Talk:Kentucky Colonel/Archive 1

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Some of these descriptions are taken verbatim from the Order of Kentucky Colonels' Website. Great sections of this page need to be re-written, or at minimum the original website should be properly cited and credited.[1]

This sounds a lot like the British honours or peerage system (particularly life peers). I thought the US Constitution forbade such things? PeteVerdon 10:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Life peerages carry a seat in the House of Lords; being a Kentucky Colonel carries no benefit at all. The first colonels were created by the governor of Kentucky as security officers following the Civil War; his authority to do so is, I believe, based on his position as nominal head of the state Militia. I imagine that that's the currently used justification, but really since it's a purely honorary position with no benefits, there's no Constitutional barrier to handing them out like candy. Anyone (including governors) can make up any title they want and give them to anyone that they want, as long as they don't expect anyone else to pay any attention to it. --Clay Collier 08:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
And no benefits really means no benefits. I mean, not even a small mashed potatoes at KFC. Not even a discount coupon. I bet life peers get all the Nando's they can eat and then some! Ewlyahoocom 14:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Even if there were benefits, It would still not be unconstitutional. The US government often hands out various honors and benefits. The Medal of Honor not only comes with benefits, but comes with benefits for ones children - children of Medal of Honor winners are guaranteed entry to any of the US service academies (West Point etc.). - Matthew238 06:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The constitution says: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The Colonel commission is not a title of Nobility. "Col" m 07:00, 8 January 2006.

Also, the title itself "Colonel of the Commonwealth" is not granted by the United States, but by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As a member of the order myself I would provide a scan of the comission certificate to post, but it is a copyrighted image.UnseemlyWeasel 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

More insights at Titles of Nobility Amendment, and http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm. Ewlyahoocom 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The question is, what exactly counts as a title of nobility - presumably the Medal of Honor doesn't. And I think a key point is that the Colonel is awarded by a state, not the Federal Government or a Foreign Government - which would anyway only be forbiden for those holding an "Office of Profit or Trust" with the Fed's - not most regular citizens. - Matthew238 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The Constitution also deals with states, so if it were a Title of Nobility, it would be unconsitutional, however it is not. Rotovia (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonel is simply the title given to those who hold an honorary office under the Governor as his Aide-de-Camp. It has no other implication or meaning aside from that. The traditional honorific form of address, "Colonel," is generally used in lieu of "The Honorable," which is the official form of address for persons holding an office with most any state government, and is conferred with the Colonel's Commission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmesidewayswithalargemexicancactus (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removals

  • When I inserted Col. Edward R. Bradley, I removed Chevalier Thierry Geoffroy and Dr. Dennis M. Knable and their links to a website because they don't appear to provide any facts relative to their alleged decoration as a Kentucky Colonel. Please reinsert if their claim can be substantiated. Handicapper 14:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have resubmitted Dr. Sir Dennis M. Knable because his information has been verified user:dmknable —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

'Unverified'

Many of the people listed under the [unverified] mark in the page are listed at http://kycolonels.org/index.cgi?id=54

Although it isn't totally authoritative and doesn't include any date or anything, I would be inclined to give the organization's web page _some_ credence as to who has been a member. (Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan and others are on this list). How about the photograph of Crosby holding a certificate? [2]

--Matthew K (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Copyrighted material was added nearly 2 years ago in this edit of 16:55 2 October 2006 by Ambassadorglen (talk · contribs), the only edit by that user. Several paragraphs with little or no difference tothis web page were added: from the paragraph beginning "The opportunity for the Honorable Order to assist the state" to the paragraph beginning "Efforts made possible by the collective generosity". Some of the material also appears here. For the first of these links, I found a Wayback copy from October 2007: [3] and no others: [4]; this is after the Wikipedia article, but that doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia had the material first I suppose: maybe it just wasn't archived on Wayback. I didn't find any copies of the pdf link on Wayback. [5] (not sure if they archive pdfs anyway?) The material seems to have stayed in the article since then until the copyright notice was recently posted (based on spot-checking).

I notified the contributor at 12:42 1 October 2008, although the account has not been edited in nearly 2 years. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the version (October 2006) just before the above-mentioned copyrighted text was added. It also apparently has some copyrighted text, however. This web page page contains the sentences "Kentucky colonel is an honorary ... by the governor of Kentucky" and "The title ... since 1813" which are in that version of the article. I didn't find any copy of that page in Wayback, [6]. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if this is copyright infringement

