Talk:History of Kentucky

message: I started this article because it appeared to be inevitable, and I thought that the Goebel assassination coverage was too extensive in the main Kentucky article.  Other discussion of history in the main article could be better summarized (read: reduced) as well.  Perhaps now Wikipedians will feel freer to discuss Kentucky's history more extensively, and hopefully, will fill in the wide gaps... especially history from the Reconstruction period and all of the 20th century and beyond. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the need for this article and that there are wide gaps. Kentucky was very significant to Native Americans in the United States, American History and in the Westward Expansion of the United States. It also played a very complex role in the American Civil War. Other notable events such as the Flood of 1937 need to be covered. Lot's of work to do here! CQ 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed.  Also, feel free to add todo's to the above todo list. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this article was started

message: I am thinking of adding discussion of the history of agriculture in Kentucky. Do y'all think that it should be a separate section at the bottom of this article, spread throughout this article, or in a separate article? I don't want to mess up the chronological order of this article, but I am concerned that brief statements about the development of agriculture in each section won't do justice to the subject. Lamont A Cranston 14:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know of a good way to handle this.  I think we're going to have a similar situation when covering the history of transportation in Louisville.  Alas, Rome wasn't built in a day--I'm sure we'll come up with a good approach before long. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: After thinking about this a bit, how about writing an Agriculture in Kentucky article with its own history section.  This would be a way of tying all that history together.  And thus, spreading out that history in this article won't be as much of an issue. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting question

message: The first paragraph seems to have a slanted POV in favor of the Anglo settlers. As it is written, it would appear that the treaties securing Kentucky from the Amerindian nations of the area were perfectly legitamate, when in reality all of the treaties were negotiated between the United States or the United Kingdom and the Iroquois Confederation, the latter claiming sovereignty over Kentucky but in reality having no political control nor any historical claims nor any claims by actual settlement in the region. In reality the treaties horribly disenfranchised the Cherokee and Shawnee (see the articles on said treaty for some more information). Elsewhere there are implications given that Kentucky fit the grand myth of a pristine and virgin pre-European arrival North America, which is very dangerous. I have very limited information on Kentucky history, so I would feel rather uncomfortable making major changes to the article, but the changes are necessary and someone with more information really should attempt to eliminate the POV. Israelite9191 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The abstract of http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a758369557 is a word for word copy of the section beginning "The 1867 assassination" (I think the article is the copy cause it seems two words have been deleted). // OlofE not logged in // 81.233.102.222 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say that the copying happened here so I removed the content.  On the other site, the text is an abstract of an article in a scholarly journal, so it's highly unlikely it was copied from here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio one way or the other 

message: I had posted this section here earlier, but it was deleted outright by another user, with the explanation that "history is humans":
===Before Humans===
Brachiopod fossils are plentiful in Kentucky's subsurface, since this land mass was completely submerged under water during this time period. Brachiopods were common in the warm, shallow seas that covered most of North America during the Paleozoic (~ 550-250 million years ago). Brachiopods are shellfish.Kentucky State Fossil.http://www.ereferencedesk.com/resources/state-fossil/kentucky.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology_in_Kentucky
With the peculiar institutional nature of nation-states, it seems to me, that anything that happens in the borders of the state would be fair game for "history", since history is just what happened in the past. While an emphasis would be on people, sure, it shouldn't be exclusive. Brachiopod fossils are Kentucky's state fossil, and they're everywhere, thousands, maybe millions, and therefore, I believe it should be included in the History.Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no-- you have to find that historians include this kind of material. Otherwise you are changing and in my opinion seriously distorting the history of Kentucky.  I would encourage you to write a new article entitled "the natural history of Kentucky" -- it could include a great deal of environmental history does not currently find a good place. It can include the meteorological history of Kentucky as well as all the trees and plants and birds.   Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of Kentucky History 

