkies" in all three verses that comprise Kentucky's state song for all official state purposes. The resolution was adopted by both chambers of the General Assembly." Firthpond1700 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You've certainly proven my point about "verbiage on many fronts". A while back, ACDixon advised us that it would be better to address issues one at a time, and that was good advice. Because both Stevie and AC have chosen to start their comments with the Meeks issue, let's stick with that one for the moment. So folks, the Meeks material -- in or out? NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I commented about Hines, not Meeks. On a positive note, we may now have a consensus on Hines, as Firthpond1700 is including the previously disputed clause in his reasonable verbiage there. As for Meeks, like ACDixon, I'm concerned that without independent coverage, it lacks weight. Also, I doubt that the stated-sourced Meeks info significantly alters information that is presented in the article. The question is whether what Meeks did is a mere footnote we can essentially ignore, or does this material seriously challenge the stated facts? The former appears to be correct. Perhaps the solution is to link to Meeks' bill in "External links" and leave it at that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Meeks bill, I'm not sure it even deserves that. It's a decade-old bill that never made it out of committee, apparently was never re-introduced, and we have no idea what his motivation was for offering it. I believe it should be omitted entirely.
Regarding Hines, I think the proffered language regarding Hines accurately reflects the sources I've seen. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly including the information in the above about Hines in order to move forward. I would like to discuss that more, honestly. Hines was on the board of the NAACP, the first person of color from Louisville's 43rd district, he oversaw the desegregation of Louisville's public schools, he is a lawyer, he was the only African-American member of the KY House in 1986. Any of these things may have had some influence on Hines's decision to pursue changing the song. But saying any of that would be original research because neither Hines, nor any other coverage says any of these things influenced him to change the song. Not once does Hines ever say anywhere that he being the "only African-American in the house" caused him to make this change to the state song. What Hines does indicate is that as an African-American he felt it led to this initiation of the change. Seems a better entry for this would be:

"In 1928, "My Old Kentucky Home" was "selected and adopted" by the Kentucky state legislature as the state's official song. It has remained so, subject to one change that was made in 1986. In that year, a Japanese youth group visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song to the legislators, using the original lyrics that included the word "darkies". African-American member of the state's House of Representatives Carl D. Hines, was offended by this and subsequently introduced House Resolution 159 simultaneously with African-American Kentucky State Senator Georgia Powers' Senate Resolution 114 with both resolutions substituting the word "people" in place of "darkies" in all three verses that comprise Kentucky's state song for all official state purposes. The resolution was adopted by both chambers of the General Assembly."

Also, I'm trying to understand why saying that he was the only African-American in the House that year is helpful in this situation to the reader when what is supposed to be disseminated to the reader is, purely, that Hines initiated the change because he was offended by the use of the word "darkies" in the state sanctioned version of the composition. Mentioning that he is "the only" is a distraction from what the entry is attempting to convey to the reader. I believe that if we want to discuss the specifics of Hines and his achievements or how fate made him the only African-American legislator in the KY House of 1986, that it should be discussed on his page if it doesn't relate to why the song was changed. The statement may also confuse the reader into thinking that Hines was the only African-American legislator in the entire Kentucky body of government, and I wonder then, if the result may be that reader is then led down a path that is critical of Kentucky voters and their choice of representation. This just appears to be an undue reorientation of the reader's view of what's being described.