I can still view the old versions via the history so putting up that dumb warning won't do squat!--75.92.155.16 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but the edits in the history can be removed, too. Don't remove the notice again, please. Esrever (klaT) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted a couple of times now anonymous users' edits that removed the copyright violation notice from this page. If one were so inclined, one might try clicking on the provided URL (this one) to verify for oneself that the article's text is lifted word-for-word from the outside website. As a f'rinstance, the "History" section is a verbatim copy-and-paste of the text on the website I've linked to. That makes it a violation of the other site's copyright, and thus it's not allowed on Wikipedia. I'd ask that no one remove the violation notice until an administrator has a chance to make a final decision on the page. Esrever (klaT) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I have restored an earlier version of the article. It contains some similarities to the site, but evidence suggests that the text here evolved naturally, which may mean that they based their earliest versions on our article. It should be sufficient to simply replace the text as I have done, but it can be deleted from history if contributors seek to put it back on top. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20071012142624/http://kycolonels.org/index.cgi?id=52. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-CFD cleanout

Moved from Category talk:Kentucky colonels

I've been through the contents of this category and removed any article that does not mention that the person has received this award. All in all, less than ½ of the articles mentioned it, which seems to further strengthen my opinion that it's non-defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful where it is mentioned in a biography sub-page though. For example Winston Churchill has a sub-article called Honours of Winston Churchill where it is included and sourced. Road Wizard (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Typically editors are not going to trawl though a subpage to search for an award. If it's not notable enough to be in the main article, it will likely be deleted often. Another reason this is probably not defining, it it's not even important enough to be in the main article. Not to re-argue the case that ended in no consensus, but this is a perfect example of why a list would be preferable and easier to use and source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally I have no interest in the CfD issue. Either the category exists or it doesn't exist, I don't care. However as long as it is here it should be appropriately populated. Removing correctly categorised articles is not particularly productive as "it will likely be" restored each time you delete it.
If you want to get rid of this category then discuss it with interested editors and take it back to CfD when you feel that you are likely to gain a consensus. Road Wizard (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not going to be me that will be repeatedly removing it—I'm suggesting it will be a common occurrence since the article mentions nothing about it, and that's a common standard to adopt when applying or removing categories. Whether it's a good approach or not is another issue, but we can't all change the world. I'm just letting you know that it's a relatively hopeless hope to ask people to trawl through subpages when deciding if a category will be deleted from an article, because they won't. It's probably going to happen again, I would bet. If you're fine with that, that's great. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Waldo

The Kentucky Post citations for the controversial nomination of a dog are no longer available. I have conducted a thorough search of publicly available sites for other citations and cannot locate one. This section now needs new citations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacini (talk • contribs)

There is a comment verifying this on the Colonels website (http://kycolonels.org/index.cgi?id=17). I don't know how to add a citation, or I would do it myself. ColonelHowie (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Famous colonels or notable is the question

I received this message on my talk page and believe it would be good to include the community of editors here in this discussion to help form clear inclusion criteria for listing in the article.

Re Colonel Richard Hunter

Mr Hunter,

I saw you edited out the addition of Richard Hunter from the Kentucky Colonel list. I'm very new with how wikipedia works, so please bear with me.

I understand the concept of the list sharing "famous" folks, but the definition of famous is subjective. Agreed, everyone knows both Colonel Sanders and Colonel Thomas (for those that dine out) but we are in a new age, people become famous rather quickly, sometimes overnight.

Rich Hunter has quite a following on Youtube, and its believed that he is the first Youtuber to be bestowed such an honor. Also, the reality TV show that he stars in, which is going into final production for the season, should be aired later this year. Assuming it's aired on the worst, most non-watched cable network (which its not) it would still make him an instant Television celebrity.

I'm looking forward to discussing this matter with you further, and thank you for your time,

J. Douglas Fisher JDouglasFisher (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of the large number of these honorary titles handed out, there is clearly a need to filter them down to the most famous & recognizable. What should those criteria be?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahya Jammeh