message: Brachiopod fossils are plentiful in Kentucky's subsurface, since this land mass was completely submerged under water during this time period. Brachiopods were common in the warm, shallow seas that covered most of North America during the Paleozoic (~ 550-250 million years ago). Brachiopods are shellfish.Kentucky State Fossil.http://www.ereferencedesk.com/resources/state-fossil/kentucky.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology_in_Kentucky
With the peculiar institutional nature of nation-states, it seems to me, that anything that happens in the borders of the state would be fair game for "history", since history is just what happened in the past. While an emphasis would be on people, sure, it shouldn't be exclusive. Brachiopod fossils are Kentucky's state fossil, and they're everywhere, thousands, maybe millions, and therefore, I believe it should be included in the History.Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no-- you have to find that historians include this kind of material. Otherwise you are changing and in my opinion seriously distorting the history of Kentucky.  I would encourage you to write a new article entitled "the natural history of Kentucky" -- it could include a great deal of environmental history does not currently find a good place. It can include the meteorological history of Kentucky as well as all the trees and plants and birds.   Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Before Humans

message: Let's just look at the definition for the word English for a moment. Sometimes one cannot see their own culture because it's normalized, and therefore, becomes invisible. We speak English. We are English speakers. That's a minor, probably moot point, but I wanted to make it anyways. Kentucky is still occupied by English-speaking people. 
For the "trolling" comment, what you're writing is 100% lies. The first colony in Kentucky, Harrod's Town, was a British settlement. It was set up by the British colonial government by British subjects. The American Revolution is declared in 1776, and therefore, one's identity in Kentucky may or may not have reflected those sentiments. John Adams said that 1/3 were for the Patriots, 1/3 for the British crown, and 1/3 were neutral. As much as I'd like to believe that all Kentuckians were Americans from the very beginning, that just simply isn't true. Being that Kentucky was the "new West", it's difficult to tell where the loyalties of some pockets of colonizers of European descent came from, but we definitely know about the founding of Harrod's Town and we know about Daniel Boone.
Daniel Boone, a loyal British soldier, was sent by the British crown, to retrieve the founders of Harrod's town, all British subjects also sent by the British crown, to fight against the native Americans, who, let's be honest, were the main enemies of all Europeans coming into Kentucky. Sure, to the French, Spanish, and British empires, the "savages" were just pawns in their imperial games, but I consider them human beings all the same.
Whether Kentucky became American, or Spanish was in doubt, even up until 1788. Look at James Wilkinson. In 1788, he tried to sway the Kentucky "Americans" to joining the Spanish empire, instead of with the 13 or 14 states of the United States, because of control of the Mississippi River. Spain controlled the Mississippi River, which the Ohio drains into, and that was a major point of contention between Kentuckians and the United States. 
1792 is when Kentucky was adopted into the United States. That's when Kentucky became an American state. At least, officially.
So where does the loyalties of the Kentuckians lie? I think to follow Daniel Boone's lead gives us greater perspective into this area. Daniel Boone, just like many of the rebels, were loyal British subjects for many years. One story I know about Daniel Boone is how he and some others, salt miners or something, was kidnapped by Blackfish, and held captive in Ohio for a spat of time. The Shawnee had the drop on Boone, and so Boone and company went along with Blackfish peacefully. Here's where loyalties get interesting. 
Blackfish called Daniel Boone his "son", and so... Boone was an adopted Shawnee? Eventually Boone escapes, and comes back to Boonesborough in Kentucky in order to get some guys, and go back, and get the rest of the captured men. 
Some other things happen, but they all get back safely, but then the men he was with started telling the others that Boone said he was a British agent, and could help the Shawnee out. Daniel Boone was court martialed over this. He eventually won the trial, because Boone said that he was just putting on a ruse to Blackfish to trick him, or something.