As an aside, NewYorkActuary originally entered: "Carl Hines, at the time the only African-American member of the Assembly, was offended by this..." [1] which was I'm assuming directly lifted from an incorrect (Georgia Powers was in the 1986 legislation) Studio360 article that similarly states "In the 1980s, Carl Hines, the only African American in Kentucky’s General Assembly, introduced a law that..etc." In an earlier disagreement about my entry noting the critical response to Hine's change due to the loss of the anti-slavery narrative of the song as a result of removing the word cited from this same Studio360 article, NewYorkActuary said: "We are being cited to a single sentence spoken in a podcast some 28 years(!) after Kentucky passed its law. And that podcast, Studio 360, is one that deals with the arts and popular culture. This simply is not a strong enough source for this controversial topic." Firthpond1700 (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Another day ... another wall of un-indented verbiage.
Stevie and ACDixon, thanks for your comments. And to Stevie, my apologies for misconstruing your comments. Coming as they did right after AC's, I assumed that you were also speaking of Meeks. But I was mistaken and I regret the error. As noted by me earlier, my purpose in adding the Meeks material was to ensure that the reader knew that Kentucky law does not explicitly set forth the particular lyrics that comprise the state song. If you feel that my approach places to much emphasis on the Meeks bill, that's fine -- there's another way to accomplish the goal. I now propose to remove the Meeks material and, in its place, substitute the following:
Kentucky's state-song law does not set forth the particular lyrics that comprise the "official" version of the song. In early 2005, a bill was proposed that would have added such an official set of lyrics, but that bill was not enacted.
There would be a footnote at the end of the paragraph, which would give information regarding the Meeks bill. I trust this will be an acceptable compromise for the two of you. But before you answer, please be advised that FirthPond will almost certainly object to it. FirthPond continues to maintain that the law does set forth an official set of lyrics. And where once he claimed it was put there by the Meeks bill, he now asserts that it was put there by the 1986 resolutions. For my part, I think it would be unusual for Kentucky to change its statutes by mere resolution. I also find it astoundingly unusual that this could happen but still escape the notice of Kentucky's Legislative Research Commission. But then again, strange things sometimes happen. So, FirthPond, how about showing us the evidence for your claim. You said here that you had a PDF document that backed up your claim. Would you now kindly tell us where you got that document and, more to the point, where we might also take a look at it? Thanking you in advance ... NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Stevieistheman and ACDixon, the law is: KRS2.100 [2] "The song, "My Old Kentucky Home," by Stephen Collins Foster, is the official state song of Kentucky." In the notes, the law says: "The modern version of "My Old Kentucky Home" was adopted during the 1986 Regular Session of the General Assembly by the House of Representatives in House Resolution 159 and the Senate in Senate Resolution 114. This version substitutes the word "people" for the word "darkies.""
1) KRS 2.100 designates that the song by Stephen Collins Foster is the official state song. Foster's version, as shown on the Wikipedia page itself contains 3 verses and the chorus. Therefore, the state sanctioned version contains all three verses and refrain. And the law states that, furthermore:
2) KRS2.100 cites that the reader of the law should reference HR159, and SR114, which confirm that the state sanctioned song is comprised of all three verses and the chorus.
It is incorrect to say that the state sanctioned song is comprised of only the first verse and chorus.
These documents are here for your reading pleasure: [3] and [4]
NewYorkActuary, it's actually quite typical to make changes to laws with resolutions. Our nation, for instance, makes constitutional amendments and goes to war on resolutions. More on that in places such as Joint Resolution