I don't see how it can be argued that a head of state is not famous enough for inclusion, even if of a minor African nation. I have restored Yahya Jammeh. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You're assuming that head of state = famous...it does not. Quick, without looking it up, who is in charge of Paraguay? It's okay, none of us know either...
The name was introduced as part of a Wiki promotion so I don't feel bad about removing it. Per BRD, you do not have consensus so you have been reverted. If a consensus of editors decide to include it after discussion, that is fine.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by "The name was introduced as part of a Wiki promotion." And please explain why you think that WP:BRD gives you permission to remove a longstanding entry, and when I revert your removal, you may revert my reversion, and I must gain consensus for restoring? That's not how BRD works. Yayha Jammeh was a longstanding member of the list until you removed it on May 9. I have reverted your removal, and per BRD, the burden to achieve consensus for removal is yours. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My use of BRD, is that I see you making a change and reverted you in that it lacks consensus so we should discuss. From May 9 to May 24 is sufficient time left out of the article that this is a correct use of BRD. That is how it works...but I won't edit war with you, rather, I will put it out there for other opinions from editors of this article to see whether they think this entry should or should not be included. Seeing that the State of KY gave out about 500 of these awards last year alone, I believe we need to be more restrictive on inclusions...and yes, that would mean removing lesser known entries as the list may grow. Jammeh isn't really famous unless you are from Gambia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are several people in the list who seem no more noteworthy than Jammeh. But I think the real issue where Jammeh is concerned is that it seems somewhat embarrassing (or at least controversial) to the Kentucky Colonels tradition that Jammeh apparrently somehow slipped through the selection process and received this honor. It's perhaps sort of a situation analogous to the dog that received the honorific because of some nominator's practical joke. Overall, I think that the inclusion of a list of famous Kentucky Colonels doesn't add much (or perhaps any) real value to the article – it is just excess clutter. The list does nothing to help the reader understand what a KY Colonel is, and in most cases the fact that these people are (or were) Kentucky Colonels seems to have nothing to do with their fame or identity or noteworthiness. Only a very few people are really closely associated with their identity as a Kentucky Colonel. (Incidentally, I don't know what "introduced as part of a Wiki promotion" means either.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I got the addition of his name in the list confused for another one where someone was trying to promote someone.
You bring up a good point, BarrelProof. We could discuss eliminating the list since it doesn't hold that much value to the article and we end up reverting lots of bad additions. That would be fine with me. Support removing list.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think no one really cares that any of those listed people are (or were) Kentucky Colonels, except for Harland Sanders. Most of the listed recipients probably don't even remember that they received the title. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the list of famous Colonels from the article

As previously discussed above in a conversation between myself and Berean Hunter (talk), I strongly suggest that the list of famous Colonels should be removed from this article. It is repeatedly getting vandalized with spammy entries, and the list is really meaningless. It adds nothing to the article. People who are (or were) Kentucky Colonels should only be mentioned in the article if there is some special noteworthiness about the fact that they were a Colonel. If a president of the U.S. keeps a framed copy of his KC certificate in the Oval office, that seems noteworthy. If being a colonel is a big part of someone's identity, as with Colonel Sanders, that seems noteworthy. But the mere fact of someone being a Kentucky Colonel is really not noteworthy – even if the person is a noteworthy person. As I said before, it seems highly likely that many of these people just got a certificate as a routine courtesy when they visited Kentucky at some point in their lives, and then proceeded to discard the certificate and completely forget about ever receiving it. Also, some people who have received the honorary title seem to be trying to make an excessively big deal out of the fact that they received it, and including them in the list helps them with that. Becoming a Kentucky Colonel is really not such an exceptional honor, and we should not be helping these people promote themselves. One example of such self-promotion behaviour includes Yahya Jammeh, who boasts about this "great honor" on his website. Another possible example seems to be Rajkumar (see this, for example, which tries to make a really big deal out of the title). I believe that the only reason that the Kentucky Colonels association has a list of famous colonels on their web site is to somehow try to promote themselves by associating the honor with people who were famous. Wikipedia should not become a participant in the self-promotion activities of either the recipients or the KC association. <End of rant> —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. The list is cumbersome and you have brought up several good points backing the removal. The article is about the title but doesn't need to include those who possess the title other than the most notable such as Sanders.