So... Kentucky was colonized by "British" settlers, who albeit, after 1776, became Americans. But not in 1774. It's the same reason George Washington fought as a British soldier in the French and Indian War. He wasn't an American then. He was British then. You said the "English" term wasn't used at the time, and maybe that's true. I do wonder what would be opposed to Spanish and French, and so maybe "British" was used over "English". That one I give you. But to claim that Kentucky was founded by Americans... well, Kentucky doesn't even join America until 1792, officially, and there were questions to which side Boone was on in 1778. After being court martialed, I'm sure Boone became full blown American then. Or maybe not. Who knows where one's heart truly lies. But to say in 1774... Kentucky was American, when no American even existed... well, that's just lies. So, let's get that straight.
The naming of Lexington would be another milestone in Kentucky's Americanization, and so that's another indication when the "nationality" of prominent Kentuckians became true blue Americans. Lexington would become a permanent settlement in 1779.Sarahrosemc (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, your characterization portraying Daniel Boone's name as the "loyal British soldier" character in the story, suggests that this is not going to be an easy discussion, as surely you are deeply set in your own view of history. I know it's a bit sneaky to claim those pioneers were not British when technically no one had proffered a proper Declaration of Independence to the Crown yet and all... But please do consider that the Crown had forbidden the colonists to settle there as Sycamore Shoals was not recgnised and not clear for patent because of Dragging Canoe's claim. So anyone entering Kentucky was a priori an act of defiance and rebellion, as Boone did when he got attacked by Shawnee on the wilderness trail in March 1775. 172.56.35.129 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I appreciate the discussion. You're making me either correct myself, or hone my arguments. So thank you for that. I see your point, but I disagree with it. Daniel Boone fought in the Battle of Point Pleasant in 1774, for the British, against the Shawnee. Then there's the court martial trial, and Boone wound up leaving after a year of having that trial. Since there's 200 settlers in Kentucky in 1776, the only way to see what "nationality" white Kentuckians would have been, would be to make a list, listing all of the names, and how they identified. I read more about Boone's court martial, and either he was playing some game where he was pretending to be British, since he showed his Lord Dunmore papers to Henry Hamilton in Detriot, as well as promising Henry Hamilton that he'd be able to get Boonesborough on board to fight with the British, with the reasoning being that the American colonies weren't doing enough to protect the settlers... but later on, it seems like Daniel Boone was very angry, after coming back to Boonesborough, and having seen with his own eyes, that the British were financing and giving weapons, and encouraging the Shawnee to fight the settlers, for land many of them had lived on (the Shawnee was by far the tribe that gave the most resistance to colonists... as well as murdering Daniel Boone's brother, and two of his kids, eventually, in 1782 (Israel Boone)), so it seems to lean towards Boone being an American, moreso after the court martial. Another doubt of Boone's nationality would be his wife, Rebecca, whose entire family were loyalists, and Rebecca and children left Boonesborough once Daniel was kidnapped by Blackfish. So... I'd be inclined to believe that many of the colonists were American in 1776, but in 1774, that's just isn't true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 03:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The fundamental rule for Wikipedia editors is that we summarize what the reliable sources are saying. That requires we first look at the reliable sources. Here's what they say: 1) The Kentucky Encyclopedia - Page xviii: says "the Revolutionary War (1775–81) was to have a phenomenal impact upon American expansion in the western country." 2) The Settlement of America: An Encyclopedia of Westward Expansion (2015) p 5 says: " James Harrod established Harrod's Town, America's first far western fort." 3) George Rogers Clark: "I Glory in War" (2012) - Page 40 says "The publication of Dunmore's incendiary instructions and Connolly's confession was a great propaganda coup for the American cause and a clear warning to frontier settlers of a looming danger, especially in Kentucky."  I have not found a single RS that calls Harrod's Town "British". Absent any RS, perhaps Sarahrosemc prefers to deal in speculation not based and reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Let's start very basic for Rjensen. 