I feel like a dead horse is being beaten with NewYorkActuary's desire to include the Meeks information. At the moment, I'm seeing two solid "no"s with direction to include no reference to Meek's unsuccessful non-contributing bill. One "no" with the idea that maybe (maybe) there should be a link and that's all. Consensus appears to be that the Meeks information should be totally removed. Surely we can at least resolve this.Firthpond1700 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the cites -- they were genuinely helpful. Thank you also for the civics lesson, and please allow me to return the kindness ... neither of the resolutions says anything about amending section 2.100 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. And so, they did not amend the statute. Each resolution simply declares that, when the song is used for any purpose by that chamber of the General Assembly, the lyrics to be sung are the ones set forth in the resolution. The resolutions carry no force of law to any other institution, not even to other public institutions (and not even to the judicial and executive branches of Kentucky government). This, then, explains the variety of lyrics that are used by various institutions, even public ones. There simply is no "official" version of the lyrics other than whatever was intended by the legislature back in 1928.
In a few minutes, I'll be removing the Meeks material from the article. That paragraph needs to be re-worked, but more substantively than I proposed earlier today. I'll report back when I have something to share. Thanks again for the cites. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
NewYorkActuary, I wonder if your citation, "by that chamber of the General Assembly" is out of context in this situation in how the state song is determined for all to observe. Let me explain my reasoning: Before this "new paragraph" is introduced, I want to verbalize now that there will be objection on my part if this paragraph attempts to claim that the state song wasn't changed for use beyond the general assembly. The House and Senate created a state song for Kentucky in 1928, therefore, they are the deciding body on what constitutes the state song. Not the executive branch, not the universities, and not any private group. Hines and Powers went to the source (the house and senate) that created the state song, and changed it. If that's not the case of your intentions with this new paragraph, my apologies in advance. I look forward to discussing the new paragraph when it is posted on the talk page. Firthpond1700 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary and Firthpond1700: Folks, this is a lot of back and forth for very little gain. The fact is, there seems to be some ambiguity over the exact legal status of the song. I doubt that the Kentucky Revised Statutes can be revised by resolution or that a legislative resolution carries the force of law, whatever that may or may not mean in this case. The notes on the copy of the law previously linked were most likely added by the LRC for the reader's information; in other words, I doubt they are part of the official statute. The facts we have are these:
  • The law on the books simply says that the song by Foster is the state song.
  • The 1986 legislative resolutions expressed the sense of the legislature that the "modern" lyrics should be used.
These are the facts we should report, and nothing else. We should not attempt to make the article reflect the legal status of the song one way or another, because that status is unclear. We also should not mention the Meeks bill, even without his name. It generated no press coverage, died in committee, and was never reintroduced. We are speculating as to its intended purpose based on the apparent content of the bill, but we don't have a record of Meeks or anyone else commenting on the purpose in reliable sources. That's coming dangerously close to (if not crossing the line into) original research. We don't have to write the article such that it goes into details that we don't necessarily have. Please try to work out a compromise that deals only in the facts we know. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, :@Acdixon: I propose the following with appropriate citations forthcoming:
"In 1928, Stephen Foster's original composition "My Old Kentucky Home" was "selected and adopted" by the Kentucky state legislature as the state's official song. In 1986, a Japanese youth group visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song to the legislators, using the original lyrics that included the word "darkies". Carl Hines, an African-American member of the state's House of Representatives, was offended by this and subsequently introduced House Resolution 159 that would substitute the word "people" in place of "darkies." African-American Senator Georgia Davis Powers simulataneously introduced a resolution commensurate with Hines' entitled Senate Resolution 114 in the Kentucky State Senate. The resolutions were adopted by both chambers." Thoughts? Firthpond1700 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This sounds pretty neutral to me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