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be much more discussion before noteworthy colonels are removed from the page. It's common practice on wikipedia pages for organizations and honors to list the names of noteworthy recipients, as long as the necessary sources are included. There's no reason that this article should be given any different treatment. BlueGold73 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That consensus held on this Talk page for a year and a half (since May 2011), so I don't think there is any indication that the list needed further discussion before being removed. The fact that other stuff like it may exist in Wikipedia (please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE) is not a good reason to include it. It seems apparent that Sarah Ferguson, Kate Middleton, and Pope John Paul II really didn't care whether they were Kentucky Colonels or not (although perhaps they tried to be polite about it when they were handed the certificate). Being a KC has not been any significant part of their identity. That would also seem to be true of Stephen Foster, who was "commissioned posthumously". Please see the prior discussions above since May 2011, and also the discussions before that time which partly led to that action. What value would including such a list add to the article? Does such a list help educate the reader about what a KC is? Does knowing that certain people were "commissioned" as KCs tell you something very meaningful about those people? Not so much, as far as I can tell. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion on this talk page hardly qualifies as consensus. It appears to be an exchange between two people. Given the lack of participants in the conversation, length of time is hardly relevant. I'm also well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. I believe they actually support inclusion, because as OSE indicates "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." In this case I was making a comparison to similar content in articles on similar topics, so in my reading of the information related to OSE, it supports the need for consistent content provided in similar types of articles. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have kept quiet here for a couple of weeks – hoping that someone else would express their thoughts on the subject. But that hasn't happened. Can you please respond to some of the questions above of 26 November? (see the three items with question marks and the remark about whether being a KC is a significant part of the identity of these people – I listed four particular examples of such people). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that additional names are being added to the list without any further response in this discussion. I hesitate to just remove the list, but I think that some justification should be provided for its inclusion. So far, the only justification provided has been that some other articles about awards include lists of people who received the honor. But as best I can tell, the KC honor is not something like a Nobel prize that is given out only rarely. It is an honor that has been given out (especially in recent history) to thousands of people. I don't see any value in trying to list them. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly why the list is valuable. Many people, including Kentucky natives, believe that the honor is reserved for those with strong connections to the state of Kentucky. I was one of those people. Most of my family, being from Kentucky, also believe that to be true. The previous list (long since removed since it didn't include any references or commission dates) was what made me realize that the honor can be given out for a much wider range of reasons and to people with no real connection to the state. I see a huge value in listing notable recipients, not just for that reason, but also for the fact that "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." See Nebraska Admiral, Rhode Island Commodore, Order of the Long Leaf Pine, Sagamore of the Wabash, etc. They all include such a listing. BlueGold73 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed again for not having a consensus to re-add. The original list was for "famous" recipients and not just notable recipients...notable might make something like 3000 entries which is too cumbersome and the list is subject to list creep. I'm against re-adding at all even for famous entries.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I agree, and I'm glad to see a third person in this discussion. If the idea is to create a big list so that people can try to infer something about the award by noticing some characteristics of the listed people (by thinking about their apparent degree of connection to Kentucky, or noticing that the award is sometimes given to celebrities and non-US citizens), I think it would be better to just directly say what those characteristics are. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Analgous honors