The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 2, 1776, and celebrated on July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence was a document drafted by the Continental Congress declaring America's Independence as her own nation, severing the ties with Great Britain, who had established the 13 original colonies that most, if not all, Americans originated from.
Kentucky joined the United States in 1792.
George Washington, the first American President, and father of our country, used to be a British soldier. It was a skirmish between George Washington and the French forces that initiated the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1755-1763. George Washington used to be British, a loyal British soldier, for decades, before becoming an American Revolutionary. 
George Washington was a British soldier just like James Harrod and Daniel Boone were. Perhaps these facts are inconvenient with Rjensen, but they're historical facts nonetheless. 
In Constance Lindsey Skinner's “Pioneers of the Old Southwest: A Chronicle of the Dark and Bloody Ground”, it clearly explains that Lord Dunmore ordered James Harrod to establish Harrod's town in 1774. This is referenced in the main article as well. Rjensen should read the references already sourced in the main article. There's also well sourced Lord Dunmore, James Harrod, and a Harrod's Town Wikipedia page that have already been constructed that Rjensen could read and learn from. 
Rjensen asserts that James Harrod was an American before America even existed, for only just a few short months, without any evidence to back his assertion.
Even using Rjensen's resource of the Kentucky Encyclopedia (Kleber), my point can be made simply. My point is this: Since James Harrod was British the day BEFORE and the day AFTER the founding of Harrod's Town, then he was British the day OF Harrod's Town's founding. That's basic logic. 
Lord Dunmore was the Governor of Virginia from 1771 to 1775.
On May 29, 1773, Thomas Bullitt surveyed lands at present-day Louisville according to “The Kentucky State Register, for the Year 1847”, written by Shaffner, Taliaferro Preston, https://books.google.com/books?id=KYgSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=Lord+Dunmore+Harrod%27s+Town&source=bl&ots=KTB1p17gOd&sig=3TETh00HxJZUrrWXD3qZrb3rC1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zWqHVYXdLpSXoQSsw4moAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Lord%20Dunmore%20Harrod's%20Town&f=false, while serving under Lord Dunmore. 
Lord Dunmore sent out surveyors to present-day Kentucky in 1773, which shows Dunmore had interest in colonizing Kentucky before he sent James Harrod in 1774. 
In John E. Kleber's The Kentucky Encyclopedia, one can read under the “James Harrod” heading/biography, that in 1755, Harrod served as a guard at Fort Littleton for the British. Then James Harrod joined Colonel Henry Bouquet's British forces in July 1763. https://books.google.com/books?id=CcceBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR14&lpg=PR14&dq=The+Kentucky+Encyclopedia+full+text&source=bl&ots=9l2YCH0CDQ&sig=OSxUQdDMUIesFoO0GykmW4esbbE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WHKHVdfIGYr1oASM0ILYBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Harrod&f=false 
While Kleber's The Kentucky Encyclopedia doesn't explicity say that Dunmore dictated the establishment, as Constance Lindsey Skinner's “Pioneers of the Old Southwest: A Chronicle of the Dark and Bloody Ground” does, one can infer from Kleber's Kentucky Encyclopedia that Harrod was a British subject at the time.
James Harrod was a British soldier at least since 1755, according to Kleber, and Kleber also mentions that Harrod fought in the Battle of Point Pleasant under Dunmore AFTER Harrod has established his town. 
So if Harrod was British BEFORE he established Harrod's Town in 1774, and Harrod was British AFTER he established Harrod's Town, then how come Rjensen doesn't believe that Harrod wasn't British when he established Harrod's Town?
James Harrod wasn't an American before America began since that's literally impossible. 
James Harrod is a British soldier from at least 1755 to at most October 10, 1774. 
Harrod's Town was founded on June 16, 1774. 
