Talk:Kansas/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

East-Central Kansas

I don't think there really needs to be an article dedicated to "East Central Kansas," for it really isn't a cultural region of the state. How about we make it Eastern Kansas in general, because Eastern Kansas is distinct from Western Kansas.

Burroughsks88 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also here there definitely should be something in the Eastern Kansas section about Lawrence because it does have cultural highlights stemming from the University's influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Change

The article stated that the Largest Hand Dug Well in Greensburg, Kansas had been destroyed in the tornado. This is not true. The building next to the well was essentially destroyed, the water tower next to the well was destroyed, and initial thoughts were that the well had collapsed in on itself, but the well is actually fine and will eventually reopen. 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great news!--Paul McDonald 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Location of Kansas

Right now, the article says: Located in the heartland of the country, Kansas is home to the geographical center of the contiguous United States..

I would like it to say: Located in the Midwest, Kansas is home to the geographical center of the contiguous United States.

Any comment? unknown user

Both are acceptable, but the second is preferable. Jon 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I object (like that's got any clout!) to referring to Kansas as in the "Midwest" ... look at a map of North America. I realize that some people think that Ohio is in the "Midwest" but the "Middle of the West" really starts at Colorado and goes to Utah or maybe Nevada. Anyway, those are my thoughts.--Paul McDonald 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why they call the plains area the midwest? Wrad 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Same reason they call the Southeast "the South". The whole nomenclature is fairly East-coast centric, and in my opinion, quite goofy. I don't agree with it, but that's what popular culture calls it. And since that's what most of your sources are going to say, that's what we ought to say. ----Steve 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wrad 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of Kansas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Kansas. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll join up... who else? ----Steve 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure NapalmSunday 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansas as a border state

I'm not debating that the Civil War pretty much started in Kansas. What I am debating is your use of the term border state. Border states were states that permitted slavery but didn't join the confederacy. Kansas as a state never permitted slavery. I would also debate your use of "southern cultural" influences. Kansas has never been considered southern, not even in the sense that Missouri or Oklahoma are.

Burroughsks88 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, the border state article does not list Kansas. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Kansas doesn't really fit in that category. Wrad (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think Kansas is easily defined as a "border state". In fact, if you look at the border states page and look at the map on the right side of the page Kansas has its own distinction. As for whether or not Kansas had slaves as a state, I think it is obviously all on how you word your arguement. Kansas did have slaves within its borders, Thomas Johnson for whom Johnson County is named after was a slave holder ( The Lecompton Constitution ( also called for slavery and it was only after three different constitutions and the inevitable war ahead that Kansas was adopted as a free state. Geographically, Kansas is also listed on the south central united states page on wikipedia ( and on the federal aviation page ( I don't see how you could possibly be occasionally classified in the south central united states, have states that were slaves states on two sides and not be a border state. Kansas was so important leading up to the Civil War because it was a border state. If it had been Nebraska it wouldn't have been. In addition, I would argue being from Wichita that Kansas does have aspects of "southern cultural" influences. For instance, highly Repbulican (unlike most states considered Midwestern), identified as being in the Bible Belt of the US, has pushed against evolution in schools, has banned gay marriages,is a right to work state (like most southern states) and has a large oil and gas sector, etc. I think most people would identify these cultural aspects to be more Southern than Midwestern. I think it is really easy for people to generalize the whole state based on Kansas City (which is much more Midwestern) than taking into account the rest of the state. Personally, I think the way you all had it before showed the unique historical and current cultural aspects of Kansas. Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I think that my revert to re-insert the term "border state" here was probably in error. I didn't realize the term had specific meaning in the context of the Civil War. We were certainly a state on the border, culturally as well as on the battle lines, but the term of art "border state" seems to exclusively mean states who officially allowed slavery but remained in the Union. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the term "border state" however I would not link it to the civil war definition page. Kansas is a border state in about every context, it borders historical and current southern states, midwestern states, and even states considered western or southwestern(colorado). I would then agree you should re-insert the text "Kansas is a state with both Midwestern and Southern cultural influences reflecting its status as a border state".Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I still really don't want to say border state. It just has too much of the Civil War connotation even without the link. Wrad (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree that Kansas has a "status as a border state". As a native I don't think of Kansas bordering anything in the modern context. Yes, it is a cultural cross-roads, and yes, it has influences from different parts of the country, but no, I doubt it would be considered a border state by most people. —Mike 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UT

If the term "border state" still bothers for some reason then leave it out. I was merely trying to expand the conversation and add facts to back up my arguement. I would however add the previous line you had before that "Kansas has both Midwestern and Southern cultural influences". As a Kansas naitive myself I don't think you can argue this point. Robert

I thought you had good points. I just think that its "borderness" is better communicated in what you just quoted. It has both southern and midwestern influences. You may want to join the conversation we had on that further up on this page. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UT

I am not sure what conversation you are refering to further up the page? I would agree with you though that the quote about its cultural difference is sufficient. I hope that someone will add that sentence to the Kansas page. Robert