Tennessee can, and occasionally does, give an analogous honor. Alabama also does, although to the lesser rank of lieutenant colonel. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article once verifiable sources for this are found, as these awards are obviously inspired by this one? 75.252.134.58 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of any real published sources that discuss such honors? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I just found some such information and added relevant "see also" wikilinks in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

As this article is about a named award, shouldn't its title be "Kentucky Colonel" rather than the present "Kentucky colonel"? 213.246.87.5 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is correct usage. Read the last sentence of the second paragraph under the History section. It has four citations affirming that this is correct usage.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Edits with Good References Cannot be Reverted

The edits I added are all verifiable and credible and do not diminish or harm the article, they were written in good style, they all enhance it, we have additional information that can also be added, the references I cited in my edit were excellent and online as well as print, the repairs I made to some references essential. The new revised up to date list of Famous Colonels and based on a neutral authority, I see not a single hokey name or a person that is not notable as was part of the previous problem with the article. To simply revert such a large edit without taking care to verify the references or recognize television news casts as credible sources of information and current encyclopedic content is grossly irresponsible on the part of —BarrelProof, my work and research and the time I spent has value and for —BarrelProof to just annihilate my work is unfair and nothing more than impropriety. Shamansfriend (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I continue to see no value in including a list of notable KCs in the article. This has been extensively discussed before. Please see that prior discussion, as recorded above. Since being added back into the article just a week ago, the list has already attracted at least two additional entries that aren't in the cited source (Jamie Teachenor and Jim Teachenor) – not that the cited source seems all that authoritative about identifying who are the most notable people who are KCs (and not that I have anything against the two Teachenors). Even if the source is perfect and identifies who are the most notable people who are KCs, what do we learn about Kentucky Colonels in general by knowing that any particular list of people are among them? Approximately nothing, as best I can tell. Unless it is clear that being a KC was somehow an important part of the biography of the person in question, I see no reason to give their KC status any weight. Naming someone as a KC is simply a small token of courtesy bestowed at the discretion of the governor, and many of the recent governors have not been very restrictive about handing out the honor (which carries no real benefits). Simply being sourced does not mean that something has sufficient value to merit being mentioned prominently in an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Make that three additional unsourced entries. We now also have "Dr.Rajkumar", an Indian actor who people call "doctor" because of his honorary doctorate from the University of Mysore, whose biography article doesn't mention being a Kentucky Colonel except as an entry in a list of various "awards and honors" sourced to a dubious source - not that it really matters whether the source is accurate or not. Of course, that's better than most of the entries, since I'm willing to bet that nearly all of those who are listed that have Wikipedia bio articles don't have any mention being a Kentucky Colonel at all within those articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I continue to disagree that the issue of adding the list of colonels has been "extensively discussed". The list his been opposed by just a couple people; however, they've been very vocal about the issue and as a result they've succeeded and keeping relevant information with cited sources out of the article. BlueGold73 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And now we also have Christian Kane as another unsourced addition (whose bio article makes no mention of him being a Kentucky colonel), and LeRoy T. Carlson has been dropped without explanation – two more steps in the ongoing process of increasing messiness and list creep. Being relevant and cited does not mean something is good to have in the article. In the two years since the list was removed from the article, I believe you were the only person who expressed any dissatisfaction about that on this Talk page (until a few days ago when Shamansfriend arrived – and you only commented during a relatively brief period about nine months ago). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
And now we also have an unsourced "Jana Travis Conner", a name that turns up no obvious notability in a web search. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And now we have another unsourced addition: Stephen Fry. It should be pretty obvious by now that such a list will be a constant headache. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If they're not sourced, then delete them. It's that simple. The disagreements here involve whether or not sourced additions should be included. Unsourced additions should never be included. BlueGold73 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will delete them, although I doubt you will like the way I do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Really Gentlemen, it is clearly notable for notable people to receive a notable honor this is without doubt, I see the problem with the Indian fellow and other additions that are not of noteworthy people just because people like to get their names listed somewhere. In this thread and the previous the previous talk section BlueGold73, BarrelProof, and Berean Hunter all raise good points. I made my edit based on the personal encouragement of a former Governor of Commonwealth to build upon the article and restore the noteable names roster. But indeed as it appears there are too many wild-eyed childish prestige seekers (whose lives measure up to squat) thinking their notability measures up to that of Mae West, Harlan Sanders, or Bill Clinton or they are just trying to be tricky. Where anyone came up with a list of 3000 notable colonels is ridiculous. So I guess to have the list there needs to be a bot program developed or a method to clean bad names from the article automatically or have the section or entire page locked under the auspices of including the list. The NNDB list I introduced is based on artificial intelligence and computer logic, it is less than 150 notable people, it cannot be tampered and will probably even eventually take wiki-editor jobs. That's what we want right? All the real objective knowledge based on reality and not our perception of it! Finally I really think the list should be there but under the current circumstances it is a target for unsavory fools so it needs to be omitted. Shamansfriend (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
About the Indian fellow – actually, he was a very notable person – quite a phenomenon, really. I just don't think his being a KC is very notable, which is a basic issue perceive with most of the other listed people (and his use of the "Dr." honorific seems a bit dubious, since it was only an honorary doctorate – but that's drifting off topic). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How about adding something like this to the article: "The honor has been given to a broad variety of notable people – including various celebrities, artists, writers, athletes, performers, businesspersons, U.S. and foreign politicians, and members of foreign royal families – some of whom have no obvious connection to Kentucky. It has also been bestowed upon various people who are not generally considered especially notable, although the selection process is intended to identify only those with high moral reputation and a record of 'good works' accomplishments." We can cite the KC web site, NNDB, and various press articles in support of such a statement. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Harland vs. Harlan Sanders

