Jump to content

Talk:Kentucky Derby/Archive 1

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

Picture question

I found the following picture on the KY Tourism webpage.

They grant immediate permission free of charge for any use, as long as it promotes Kentucky travel. I uploaded it with the Conditional copyright tag. My question is, does a Wikikpedia article on the Kentucky Derby constitute promotion of Kentucky tourism, or is this too big of a stretch? Sayeth 17:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would say Yes, but IANAL. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sayeth, what he means is "I am not a lawyer." For some reason he does not grasp that most people don't know what "IANAL" means, or that it takes only an additional 0.5 seconds to type the phrase itself rather than the all-caps abbreviation. User:AndyCapp 23:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, methinks Sayeth didn't ask what IANAL meant. At any rate, it has become a rather common shorthand, and I'll continue to use it, if it pleases your majesty.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 11:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Steevie's right - I'm hip with the "emoticons" you "leet kids" on the "Internets" speak with nowadays. I didn't post the pic in the article since I figured Steevie was answering "Yes" to the second option in my question - that is he was saying "yes, it is too much of a strech to say that this article promotes Kentucky tourism, but I'm not a lawyer". Sayeth 03:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bad Reference

What on earth is that last link doing on this page? It has no valuable information of opinions, as it is all based in story format. If there is a page pointing out the problems of the derby clearly, then let's have it, but don't put that crap up on here. User:Druidan

Uh, you mean the Hunter S. Thompson piece? My guess is it's included because it's topical and written by a very famous author (and native Louisvillian). At a glance it seems to fit within WP:EL I don't see the problem with including it. --W.marsh 03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed it; it really isn't too relevant to the article at first glance, and plus is a story. Andy t 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I disagree... there's nothing wrong with it per WP:EL, and I think it's an interesting link. --W.marsh 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

American-Bred

In the "Qualifications" section of the infobox, why does it list the race as being for "3 year old American bred". The Derby has never been limited to American breds as far as I know. The article even states that "in 1917, the English bred colt "Omar Khayyam" became the first foreign-bred horse to win the race." Too many foreign bred horses have raced in the Derby to even list. I am removing the "American bred" statement. 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The blog source that keeps being deleted

The blog source that is being deleted is a reputable source. Blog Potato is in Kentucky currently covering the race for his blog, Blog Potato. He plays an active role in the horse racing communtiy.

Maybe, but the third-highest attendance still doesn't belong into the "History"-section of the "Kentucky Derby" article. Malc82 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

editing the page

Looks like a lot of information has been deleted from the page (at the top) in the last edit. If it was inadvertent, then maybe someone would like to fix it... please. Chris in KY 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This was vandalism. I reverted it. Thanks for telling us! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a Jockey

Hi I'm looking for any information about a female jockey who I believe has ridden in the Kentucky Derby. I know her first name is Karen/Caron/Karin?

Would appreciate more info

Hi Thanks for info - but I'm afraid she's not the one - Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.23.148 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Winners

Why is this list of winners on a separate page? The list of winners for the Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes are integrated on the same page as the races. Given the likelihood that readers will cycle through each page, should there be conformity between the layout of the material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Preakness and Belmont should probably change to be like this one. Having a long table in the article is not conducive to getting it featured. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The list ought to be on a separate page if you want to take this to FA, in my opinion. Plus there seems little reason why the table ought not be sortable (by using the "sortable wikitable" class") which would make it easy to see fastest race, most wins, etc. The Rambling Man 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed Dancer's Image from the list and placed the jockey, trainer, and owner information in the footnote. The footnote had a link to the Derby Museum website and claimed that both horses were listed as winners, however, the chart there lists Forward Pass as the winner and Dancer's Image in last place. It's been quite a while since I've been to Churchill Downs, but I don't remember the plaques showing both horses, either, so the footnote seemed inaccurate. PaulGS (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a pretty inaccurate thing to have in the article. Nowhere at any point in time has Dancer's Image been re-given the victory. Not to mention, the list of winners only has Forward Pass and the Derby history specifically mentions Dancer's Image's DQ. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Constant mention of African American

Why is the race of the jockeys constantly mentioned in this article? It seems superfluous, and perhaps racist.--Nationalism (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Constantly? It's mentioned 3 times...twice in the context of how many of the first Derbys were won by people who are barely in the sport anymore. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nationalism here though. It's definitely superfluous and once would be fine. I thought the derby was about the horses anyway. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why no explanation of requirements and so forth?