State Song - Part 3

Hello, all. As promised, here's the revised work-up of the section. I've taken care to present only reliably-sourced facts, without presenting any subjectivity as to why those particular facts exist.

It might be helpful to preface the material with a comment. Although I came to this page because of the RfC regarding list-cruft, I stayed here because I see potential for making this into a Featured Article. Removing list-cruft is a necessary first step, but there's much more that needs to be done. One of the criteria for attaining FA status is that the article not neglect any major facts or details. The question of the song's lyrics certainly is a major "fact or detail" of the subject. Furthermore, we have here an unusual real-life situation -- an official song for which there is no universal understanding as to what exactly are the official lyrics. And so, the question that we should be asking (and discussing) is not whether the article will address this real-life phenomenon, but how best it will be addressed.

I've done minor copy editing on the initial paragraph, but have not incorporated FirthPond's proposals. For one thing, reminding the reader that the song was an original composition by Foster is superfluous here. And as for identifying Powers by race, this is inappropriate in the absence of reliable sources that link her race to her actions. I'm aware of no such sources (indeed, Powers seems to have received no contemporaneous press coverage on this matter, at all). Of course, if such sources do exist, I'll be happy to learn about them.

I look forward to your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In 1928, "My Old Kentucky Home" was "selected and adopted" by the Kentucky state legislature as the state's official song.[1] It has remained so, subject to one change that was made in 1986. In that year, a Japanese youth group visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song to the legislators, using the original lyrics that included the word "darkies". Carl Hines, at the time the only African-American member of the state's House of Representatives, was offended by this and subsequently introduced a resolution that would substitute the word "people" in place of "darkies" whenever the song was used by the House of Representatives. A similar resolution was introduced by Georgia Davis Powers in the Kentucky State Senate. Each resolution was adopted by its respective chamber.[2]

The lyrics to "My Old Kentucky Home" do not appear in Kentucky's state-song law. Over time, several versions have come into being, generally differing as to how they remove the word "darkies" from the original lyrics. The web site of the state-funded University of Kentucky (the state's largest university) follows the version used in the Kentucky General Assembly resolutions, but only with respect to the song's first verse. For the second and third verses, the web site maintains Foster's use of "darkies" and "darkey".[3] On that same web site, the lyrics (first verse and chorus only) also appear in the "History and Traditions" section. There, the lyrics differ from the General Assembly version, using the phrase "the time to be gay" in place of "the people are gay".[4] And yet another version is proffered by Kentucky's Legislative Research Commission (the service body of Kentucky's legislature).[5]

In early 2005, a bill was introduced in Kentucky's House of Representative that would have added a single set of lyrics to the state-song law. No vote was taken on the bill and, hence, it did not become law.[6]

  1. ^ When originally enacted, the provision was located at section 4618p of the Kentucky Statutes. After the re-codification of those Statutes in 1942, the provision now resides at section 2.100 of Title I, Chapter 2 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.
  2. ^ "Interview with Carl R. Hines, Sr.,". Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History. University of Kentucky Libraries: Lexington. Retrieved June 18, 2016. Discussion of the episode begins approximately 82 minutes into the interview. Also see the contemporaneous reporting that appeared in the article written by Bob Johnson in the March 12, 1986 edition of the Courier-Journal (page 18) and the Associated Press article that appeared in the March 21, 1986 edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader (page A11). Hines' resolution was House Resolution 159 (1986); Powers' resolution was Senate Resolution 114 (1986).
  3. ^ "Kentucky State Song". uky.edu. University of Kentucky. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
  4. ^ "History and Traditions". uky.edu. University of Kentucky. Retrieved July 6, 2016. In contrast, the version that appeared in a brochure in the university's admissions package does follow the General Assembly resolutions (see "Welcome. It all starts here.", part of the 2013 admissions package).
  5. ^ ""My Old Kentucky Home"". lrc.ky.gov. Legislative Research Commission (Kentucky). Retrieved July 6, 2016. This version conforms to the General Assembly resolutions in the first two verses, but uses the phrase "poor folks" in place of "people" in the third verse.
  6. ^ "2005 Regular Session - HB477". Legislative Research Commission (Kentucky). Retrieved June 23, 2016. The bill was introduced by state representative Reginald Meeks. The proposed lyrics were different than the ones that appeared in the 1986 General Assembly resolutions.


