![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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
Appearance in Film
Cover Artists
Firthpond1700 ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=Home_on_the_Range (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Alabama_(state_song) /info/en/?search=State_songs_of_Arizona (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Maryland,_My_Maryland /info/en/?search=Our_Delaware /info/en/?search=Old_Folks_at_Home /info/en/?search=Here_We_Have_Idaho /info/en/?search=Illinois_(state_song) /info/en/?search=All_Hail_to_Massachusetts /info/en/?search=Hail!_Minnesota /info/en/?search=Missouri_Waltz /info/en/?search=Old_New_Hampshire /info/en/?search=O_Fair_New_Mexico /info/en/?search=The_Old_North_State_(song) /info/en/?search=North_Dakota_Hymn /info/en/?search=Beautiful_Ohio (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Oregon,_My_Oregon /info/en/?search=Pennsylvania_(song) /info/en/?search=Carolina_(state_song) /info/en/?search=Texas,_Our_Texas /info/en/?search=Utah,_This_Is_the_Place /info/en/?search=Washington,_My_Home
Firthpond1700 ( talk) 20:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
@ 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)
@ 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?
@ 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)
I've just added a revised version of the State Song section. A few items of note:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
- ^ 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.
- ^ "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).
- ^ "Kentucky State Song". uky.edu. University of Kentucky. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
- ^ "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).
- ^ ""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.
- ^ "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.
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://alumniweb.uky.edu/alumni/ukalumninet/ukalumni/cool%20cats/oldkyhome.mp3When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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
Appearance in Film
Cover Artists
Firthpond1700 ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=Home_on_the_Range (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Alabama_(state_song) /info/en/?search=State_songs_of_Arizona (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Maryland,_My_Maryland /info/en/?search=Our_Delaware /info/en/?search=Old_Folks_at_Home /info/en/?search=Here_We_Have_Idaho /info/en/?search=Illinois_(state_song) /info/en/?search=All_Hail_to_Massachusetts /info/en/?search=Hail!_Minnesota /info/en/?search=Missouri_Waltz /info/en/?search=Old_New_Hampshire /info/en/?search=O_Fair_New_Mexico /info/en/?search=The_Old_North_State_(song) /info/en/?search=North_Dakota_Hymn /info/en/?search=Beautiful_Ohio (multiple versions also displayed) /info/en/?search=Oregon,_My_Oregon /info/en/?search=Pennsylvania_(song) /info/en/?search=Carolina_(state_song) /info/en/?search=Texas,_Our_Texas /info/en/?search=Utah,_This_Is_the_Place /info/en/?search=Washington,_My_Home
Firthpond1700 ( talk) 20:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
@ 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)
@ 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?
@ 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)
I've just added a revised version of the State Song section. A few items of note:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
- ^ 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.
- ^ "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).
- ^ "Kentucky State Song". uky.edu. University of Kentucky. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
- ^ "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).
- ^ ""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.
- ^ "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.
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://alumniweb.uky.edu/alumni/ukalumninet/ukalumni/cool%20cats/oldkyhome.mp3When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)