The Battle of Point Pleasant was fought on October 10, 1774. James Harrod arrived on that day, and missed the battle. But the Treaty of Sycamore Shoals was taken to be a legal document, which he took that claim, and went back to Harrod's Town to continue establishing his settlement. 
So, again, I reiterate my point: James Harrod was British the day before and the day after Harrod's Town's founding, then he was British the day of Harrod's Town's founding. That's according to the same Kentucky Encyclopedia Rjensen references. 
Constance Lindsey Skinner's “Pioneers of the Old Southwest: A Chronicle of the Dark and Bloody Ground” explicitly states that Dunmore ordered Harrod to establish that town. 
Here's an except: 
“Two hundred thousand acres in the West—Kentucky and West Virginia—had been promised to the colonial officers and soldiers who fought in the Seven Years' War. But after making the Proclamation the British Government had delayed issuing the patents. Washington interested himself in trying to secure them; and Lord Dunmore, who also had caught the "land-fever," * prodded the British authorities but won only rebuke for his inconvenient activities. Insistent, however, Dunmore sent out parties of surveyors to fix the bounds of the soldiers' claims. James Harrod, Captain Thomas Bullitt, Hancock Taylor, and three McAfee brothers entered Kentucky, by the Ohio, under Dunmore's orders. John Floyd went in by the Kanawha as Washington's agent. A bird's-eye view of that period would disclose to us very few indeed of His Majesty's loving subjects who were paying any attention to his proclamation. Early in 1774, Harrod began the building of cabins and a fort, and planted corn on the site of Harrodsburg. Thus to him and not to Boone fell the honor of founding the first permanent white settlement in Kentucky.”
If James Harrod was an American in 1774, before America even existed, how come he fought under Lord Dunmore at the Battle of Point Pleasant?
Harrod fought for Lord Dunmore at the Battle of Point Pleasant because he was a British subject and soldier, and he was loyal to his royal Governor. After fighting for the British crown in the Battle of Point Pleasant, Harrod goes back to his fort, and remains there for many years.
Rjensen also asserted a while back that the word “English” wasn't used in the 1770s, and he didn't reference this assertion. I'm left wondering, what did the English call their language? The language I am typing now is English. Does Rjensen also dispute this?
Daniel Boone was court martialed for his lack of American loyalty in 1778/1779. Even Boone's own contemporaries questioned his loyalty to the American cause. 
While Rjensen accuses me of dabbling in speculation, it is him who dabbles in speculation. He raises no points that contradicts that Harrod's Town, also called “Old Town”, was a British settlement, paid for by the British crown, settled by loyal British subjects. 
As for Rjensen's 3 points, 
1- Rjensen references this line: “the Revolutionary War (1775–81) was to have a phenomenal impact upon American expansion in the western country.” This point doesn't even address Harrod's Town specifically at all. It just makes a general statement about American expansion westward, so I'm not sure why Rjensen even added this. I guess he inserted that to inflate his false claims that James Harrod was an American in June 1774, before America even existed. 
2- New Orleans was established long before Harrod's Town was established. The story of America, and the story of British colonial present-day America, are intricately intertwined. Just because New Orleans wasn't a British establishment, does that means it wasn't an establishment? I beg to differ. 
In American history, Jamestown is presented as the first settlement in present-day America. That settlement, too, was a British settlement. Jamestown was a British colony. Does Rjensen also dispute this?
3- Rjensen wrote “The publication of Dunmore's incendiary instructions and Connolly's confession was a great propaganda coup for the American cause and a clear warning to frontier settlers of a looming danger, especially in Kentucky.” This passage says nothing about Harrod's Town specifically, so the point of Rjensen isn't clear on this 3rd point either. 
Rjensen claims that he's read nothing that says that Harrod's Town was British. Rjensen ignores easy inferences in Kleber's “Kentucky Encyclopedia”, which he himself referenced in his 2nd point, and Rjensen also didn't even think to look at the references listed on the main page of this article.Sarahrosemc (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrod's Town, Kentucky's first settlement, was a British Settlement 