The only reason I came to this article was to learn about the horse requirements to be in the actual race, besides age. I imagine that I'm not alone. I also think this is much more encyclopedic information than a racial count of how many African-Americans participate or have participated. Just my friendly thoughts if anyone knows this information and wants to add it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See Also/Hatnotes

I have reverted the new hatnote and the see also additions with this edit. The hat note is in violation of WP:RELATED. And the see also section seems to go against WP:SEEALSO, as every single wikilink it provides is either already in the article or in the infobox...or completely unrelated to the article. --Smashvilletalk 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The removals, especially of the helpful See also's, violates common sense and needs to be restored. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
They are already mentioned in the article. Common sense says that things only need to be linked once. --Smashvilletalk 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your position in incorrect. I checked the list, and many of them are actually not in the article. Those have been restored. Note: Using MOS to prop up nonsense destruction is wrong. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the remaining ones are either in the Kentucky Derby or Louisville infoboxes or are too vaguely related (like the Triple Crown Productions one). There is absolutely no reason Grand National should be linked to the Kentucky Derby article. --Smashvilletalk 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the hatnote, I don't see the "violation" there. Also, guidelines cannot be "violated". They are guidelines, not rules. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you not see it? WP:RELATED says that an improper use of a hat note is linking to an article that is highly related to the topic. How is 2009 Kentucky Derby not highly related to Kentucky Derby? You have yet to explain your reasoning except for calling it "incorrect" and "destruction". --Smashvilletalk 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you okay with the version as it is...I only took out the ones that repeat in the infoboxes (and Grand National, which has absolutely zero to do with the Kentucky Derby, American thoroughbred racing, etc.) I don't agree with some of them, but I can live with them. --Smashvilletalk 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

The Kentucky Derby is not the second oldest race in the United States. Both the Preakness (1873) and Belmont (1867) are older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.148.102 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed that statement...it's not even the longest running race at Churchill Downs. (The first Oaks was run before the first Derby). The Harvard-Yale Regatta predates them all. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Secretariat did not win the race by 22 lenghts. Sham was right behind no more than 2 3/4 lenths to place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.80.49 (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can we have an explanation why it is pronounced 'durby' when the Epsom Derby races after which is named are pronounced 'darby'? Also, is it worth mentioning that the Churchill Downs are named after his relations (the Churchill bit) and the Downs comes from the Epsom Downs, the name of the land where the British Derby takes place? (Downs are a particular type of chalk landscape in the UK). 81.129.134.136 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby Glasses

I added a very small edit concerning the Derby glasses in which mint juleps are served at Churchill Downs...mentioning they were first offered in 1939 and that the tradition has continued every year since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogala (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


"the world's preeminent horse race"

Says who? And don't say something like "it's common knowledge"; that's not enough for Wikipedia. I'm not a racing fan, and want to know why it's considered the pre-eminent, and by whom. Everybody? If so, it should be easy to find reliable sources saying so. 86.132.142.7 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence doesn't belong in the article anyway. It is certainly the most hyped American race and one the most prominent in the world, but from a purely "athletic" viewpoint about a dozen races worldwide, like the Breeders' Cup Classic or Dubai World Cup, may be of higher quality.
Even in it's own category, the Ky Derby isn't really "superior" to the Epsom Derby or Irish Derby.
Finally, it also isn't an unanimous winner when it comes to prestige. The Epsom Derby is just as prestigious and the Melbourne Cup even has it's own public holiday!
I would change it right now to "one of the world's most important horse races", but maybe someone can come up with his/her solution. Malc82 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "one of the most famous horse races in the United States"? Alan 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
removed it without a substitute; the "preeminent" part was entered two days ago, I don't think we need to substitute it at all. Malc82 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your tone and highlights show that you were really pissed off 86.132.etc. etc. Now, I'd like to know just what it is that makes the Kentucky Derby of lesser quality or inferior to any of the races mentioned above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.46.217 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hunter S Thompson