NewYorkActuary, I believe the content selected and used in the proposed paragraph makes this an unnecessarily racially controversial section. If this is to get it on the "featured page," then I don't believe it's the best course of action. I sense this because of this insistent desire to include the Meeks information and now, case in point, you're now using what you're presenting as UK's version of the lyrics from an obviously dated website that are most likely incorrect to make a point that UK's version still includes the word "darkies." There are numerous examples of lyrics on UK's site that don't present this information in this way. Your source for the University of Kentucky lyrics to MOKH seems to be carefully searched for and selected to prove your point when a wealth of links show different examples of the lyrics. [5] [6] [7] This article shouldn't skew the readers perception of what is actually taking place.
There really is no confusion as to what the official lyrics are. If you call LRC, they will tell you exactly what the lyrics are based off the resolutions and KRS2.100. Wikipedia editing, I realize, doesn't consider that, however, attempts to create confusion about this by citing what appear to be poor sources is irresponsible editing.
Reminding the reader that Foster is the composer in the above paragraph is not "superfluous," as it serves to inform the reader that the law states that the official version consists of Foster's original version, which yes, includes all three verses and the chorus, and is followed up with information stating that the lyrics were altered in 1986 via resolutions which also include changes to all three verses and the chorus.
The sentence, "The lyrics to "My Old Kentucky Home" do not appear in Kentucky's state-song law." is a manipulation of what the law suggests. What should be stated is exactly what the law states, that Stephen Foster's composition is the state song with alterations made by resolutions. Also, what is the purpose of including "state funded" and "largest University?" Like the Carl Hines "the only," those should be discussed on their own pages. This section should only deal with the state song itself.
This version serves to keep the section neutral:
"In 1928, Stephen Foster's original composition "My Old Kentucky Home" was "selected and adopted" by the Kentucky state legislature as the state's official song. In 1986, a Japanese youth group visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song to the legislators, using the original lyrics that included the word "darkies". Carl Hines, an African-American member of the state's House of Representatives, was offended by this and subsequently introduced House Resolution 159 that would substitute the word "people" in place of "darkies." African-American Senator Georgia Davis Powers simulataneously introduced a resolution commensurate with Hines' entitled Senate Resolution 114 in the Kentucky State Senate. The resolutions were adopted by both chambers."
I have one "yes" thus far on the neutral paragraph above from Acdixon. Will @Stevietheman: weigh in? Firthpond1700 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time to deal with this today. Sorry. Please work it out among yourselves. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Firthpond1700: Please remember the principle of assuming good faith, and do not speculate about NYA's motives for an alternative draft, especially when the motives ascribed are both serious and negative.
@NewYorkActuary: If your stated goal is to bring this article to featured status, then I encourage you to heed my advice, as I have been the primary author of 37 featured articles over my Wikipedia tenure. We can work on the specifics of the first paragraph, and the differences between your proposal and Firthpond's, separately, but your second paragraph would never stand up to even a good article review. Although all of the content appears to be factually true, it has not, to my knowledge, been the subject of any third-party commentary. By mentioning these facts in the absence of any notable commentary, we are giving them undue weight; that is, we are suggesting they have an importance that is not confirmed by independent, third-party sources. Yes, the versions found on UK and LRC's web sites differ slightly from the ones in Hines' and Powers' resolutions, but does that matter, and if so, why? No third party sources seem to answer these questions (or ask them, for that matter), so for us to say it does matter and speculate as to why is original research. Furthermore, the differences in versions published by UK and the LRC have no bearing on the version that is considered the official state song. The will of the Kentucky General Assembly, as expressed in statute, is the only determinant of what is considered the official state song. So even if these other versions were the subject of some third-party commentary, they would be misplaced in the section of the article designated for information about the Kentucky State Song.
Regarding your third paragraph, I have already expressed my opposition to including any information on the Meeks bill. There seems to be no support on this page for that inclusion. I encourage you to drop it unless you find new information about that subject that has not been previously mentioned in this discussion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. Thanks also for your support re: FirthPond's unfounded allegation.
There have been three events in the legislative history of Kentucky's state-song law (the 1928 enactment, the 1986 resolutions, and the 2005 bill). My proposed narrative touched on each event in this chronology and served to provide the reader with a comprehensive view of the legislative history. The entire chronology is of encyclopedic interest, even if one of the component events might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines when viewed in isolation. But despite this, I'll not contest the matter any further.
Regarding the variations in the lyrics, Kentucky presents a very unusual case -- an official song for which no one is really sure of the "official" lyrics. There's no question that the version used in the General Assembly ought to be (and is) accorded some deference, but even the Assembly's own Legislative Research Commission doesn't feel obligated to treat the Assembly's version as definitive. This real-life uncertainty deserves encyclopedic mention, even in the absence of third-party coverage of the phenomenon. I would liken the situation to that of a biography article in which it is noted that different sources give (for example) different dates of birth for the subject of the article. Alerting the reader to variations in the reported facts is a legitimate encyclopedic function, even in cases where the variations have not themselves been the subject of third-party commentary. But here too, I'll not contest the matter any further.
Thank you again for the comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Old Kentucky Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Old Kentucky Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Old_Kentucky_Home/Archive_1&oldid=1221024667"