After adding the statement, "Kansas's history and geographical location attributed to its unique blend of midwestern and southern culture". It was erased by someone obviously with no explanation as to why, despite the conversations above. It seems to me that this topic discussion board is useless. Arguements above made with links and references are disregarded for personal preference. The three threads above were used to show conflict for the term "boarder state" which was resolved by adding a simple statement showing cultural differences. This apparently was to much for someone and therefore it was erased to put Kansas in a pigeon hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Does mentioning Kansas City is referred to as the eastern most western city bother anyone's sensibilities? After reading y'alls discusstions here, it seems that unless its calling Kansas a "midwestern" state y'all dont put much else in. I was in Kansas until I was 15 and always thought the eastern most western city was an unsual distinction. Jayhawk23 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007

Buffalo vs Bison

Ok, given that the 'technical' term is American Bison. The official source from the KS Govt lists it as the American Buffalo. So which should it be?

I would go with "Buffalo" because that is what the average person from the area calls the animal. If you want to be specific, you could list "Buffalo (Bison)" but I think that would be overkill. A link to the Bison page should clear up any questions.--Paul McDonald 15:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Global warming info

Well User:Jcam removed my contributions to the article with the note, removing POV (cited political source in climate section):

Global warming is predicted to have a destructive effect on Kansas:
Wheat farming in Kansas, for example, would be profoundly affected by the loss of ice cover in the Arctic. According to a NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies computer model, Kansas would be 4 degrees warmer in the winter without Arctic ice, which normally creates cold air masses that frequently slide southward into the United States. Warmer winters are bad news for wheat farmers, who need freezing temperatures to grow winter wheat. And in summer, warmer days would rob Kansas soil of 10% of its moisture, drying out valuable cropland.[1]
Hotter, dryer conditions in Kansas would approximate the conditions that led to the dust bowl years in the 1930's, when the state was largely uninhabitable.

But this was not POV, but scientifically documented projections, and should be respected as such, not even Bush and Exxon question that global warming is happening anymore, the only argument is what causes it and what to do about it, so the likely effects on Kansas should be restored to the article.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Shouldn't have been point-of-view data, methinks... but it doesn't exactly belong in the "Kansas" article. There's no section called "stuff that hasn't happend but might" ... HOWEVER, I could see an article on the potential effects of global warming, or an article on "effects of potential disasters for Kansas" might be kind of fun too... so I think it should have been removed from this article and placed in another, but not for the reason given.--Paul McDonald 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say it doesn't belong in the Kansas article? It's in the climate section - the climate of Kansas is not particularly different from the climate of Nebraska or Oklahoma, but each article has its own section on climate.... as long as we're going to say what the climate of Kansas is, we should be able to say what the climate of Kansas will be (the quote is Kansas specific).... and this is not a "potential disaster" this is what is already happening, and what the best scientific evidence tells us will continue to happen!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Harumph. "Why do you say it doesn't belong in the Kansas article?" ... because it doesn't belong in the Kansas article.
The "climate" section is used to speak specifically about what the climate is, not what it might be sometime maybe in the future. And it's not "already happening" because the quote you gave states what would happen if the polar ice caps completely melt. They are a long way from that (at least, they tell me... haven't been there to check myself).
I encourage you to make a separate article about the potential and projected effects of global warming on Kansas climate. You can then link to that article from this one.--Paul McDonald 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think one paragraph is enough to warrant a separate article. And the Climate section is about the climate--not just the current climate. It should be ok to add any sourced info on how the climate has changed since the last ice age or scientific projections of how the climate may change in the not too distant future. (But leave out any pure speculations.) If the section gets too big, it can be expanded into another article and summarized here. —Mike 23:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would think that a "history of Kansas Climate" paragraph would belong in the Kansas History page. But HEY that's why we have discussions!--Paul McDonald 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to view the History section as the human or cultural history, more than the geographic or climate. —Mike 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit:

I removed the following:

Kansas is known as the sunflower state.
4% of the USA is planes and 3% of planes are in kansas.

The first line was redundant, as the nickname "the Sunflower State" is given in the state info box. The second line made no sense whatsoever, had no reference, and was grammatically incorrect.--Paul McDonald 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Its sounds redundant to state Kansas is home to the geographic center of the lower 48 states twice. Especiall when thy are stated a few lines from each other. Of course it just my opion on the matter and if one does change it back please say why. Natural number is e 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it. Apparently it is the geodetic and Geographic center, but someone messed up. Easy mistake to make. I had no idea about geodetics. Wrad 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Climate section organization

I tried to organize the Climate section into less of a list and more of prose. It is better now, but not that good as prose should be, really. Do we want to divide it into three or four sections? The weather seems to divide into west, east, and south groups, so maybe a paragraph about each and then one about the state as a whole? As it is now, it could really be more coherent. Wrad 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Demographic info

I've run into a paradox with the demographic section. The rural decline sections seems to say the population of Kansas is dropping, while the census infobox says it went up 8% at the last census. Can anyone who knows the source of the rural decline section clarify this? Wrad 18:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