Why no mention of Hunter S Thompson and "The Kentucky Derby is decadent and depraved".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kentucky_Derby_Is_Decadent_and_Depraved

It marked the birth of Gonzo Journalism and has to be one of the best known pieces of writing covering the event.--101.103.38.49 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kentucky Derby. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kentucky Derby/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is too poorly structured to deserve a 'B'. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Winners table notes

Nit-picky formatting issue, placed here (instead of being WP:BOLD) because I'm not very active any more, nor have I been involved in this subject area much :) :

In the table of Winners by year, a dagger (†; U+2020) is used to indicate triple-crown winners. My initial reaction when seeing this symbol in the table, though, was that the horse had died, since that is a common implication of this symbol when next to a name or date (see 2nd graph at Dagger (typography)#Modern usage).

A better symbol for the triple-crown might be ³ and maybe ♀ (U+2640) for filly.

Also, the Time header has a * superscript, but this is also used next to the dates and is properly defined at the bottom of the table for that purpose. A different symbol should be used for the Time note and the Note at the bottom of the table changed to reflect it, right?

OTOH, maybe use the standard note scheme with alphabetical superscripts (to differentiate them from citations) as is done elsewhere in WP? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can use non-standard symbols due to accessibility concerns, but I shall ping RexxS, who is our resident expert on that. The 3 might not be a bad idea, except it looks like a footnote. Perhaps three daggers...††† or something... Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several problems:
  1. Screen readers are not guaranteed to read out every symbol that we might choose to use. In fact, the commonest screen reader doesn't even read out † so we recommend using an image with alt text such as {{†}} instead.
  2. Visitors with less than perfect vision, which includes most older folk like myself, often have difficulty in discriminating very small text. Sadly I can't see the difference between ♀ and q without zooming my browser, and I initially thought ³ was a spot of dust on my monitor screen.
  3. The use of '*' to identify a note has the problem that if you begin the note with '*', the Mediawiki software turns it into a bulletted list.
I would recommend placing the informational notes before the table, so that the reader doesn't have to go scrolling to the bottom of the table just to find out what † might mean - that's of particular importance to screen readers which have no 'scroll' function. Also replacing uncommon symbols with commoner ones, or preferably with the accessible template would benefit users of screen readers.
The use of † to mark a death seems to have been inherited from the German Wikipedia, but it's by no means an exclusive usage. I doubt that every listing of a cricket team contains the name of a dead wicket-keeper.
I'll make some changes to the section - see what you think. --RexxS (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I did, but you moved the notes back to the bottom with the edit summary "Notes should be at the bottom". Have a think about that: why should notes be at the bottom? Because we've always done it that way. If we place the notes at the top, everyone will be aware of them before they start reading the table. It's not difficult for a sighted reader to scroll down and read notes at the bottom and then scroll back up to find where they were in the table, but it's a major disruption for a screen reader to find out that there are notes, next to find what the notes say, and then to go back to where they left off in the table. What's more important: an advantage-less convention or the convenience of impaired visitors? Just a little food for thought. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Interesting. As a reader, I am used to map keys and such being treated like footnotes and going after the content. That's the only reason I have... I suppose so long as they are not too long, it's not a bad thing. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kentucky Derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sponsorship

Opening sentence contains "presented by Woodford Reserve". Does this article only apply to the Derby's that Woodford sponsored? That seems to be a marketing gimmick that might belong somewhere else in the article. It would seem akin to saying "Secretariat crossed the Purina Horse Chow Finish Line x lengths ahead of...". NBC may be obligated to say "presented by..." as part of broadcast rights, but does it belong there on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.161.255.18 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The article on the 2018 Kentucky Derby contains this because, like it or not, that is the race's official name for that running. It shows in the chart and the industry database (Equibase) and some news articles also mention it (especially those by industry publications like the Bloodhorse). In the main article on the Derby, we mention sponsorship only in a special section. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Race times

Why don't the articles have the race times included in the charts?