message: Substituted at 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I found this title on Google Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=aksVAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y It was published in 1912 and is therefore now in the public domain. If you republish material from the book, please be aware of the biases of people writing in 1912, and include a line such as "Some material in this archive was taken from..." Perhaps someone could set up a template to do that. You may be able to find other useful books on the history of Kentucky on Google Books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians 

message: The opening and most important sentence of the article says, The prehistory and history of Kentucky spans thousands of years,....  Wow.  That is as expansive as it is meaningless. While it is true that the earliest human occupation of Kentucky was probably within a few hundred years of the formation of the Bering land bridge ~11,000BCE, the same could be said of any state, the United States, and all of North America and the New World.  This more properly belongs to an article on New World paleontology than one on the history of Kentucky.  While it may make some sense to summarize the Native American history, including pre-Indian cultures, the documentable history of Kentucky started around the time of the Beaver Wars in the latter 17th century, when whitemen, mostly Frenchmen, first arrived to document anything. The rest is paleontology. The first pronouncement of the name Kentucke (from an Indian name for field or meadow, possibly in reference to the area as a hunting ground) was in the land grant charter made to the Virginia Company in 1609, and it pertained to lands west of the Appalachians extending to the Mississippi River (though they had only a vague idea of where the western river might be), called simply the "Kentucke territory". So Kentucke became at least an ethereal place, and that's probably where we should begin, and it coincides with the Beaver Wars. A person who comes to this article probably isn't looking for the Clovis culture or the Mound Builders. Sbalfour (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Paleontology and Archaeology are not the same thing. The opinion of someone who doesn't know the difference should be taken with a grain of salt. The history and prehistory of a place does not begin when "whitemen" arrive. Heiro 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not an article on archaeology, either. It's a matter of what do people seek, when they come here? I only say "whitemen" because it was an historical accident; they could have been black, but what matters is they gave us the first written record, when Native Americans had no written language.Sbalfour (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: That Marquette and Joliette were "in", i.e. set foot on, Kentucky, is extremely specious.  They were on the river in canoes, direly afraid of the natives, and considering Kentucky's scant border actually on the Mississippi, if they blinked, they didn't even see Kentucky, much less enter it.  It's enumerative but not meaningful to imply they took part in discovery or exploration of Kentucky; I've not read any accounts where they were explicitly credited with being the discoverers of Kentucky, i.e. see Parkman (no mention).
In contrast, Hernando de Soto entered Kentucky at what is today Ft. Campbell in May, 1541.  There's compelling evidence that he not only entered, but looked around quite a bit.  He should get at least a small paragraph, and Marquettte & Joliette, if we retain the reference (and I'd like to see a source that mentions in one sentence. "Marquette... Joliet... Kentucky), relegated to a footnote due to tangential association. 
If we're going to consider tangential contacts, there's one more possibly better than Marquette and Joliette: the Batts-Fallam expedition in West Virginia, 1671.  They traversed the Woods River, tributary of the Kanawha River, a major left tributary of the Ohio, thru VA and into WVA purportedly to Kanawha Falls.  While that river does not enter Kentucky (it meanders thru southwestern WVA), they didn't exclusively stay on the river. See "possible route" ending at the border of KY on the map in the article . We don't have an adequate description of where they actually went during the latter part of the expedition.  I'm not going to make the claim, but I wouldn't make the Marquette/Joliet claim, either.  
I have a general concern: this enumeration of names is not a good presentation, as a matter of form.
History is a narrative, and the focus ought to be on what happened and what we discovered as a result.  Obviously, person's names are strongly associated with this, but weave them into a story, so we can read the story.
Sbalfour (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: De Soto in KY is pretty WP:FRINGE . AFAIK the only person who advocates for de Soto entering or even approaching Kentucky is this guy, who is not a historian or an archaeologist. No mainstream or academic reconstructions of the de Soto route have him anywhere near Kentucky and addition of such a speculation would require some very good sourcing. Heiro 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  I'm digging here.  Not necessarily convinced.  I'd not previously heard of De Soto entering KY, and I'm from KY. Sbalfour (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll remove the Mississippian reference and move the subsection out of the Mississippian section. The section header gave the Mississippian timeframe terminating at 1750, that's why I placed the Eskippakithiki section there, to fit the chronology. I'm not so knowledgeable about Native American cultures to challenge that, but you seem to be. So I'll nudge down the timeframe, oh, about a century(?). Thanks, we strive to be accurate in every detail, when we know. Sbalfour (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Europeans in Kentucky 