There is a problem with the Petroleum paragraph. It states that the production of oil is on a steady decline, but then says that it has been fairly level since 1999. This, if not contradictory, is ambiguous. Could someone familiar with the sources clear this up? Also, in the notable employers paragraph, there may be a need for a clear list of maybe the ten biggest employers in Kansas, with citations, rather than a lump of big companies. Those that don't fit on the list could then be placed on regional pages. I may have time to do this myself, but if anyone wants, jump right in. Also, if you have other suggestions, go ahead. Wrad 21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Production has experienced a steady, natural decline as it becomes increasingly difficult to extract oil over time. Since oil prices bottomed in 1999, oil production in Kansas has remained fairly constant, with an average monthly rate of about 2.8 million barrels in 2004.
It isn't really that ambiguous. The first sentence says "over time" (meaning the long-term trend), and the second says "since 1999". —Mike 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a top ten list and edited. Here is what it was before, in case anyone wants to use it (I hate to lose information). if yu can work more of this into the new form somehow, go for it.

Major employers in Kansas include the Sprint Nextel Corporation (with operational headquarters in Overland Park), Embarq (with national headquarters in Overland Park), Learjet Inc. (Wichita) , Hallmark Cards (Topeka, Lawrence & Kansas City), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Topeka), Applebee's (Overland Park), Payless Shoes (National headquarters and major distribution facilities in Topeka), Koch Industries (Wichita), Department of Defense (Ft.Riley/Junction City and Fort Leavenworth) and Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems (Wichita).

I realize that the list of the top ten may look better as a table, maybe with the number of employees listed on the side, but I don't have time for now. Wrad 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused by Top 10 employers list -- shows a larger number of employees for the #2 than for the #1 listed company? DeSales 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a typo. Fixed. Wrad 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In fiction

Somebody posted this on the main page:

Why no mention of Clark Kent?

It was clearly a joke, but it got me thinking. Maybe we should have a section about Kansas in literature, popular culture, film, etc. It would be interesting. Wrad 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Category:Fictional characters from Kansas link below--Paul McDonald 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, is this worked into the main article at all? Wrad 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the inclusion of this page in the category "fictional characters in kansas" (it screws with the categories). For future reference, to link to a category put a : in front of the link (this works with images as well). So for instance the syntax [[:Category:Fictional characters from Kansas]] produces: Category:Fictional characters from Kansas. As a result, this page will not be included as a page in that category. Happy editing. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Should the list be in paragraph form? J. D. Redding 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that in combination with a listing of only major landmarks. Other landmarks can be listed on city or county pages. Wrad 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I took out what I considered to be the less notable landmarks. A lot of them need to be moved to city or county pages:

If you want to put any of them back, just say why on your edit summary, or discuss it here. Wrad 06:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a list of Kansas landmarks could be possible. maybe? maybe not ... J. D. Redding 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive User

User has made several entries that the "governor of Illinois" is actually the "governor of Kansas" -- I have rv for vandalism twice, one other Wiki editor has also done the same thing. Third time... how do we stop this?--Paul McDonald 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AN/I, I geuss. Wrad 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Possable Link on Top

Would it be possable or just plain apporperate to add a link on the top along with the disembigation to the Kansas (band) entry? Tazz 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate. Just put it on the Disambiguation page. Wrad 03:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Someone has added an abusive nickname for the state of Kansas... It is The Sunflower State —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Largest Metro Area

I changed the largest metro area from Wichita to Kansas City. I looked at both MSAs and it appears that the Kansas side of the Kansas City MO-KS MSA is larger by population then the entire Wichita MSA. This can be viewed in the following article Kansas_census_statistical_areas

unregistered user 01:03, 10 November 2007

We are talking of metro area in kansas yeah Kansas city with KS, and MO is several million, but w/ just KS is smaller than Wichita's 600,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Census Bureau, the following Kansas counties are part of the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area: Franklin, Johnson, Leavenworth, Linn, Miami, and Wyandotte. The 2008 Census County population estimates list the cumulative population of these counties as 829,823. The Census Bureau defines the Wichita MSA as Butler, Harvey, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties. The 2008 cumulative population estimate for this area is 603,716. So, even with just Kansas, the Kansas City metro area is larger than the Wichita metro. While one might argue that the largest city in the Kansas City metro area is in Missouri, making the point moot, the Census Bureau also maintains a list of principal city components of MSAs. Many MSAs have multiple principal cities (Dallas-Fort Worth being one prominent example). Kansas City KS and Overland Park KS (along with Kansas City MO) are both listed as principal cities of the Kansas City Metro Area. Using this, one could argue that if Kansas were its own nation walled off from the rest of the world, you would still have the Kansas portion of the Kansas City Metro built up around Kansas City KS and Overland Park. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the largest metro area in Kansas is Kansas City. However, I will add a note denoting that the infobox is referring to the Kansas portion by itself. Aaporter 87 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I decided not to add that note since many states' largest metropolitan areas exceed their boundaries but do not make that statement. I still otherwise stand by my previous statement. Aaporter 87 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)