Example:

  • First Place Winner (Justify) ... winning time = 2:04.20.
  • Second Place Winner (Name) ... winning time = 2:05.20
  • And so forth

Isn't that statistic an important component of these races? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally, only the finishing time of the winner gets circulated. --SubSeven (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Correct, until very recently, only the winner was ever timed. Now Trakus data is available for each horse at certain racetracks, but that information is essentially proprietary and seldom referenced (besides being somewhat unreliable because of technology issues). The general rule of thumb to estimate the other finisher's times is to add one-fifth of a second for each length they finish behind the winner. (Eg, Secretariat's time in the Kentucky Derby was 1:59 2/5, Sham finished 2.5 lengths behind so is widely considered to have finished in something less than 2:00 flat) Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not at all familiar with horse racing. However, it seems that you are saying that the horses' finishing times are not that important, but the number of lengths behind the winner is. And, ultimately, the time and the number of lengths is correlated. So, why don't the charts include the number of lengths behind? I guess my point is: it's somewhat important -- or, at the very least, interesting -- to see if the second place winner lost by a hair or lost by a mile. I would have thought these details were important in horse races. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that winning margin can be very interesting but its not always available in our sources going back several decades. For the biggest races, we try to put extra information like this into the article for each year (eg 2018 Kentucky Derby), because all the data simply won't fit into the main wikitable. The time is relatively important, but it needs context. For example, was the race run over a fast track or a muddy track? Was the winner being pushed to his limit or easing up at the wire? Was the race cleanly run or did horses break poorly / get stuck in traffic? Was the early pace fast or slow? A comparison here would be for the 1500m in track & field, where the time is fairly meaningless at the Olympic levels because there are no pace setters. Whereas in golden league events, they pay for pacesetters and that's where all the top times are registered. FYI, in Europe with races run on turf that can range from bog-like to firm, time is not considered important compared to the manner in which the winner impresses handicapping experts. See also Timeform (ratings in Europe) and Beyer Speed Figure (most common rating system in US) Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So, are you saying that neither finishing time nor number of lengths behind the winner is a widely available and/or reported statistic in these big races? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Stats for lengths back are widely available for major races. If they are not being reported in the applicable articles, they probably should be. --SubSeven (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree. For example: this article (Kentucky Derby 2018: Standings, Finishing Times and Prize-Money Results) has the data for "lengths behind winner" for the 2018 Kentucky Derby. And, for the 2018 Belmont Stakes: Belmont Stakes 2018: Triple Crown Results, Standings, Payouts, Replay Highlights. These figures should be placed in the article's charts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
With major races, we have (or at least try to have) articles for each year. From the main article, click on the year (eg 2018) to go to that article, which will have margin of victory and a good deal of additional information that simply doesn't fit into the wikitable of the main article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Take this article here, for example: 2018 Kentucky Derby. There is a chart located here: 2018 Kentucky Derby#Results. In that chart, there is no column for either "finishing time" (for each horse) or for "lengths behind the winner". But, there should be. That is exactly why I posted my original question here. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, now I understand! Sorry for being obtuse. The margin of victory is listed under the wikitable for the top three finishers. The other option is to add another column to the table, which is the approach I used in the articles for the Breeders' Cup Classic (eg 2017 Breeders' Cup Classic). Do you prefer that approach? I would note that it does get very difficult though to get this level of detail when you go further back in time. Specifically, our principle source, Equibase, only has online charts dating back to 1990. Also, the time of the second and subsequently placed horses simply isn't freely available information for current races and was never measured at all prior to Trakus in 2006. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Yes, I think that the charts should have an additional column. And that column should be labelled as either "Time" (that is, how long did it take that horse to finish the race) ... or "Lengths Behind the Winner" (or whatever the proper terminology is for that). From the above discussion, it seems like "Time" is less important and also harder to find. And it seems that "Lengths Behind the Winner" is more important and also easier to find. I would propose adding a new column. Also, it would be great if we can get these going forward (let's just say, 1990 to present). I understand that the old data from races long ago is not readily available. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure what the word "Margin" means, in this context. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Margin as in margin of victory (or defeat, depending on your POV) "measure or degree of difference". I'll see if I can find a succinct source about margin and the rule of thumb for converting distance behind to time behind to add to the glossary of north american horse racing Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jlvsclrk: Thanks for adding the "Margins" columns to the charts of these 3 major races. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Scoring everyone based on margin behind leader seems far more intuitive to understand. --SubSeven (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation

I'm curious why the American race is pronounced Durby when the race it is named after, the UK Epsom Downs' Derby, is pronounced Darby. Stronach (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

2022 and 2023 Kentucky Derby. My Old Kentucky Home

See: Talk:My Old Kentucky Home.

See the section about the May 7, 2022 Kentucky Derby. It is about the song My Old Kentucky Home being in the news in a big way concerning the Derby.

I searched these archives: Talk:Kentucky Derby. I did not see any mention of the song or its author, Stephen Foster. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

They sang it at the race. I heard while watching the broadcast that a-lot of fans in the audience complained about the tradition being dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There is more discussion here: Talk:My Old Kentucky Home#Page Updates and the following sections. For example (emphasis added):

From that discussion.
The scholarship on this song is settled that "My Old Kentucky Home" originated as a sentimental minstrel song in the vein of "Old Folks at Home" or "Old Black Joe." These were minstrel songs that removed much of the overt racist imagery and sounds (e.g., dialect) to appeal to white middle class audiences. Contemporary scholarship (particularly the work of historian Emily Bingham) also supports the claim that the song experienced its greatest renaissance during the Jim Crow era as a means of reinscribing a "Southern" image of Kentucky's past. The article as it currently exists downplays the racist history of this song by denying its origin in blackface minstrel music and ignoring the widespread mobilization of the song to portray a romanticized vision of the antebellum South around the turn of the 20th century. I primarily cited secondary literature by historians and musicologists, who provide contemporary primary sources in their work. However, any prose or citations that I've included to support this argument, including those citations of contemporary primary sources, have been removed to preserve a false history that this song's historical legacy is primarily located in an abolitionist history. That is simply not borne out in the scholarly literature.

This is important info in light of recent efforts by some state leaders in various states to censor some info on slavery and racism in school curriculum, and libraries. And to paint slavery as not being that bad.

The controversy over the song at the 2022 Kentucky Derby continued at the 2023 one:

Emily Bingham, author of the book "My Old Kentucky Home. The Astonishing Life and Reckoning of an Iconic American Song", is also in that news clip. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Invite to join the Derby 150 article development and backlog drive (relevant article)


WikiProject Louisville 		Derby 150 article development and backlog drive
Help WikiProject Louisville commemorate and celebrate the 150th Kentucky Derby! Join our article development and backlog drive taking place during the period of the Kentucky Derby Festival, April 20 – May 5, 2024. The purpose of this drive is to improve a corner of the Wikipedia related to and timed for this special rare anniversary, as a part of improving the whole encyclopedia.
  • Barnstars will be awarded for participation.
  • Tag your edit summary with [[WP:DERBY150]], both to advertise the event and tally edits for milestone tracking and a possible leaderboard.
  • Interested in helping out? Sign up here. (We're also looking for technical assistance.)
Join our festive international Derby party! Mint julep, anyone?

Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kentucky_Derby/Archive_1&oldid=1234665185"