An edit was just made correcting "Harlan" to "Harland" Sanders. There are examples on the web of both spellings, including within some documents. I did find a pretty authoritative source - the FBI has a file including a letter from Colonel Sanders, in which he spells his own name "Harland." I'd keep the edit, unless someone finds a better source in favor of "Harlan".

See: http://vault.fbi.gov/Colonel%20Harlan%20Sanders/Harland%20%28Colonel%29%20David%20Sanders%20Part%201%20of%201/view page 5 of the PDF Josh Powell (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

List of notable colonels (again)

List removed. There was no source as to why a certain somebody was included or not. If you want to reinstate the list, please don't create original reasearch by making up your own list - find an existing list, so we can have a source on the selection itself.

That's right; not talking about the individual refs that allow you to verify that a certain entry really is a Colonel; am talking about who gets to decide who's on the list and who's not.

Here's the organization's own take on which colonels count as "famous": http://kycolonels.org/who-we-are/famous-colonels/

CapnZapp (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The colonels organization itself doesn't decide the notability of those who are colonels. We have WP:N for that. That, along with RS evidence the individual is a colonel, comprise the determination of who goes in the list. If you are lamenting that the list isn't complete, we have a template for that. What is needed beyond this approach? You seem to suggest we have to have others tell us who is "famous" -- well, we already can figure out who is notable, and that's all this list is, like "Notable alumni" for universities. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we should delete the list (especially if it starts to grow substantially). This has been discussed several times before, and the list has been deleted and restored several times before. Also see the deletion discussion for the KY Colonels category – e.g., about a third of the articles about the people didn't even mention being a KY Colonel, and those that did tended to mention it only in passing. As I said above in 2011, the inclusion of a list of famous/notable Kentucky Colonels doesn't add much (or perhaps any) real value to the article – it is just excess clutter. The list does nothing to help the reader understand what a KY Colonel is, and in most cases the fact that these people are (or were) Kentucky Colonels seems to have nothing to do with their fame or identity or noteworthiness. I think no one really cares that any of those listed people are (or were) Kentucky Colonels, except for Harland Sanders (who is already discussed elsewhere in the article). My understanding is that the title is routinely conferred on famous people such as visiting politicians as a minor gesture of goodwill. Most of the listed recipients probably don't even remember that they received the title – their certificate was just put into a storage box along with the other souvenirs of their travels and promptly forgotten. (That's assuming they didn't just get the certificate in the mail, which is also common practice.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the list again after seeing another addition to this creeping trivia record. The Wikipedia article about the person made no mention of them being a KC. The list is useless, as previously discussed. It does not make the people who received it especially notable, and it does not make the award especially notable, and I don't see it accomplishing any other useful purpose either. Please see the extensive discussion of this issue that has been recorded on this talk page since at least 2011. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kentucky colonel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kentucky colonel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Kentucky colonel → Kentucky Colonel – Changing the second word to uppercase per MOS:JOBTITLES – KC is a formal title and is addressed as a title in and of itself. Confirmed after checking cited sources and some discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional comments by the nom: I checked the sources that are cited in the article, and they all seem to use the suggested uppercase styling. Similar articles such as for Nebraska Admiral, Order of the Long Leaf Pine, Order of the Palmetto, and Rhode Island Commodore also use uppercase. Some supportive commentary (particularly by SMcCandlish) can be found at User talk:Shadow007#Capitalization of honorific titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because (to summarize what I said in the aforementioned user talk thread) this is an award, not a job title, nobility title, or something similar to those. It's the same kind of case as Academy Award for Best Actress, Rhodes Scholarship, Nobel Prize, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Congressional Medal of Honor, etc. Not similar to chief communications officer, school superintendent, vice-president, duke, emperor, staff sergeant, etc., which are capitalized only when they directly adhere to a name. Failure to capitalize it here is also confusingly ambiguous, since "Kentucky colonel" as a phrase can mean any colonel of any sort associated with (born in, served in, retired to, etc.) Kentucky.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination and additional details submitted by SMcCandlish.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah. Not really a colonel. But, if we cap Grand Poobah, then we can cap this. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Significant and important article

This article has become of "high" importance article since I last edited here several years ago. The objective of writing articles on Wikipedia is to develop Class A and Class B articles, this article is still a Start Class article.

Over the weekend I made a number of unbiased improvements to the article with more than 7 new citations. All of the additions made were made as improvements without removing other editors work or contributions. There is no reason to challenge and replace previously reversed edits because they are consensual, so we hope that future editors read the Talk page.

Making modifications relative to "who's who" or by "listing the names of Kentucky colonels that are notable" has no sound basis, there are too many of them and a citation would be required for each one, every Kentucky colonel is noteworthy for their deeds and achievements. If someone wishes to do this it should be done as a "List of Famous People that became Kentucky Colonels." If it were to be done again it would need to be done based on the actions and conduct they reiterate after accepting the distinguished award and what they do for the Commonwealth as its goodwill ambassadors.

I suggest that anyone else who plans or intends to edit this article seek some consensus from other Wikipedians here on the Talk page prior to making edits that could degrade the article; that is unless they are making minor improvement to the article's readability or adding actual new facts that are deemed appropriate. I notice that the article needs some additional work of the previous citations and that a number of links to citations from the HOKC website and other web based references cannot be confirmed. Problemsmith (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the number of people who are famous and are Kentucky Colonels, it should probably just be a category so people can look it up (and mentioned and referenced in the article of the person). Any mention in this article should be of people who are fame includes being a Kentucky Colonel. I note that Charles W. Anderson, Jr, was the first Black Kentucky Colonel.(Talbott, Tim. "Charles W. Anderson, Jr". ExploreKYHistory.) Couldn't find the first woman. --Erp (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Historical References

Updated: I searched and dug into the historical archive focused on the date that Kentucky colonelcy began, which is stated in the article as 1813. This is also the date inscribed on "The Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels, Inc." logo and shield as they describe it. However, no reference could be found of any Kentucky colonel being commissioned that year by Governor Isaac Shelby in the state archives. I did discover that Richard Mentor Johnson was made a colonel by the Kentucky State Legislature that year and discovered that Charles Stewart Todd (civilian colonel) was made an honorary colonel (commissioned) as aide-de-camp by Gov. Isaac Shelby in 1815. There are also a great number of other discrepancies I found with the historical record and its manipulation brings parts of this article into question as to the sources for the information and the primary reference provided by the state government. I have collected an extensive list of resources in our objective open-source work which is now part of the Colonel's Network.

It could probably be said that Kentucky was in a great part founded by pre-American Revolution "colonels" that used the title to confer their own personal prestige or position in society, some perhaps self-styled, at the time. Most of the pre-Kentucky first settlers of Transylvania were colonels including Daniel Boone and Richard Henderson. The actual term "Kentucky Colonel" does not appear in history until 1885 when Governor Col. William O'Connell Bradley made it into a title of honor.

There are a great number of sources that definitively show that colonel did not become a military rank in the United States until 1802, colonels were the legal owners of militias, the founders of towns and companies before it was adopted by the US Army.