message: — Assignment last updated by Raerae231 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Historical Studies

message: I didn't find any mention in the article. I did find a meh paragraph on Feuds - that's where it'd be.  In fact, a more colorful title would be Hatfield-McCoy and other feuds and include a couple of sentences on that feud. Anyone from Kentucky knows those names... they've become bigger than life, in some way embodying the independence and lawlessness of entire post-War Appalachia. In many ways analogous to the Earp-Clanton brothers feud in Tombstone in the same timeframe. Sbalfour (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sbalfour (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatfield-McCoy 

message: I've moved a mass of detail about Boone and Transylvania into the general chronology where it ought to go. The lead needs to summarize the entire history of Kentucky, and it therefore can't have many details. You get 5 paragraphs. That's tough. Maybe one for prehistory, one for discovery, settlement and statehood. One for pre-War agricultural economy.  One the Civil War and everything up to the civil rights era.  One for the modern state. Maybe that's it. I'm going to work on them. Sbalfour (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead

message: There's in general a paucity of people names in this article.  Arguably, the most famous person from Kentucky then or now, was Henry Clay. He gets a parenthetical phrase about brokering slavery compromises. One could insert a book in place of that phrase. It's an opportunity to enhance the article. Sbalfour (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Clay and other famous people

message: There's a good deal of ambiguity about where they got to, which was somewhere west of the Kanawha River. It's possible that they came within a few miles of today's boundary of the Big Sandy River.
Did they set foot in Kentucky?  Probably not, but several other near miss explorers are given big write-ups in the article, and they didn't either. But if one considers Kentucke country, which included at least everything west of the Kanawha, they most certainly visited what was then known by the familiar name.  Sbalfour (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Batts and Fallom expedition of 1671

message: I'm going to move all the float-by explorer paragraphs to Ohio River#History where they have a much better fit.  These guys have marginal to negligible impact on history of Kentucky, but may be meaningful additions to the Ohio River article.  They're simply misplaced. Sbalfour (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , That whole section (First Europeans) seems to be getting out of hand on you. It's gotten way too long and too subdivided into a sentence or two about multiple "first explorers". All of those sub sections should be whittled down and combined into one or two concise paragraphs about the first explorers, and then turned into the first subsection under the "Early European settlement" section. Heiro 20:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the sub-sub-section titles were placeholders of a kind, since we can't put "margin notes" in the article.  A number of the early explorers like James McBride (Filson's nominee for "discoverer") played bit parts, and really ought to be moved into a footnote. Thanks for your critique. Sbalfour (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Done, at least for now. Your suggestion was so fitting that it ought to have been done forthwith, so now it is. Sbalfour (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Float-by "discoverers" of Kentucky?

message: I've recently read that a French cartographer accompanied by a French military captain and entourage of soldiers and allied Native Americans, visited Kentucky's Big Bone Lick in 1729 (some sources say 1739).
Then there was fur trader Robert Smith who maintained a trading post on the Great Miami River, who visited the Lick in 1744. He was the one who originally supplied Gist with his information about northern Kentucky. Sbalfour (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: French visitors to Big Bone Lick

message: We have some info on the Abraham Woods and follow-on expeditions in WV. Just as important were the early overmountain settlements of Nolichuky etc as staging for Gist, Boone and other longhunters via the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky. 168.103.225.193 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overmountain towns