I have additionally discovered that more than 10 Kentucky counties were named after pre-Kentucky colonels from the American Revolution and civilian colonels granted the title under the thirteen colonies that were considered defenders of Kentucky at the time it became a state in 1792. Isaac Shelby himself was also a gentleman colonel prior to becoming the first governor of Kentucky. Much of this research is not possible without the Internet. There is still a great deal of research to do and to affirm. Problemsmith (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Photos of individual recipients

@BarrelProof: If you think File:A Pakistani Philanthropist with Kentucky Colonel Commission Certificate.jpg is appropriate, then you can re-add at it. However, it does seem really UNDUE in that there's not even any content about the individual in question anywhere to be found in that article. If, for example, there was a "list of recipients" section where not only this picture, but pictures of other recipients could be added (perhaps in a gallery format), then it might make sense if the person in question met the WP:CSC for the section. Otherwise, it seems too much like a random photo added for promotional (WP:Namechecking) purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It is totally inappropriate to name individuals or show photographs of individuals (even randomly) to this article which is primarily about a title and not about those who have received the title or anyone in particular. There are well over 100,000 Kentucky colonels in the world today. If pictures or photographs are added they should have historical significance relative to the origins of Kentucky colonelcy. The person would need to be the equivalent of Colonel Sanders, Isaac Shelby or Daniel Boone to be included here. Further, it is not appropriate to add pictures of individuals in other Wikipedia editions in other languages as these articles should be based on the original article and that article as the primary source. Problemsmith (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I think there's another way to interpret that picture, which is that it is simply a nicely photographed example of someone receiving the title who is not a Kentuckian. I thought it made the article less boring. The caption (esp. after I edited it) did not especially promote the person in the picture – it didn't even say who he was. But this is not an important matter, and I won't put it back, since I'm clearly in the minority among experienced editors here. I liked the other suggestions, and I just added pictures of Sanders and Shelby to the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of nice photos that people upload, but I think there should be some direct connection between a photo and article content, and it seems a bit odd and random to add a photo when there's no related content about it at all anywhere in the article. Just my opinion.
Anyway, I thought a "list of recipients" could possibly work, but I didn't realize there were so many or that this had already been discussed before at #Removing the list of famous Colonels from the article. Perhaps there could be a section titled "Notable recipients" much like a "Notable alumni/faculty" section of an article about a university. The WP:CSC could be quite straightforward in that only those persons who have stand-alone articles written about them or those who for some reason received lots of coverage for winning the award (e.g. first woman to receive the award, first non-US citizen to receive the award). Images could then be added to the section as a gallery or in some other way for a few representative persons mentioned by name in the section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of erroneous information out there about Kentucky colonels, some of it is still in this article so very authoritative references need to be cited to change them. I know this because I am engaged in a lawsuit right now with the HOKC which I notified @BarrelProof: and @Berean Hunter: of, it is my contention that Kentucky Colonel is part of the public domain while the HOKC is claiming it as a distinctive trademark. I updated some of the obvious things recently, I believe @Marchjuly:'s suggestions should be welcomed to strengthen the article, but also noted they were present before like the first female and first black colonel. The recent photograph additions by BarrelProof should remain they definitely enhance the article.
Some obvious errors exist in that Richard M. Johnson was the first Kentucky colonel commissioned by the state legislature in 1813 not the governor, it was not until 1815 Governor Isaac Shelby, a North Carolina Colonel himself commissioned his son-in-law Charles S. Todd a Kentucky Colonel. My research has also revealed that the "first" Kentucky Colonel, must be John Bowman (pioneer) who was officially commissioned in 1777, a colonel (top dog) to the territory of Kentucky by the Governor of Virginia Patrick Henry, which Kentucky belonged to until statehood in 1792.
It might also be known that there were literally over 1,000 "Kentucky colonels" by 1895 that were not commissioned by the governor which are responsible for the classical stereotype of the bibulous colonel with the white goatee, wide-brimmed Stetson hat, split-tail coat, and black string tie which Col. Harland Sanders redefined. There are over 5,000 newspaper articles referring to the "Kentucky colonel" prior to the year 1900. Be careful though because the HOKC may sue you for researching or writing about this topic? I am currently engaged in writing a book about it under a pre-registered copyright, I will probably weigh in again once the lawsuit is concluded or dismissed. Problemsmith (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

New History and New Website

I am the Problemsmith, also known as Col. David J. Wright. I just spent 12 months in a U.S. Federal lawsuit to prove the history I was compelled to research and discover. From February 2020 until February 2021 I spent the majority of my time dedicated to researching Kentucky Colonelcy to complete the writing an authoritative work in print and with a Creative Commons website. Although organization of a website and writing a book is a great endeavor I am open minded and objective regarding our content online. The history I have discovered about Kentucky colonelcy changed the official records and history accepted by the Secretary of State, the Filson Library and the Kentucky Historical Society which have accepted my work. Since they have there should be no reason that Wikipédia users and editors do not as well. As a Creative Commons author, a book author and one that is recognized by the current Governor and Secretary of State as an authority on Kentucky colonelcy, I feel it is my duty as a Kentucky colonel to demonstrate transparency and defend the idea of the Kentucky Colonel from all of his origins. I have no personal financial interest in the formation or operation of an organization specifically for Kentucky colonels anymore and I am fully qualified to make greater qualified judgements about the subject and the researcher responsible for the website on the topic of Kentucky Colonelcy.

In the recent filing that settled the case as the sole Defendant in The Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels v Col. David J. Wright I issued an open stand-alone legal declaration which was filed as a Statement of Facts in support of a Motion for Declaratory Judgement. By December 29th, 2020 both parties agreed to settle without any monetary damages by dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice under terms that were negotiated until February 2021. I have proven you cannot put a colonel in a box and identify him like a helpless donor or subject of the HOKC and also demonstrated that a colonel can be much more than the limitations placed upon him as a stereotypical member of the HOKC which, until now has been basking in a mythical history. After being submitted to the state in January the new history was confirmed by the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth on his website.

Before writing anything too critical about the HOKC, you should understand that a lawsuit is no joke, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend, and while you are welcome to see the entire lawsuit which shall be published because it is important. The HOKC and their attorneys are protecting their name and corporate business interests by nature; however the HOKC maintains an impeccable Platinum Record as a non-profit charitable organization in 2020 they contributed 2.9 million dollars to other nonprofits. They are not historians even though they claimed to be, no one knows exactly where the story of Charles Todd came from, but in 1941 it was the story they had.

It is my hope that other Wikipedia editors join me in improving and reclassifying the Kentucky Colonel article to become a good article and a featured article on Wikipedia. I will be adding additional references and information about the Civil War years and the Colonial Colonels. This article warrants additional images from the public domain, also information about the legal standing of colonelcy in the courts of Kentucky, and in Common Law. The article is far from finished and any positive collaboration is welcome. Problemsmith (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

While improvement of any article is to be welcomed, a few of the things you say potentially raise a few issues. In particular, nothing in the article should be “original research” but instead should reflect the balance of opinion in reputable published sources - see WP:OR and WP:RS. Those sources should be secondary in nature and preferably not primary sources - see WP:PRIMARY. Also, if you had close personal involvement in the subject matter of an article you must comply with WP:COI. The main thing is the site you linked to (https://kycolonelcy.us/) does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS and can’t be cited in Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
DeCausa I insist that kycolonelcy.us/ actually is and does qualify as a reliable source, it was being used by the Secretary of State is the 500,000 th most popular website in the world and the majority, over 200 references there are connected to the Library of Congress Chronicling America Project. Further it is a site that is published with a copyright for a work that is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. It is also a website that won a significant victory in a US Federal Court after being read and challenged under other names, all of these factors make it both notable and qualified as a source, I plan to connect the better citations that are listed in the bibliography and newspaper to the article, the historical consensus is always welcome. Problemsmith (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Problemsmith: Wikipedia has it’s own policy on what is a reliable source: WP:RS. the things that you identify don’t for Wikipedia make it a reliable source. Broadly, it requires to be published by a third party with a reputation for fact-checking such as an independent publishing house. Self-published material generally can’t be used. The “about us” section of the website says:
”The Commonwealth Colonels, formerly Kentucky Colonels International is a volunteer, educational and historical Creative Commons authorship group made up of Kentucky colonels promoting and supporting colonels as goodwill ambassadors for the Commonwealth at home and abroad. Association as a user of our website is open-source that is free to all persons interested in learning about the customs, folklore, history and traditions of Kentucky since the first American colonels pioneered and settled 'Kentucke' as the first organized democratic establishment in North America starting in 1774 and 1775.”
It looks from this that it fails WP:SELFPUB. A great deal of your edits to the article seem also to be based on WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Agreed and thank you, I will be careful with my edits and refrain from self publishing. As you might understand it is a difficult situation inasmuch as the only history that is correct is that which I included in my court testimony as a pro se Defendant and the website, none of the history out there can be verified anymore except my own. I assure you though that only judicially noticeable evidence was included in the article. At least until the historians work with the subject and recant the history, I am probably the only authority on the subject. I will concentrate my efforts providing the third-party objective citations to the article other than our Creative Commons website. Problemsmith (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think facts found in a court case gnerally come within WP:PRIMARY. It’s a tricky area but it’s best to be very explicit as to what was said and not interpret it, as in: “In Jack v Jill the court found that x y z was the case.” DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kentucky_Colonel/Archive_1&oldid=1142347712"