Talk:Kansas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

United States Portal

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

indians "For millenia, the land that is presently Kansas was inhabited by Native Americans." Is this accurate? I thought that the Indians that were displaced by the white settlers had only been in the area a few hundred years. Weren't they displaced tribes from the Eastern part of the country? Maybe this should be "centuries" instead of "millenia". Jayscore 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

indians from the east often displaced the indigenous tribes of the territories to which they were displaced, if the eastern tribe was stronger (or smallpox cleared the way first.) When white settlers arrived, they often found the decedents of eastern Native American tribes--sometimes with no real memory of who the "original" tribes were. At any rate, there is extensive evidence of ancient Native American activity in Kansas. For example, Clovis points have been found in several locations around the state[1], and small-scale Mound builder activity has also been documented[2], to name a few. --Carboncopy 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the text be expanded in this section? Just a thought. —Mike 02:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More information about Kansas tribes is included in the article History of Kansas, though they probably deserve at least another sentence here. -- Carboncopy 03:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude, Longitude

1) What is the source for official State boundaries? 2) Currently Kansas and Colorado seem to overlap in Wikipedia. Maybe the Colorado number is rounded.

curious reader

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.146.9 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Into paragraph: settlers from Massachusetts

To the anonymous user, please note that settlers from Mass. were not the very first to settle Kansas, and that they were not all abolitionists. They were Free-Staters, which is a more nuanced position. Also, to say that they sought to avoid the spread of slavery from neighboring Missouri sort of misstates the issue that arose from the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Kgwo1972 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "width" mean vs. "length"? either way, isn't kansas more wide than ... long? or tall? or whatever the other axis might be called?

Full size flag of Kansas seems to be missing. I could not find a Flag of Kansas article, and the full detail link under the flag links to Flag of Missouri.

Didup 17:15 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] drop English measurements in state table?

I've recently changed Template:US state to make the table more compact. Including the English measurements in addition to metric makes the table entries look awkward in the current version of the template. Missouri is the only other state article that includes English measurements. Anyone care if I delete the English measurements? An alterative might be to create a different version of the template that accommodates both English and metric (which I'd be willing to do if anyone strongly cares about preserving the English measurements). -- Rick Block 15:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because Americans don't normally use metric measurements, the English measurements should always be included, if not the default measurement. —Mike 05:29, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I too believe that the English measurements should remain. The World would be better if everyone switched to metric. The fact of the matter is that they have not and English measurements still dominate the United States. As such, we ought to include the measurement system that is common to the locality. --Richss 14:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Surely there were settlers before 1850. Can anyone clarify this?

[edit] People From Kansas...

Just wondering what the denizens of Kansas are called... As in, Utahns are from Utah, etc.

Kansans. :) Cookiecaper 22:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayhawkers as well - me

Why do famous people from states like Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, leave and dont come back, Bill and Hillary Clinton are from Arkansas, after they got to the White house they are in New York, I wonder why...:)

Well, Hillary Clinton is a senator from New York, so she kind of has to live there and in Washington... As for other "famous" people like the Hollywood movie stars... well, they go to where they make... y'know... movies. And we don't have too many movie studios in Kansas.--Paul McDonald 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hightest point in infobox

Since the highest point in Kansas has its own Wikipedia page (Mount Sunflower), should a link to Mount Sunflower be given in the infobox? N0YKG 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] odd paragraph deleted

"As it is the central state in the Union, it is difficult to classify Kansas within one of the standard geographical regions of the nation, but it is generally included in the Midwest. The southwestern part of the state is sometimes included in the Southwest, since the area once was part of Spain, Mexico, and the Republic of Texas, while the rest of Kansas was not."

The style used is wrong for the topic; it's in British English ["as" used instead of "because"], which shouldn't be used for an article about an American state. Plus I'm not aware of anyone in the US ever disputing Kansas being considered part of the Midwest or refering to any portion of the state as Southwestern. Jon 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overland Park/Olathe

In the Important Cities and Towns section, OP and Olathe are listed as suburbs rather than in the > 100,000 category. While it's true that they are suburban areas, it's also true that they exceed 100,000 population -- and Overland Park is actually larger than the city it's listed as being a suburb of, and has been since the mid-90s! I'd suggest that at the very least Overland Park, if not also Olathe, be moved up to the 100,000 section. JFMorse 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Given a choice, I would rather do away with the whole greater than thing and instead have them grouped in some other way. For example, group by metro area and then sort within each grouping by population (and display the most recent estimated population). —Mike 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not going to change much, though; all of the suburbs are KC Metro, and all of the other cities are their metro area, essentially. If you're talking about just folding the whole mess into one list, with the populations noted, and the KC Metro Area cities grouped, then I think that would indeed be a good idea. If nobody raises an objection soon, I can take a crack at that. JFMorse 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also question any of these being suburbs of Kansas City, Kansas. Having lived in the area for 20 years, I can tell you that people consider these towns to be suburbs of Kansas City, Missouri. Or maybe a better term would be the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. Jayscore 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jayscore. I certainly wouldn't consider OP, Olathe, Lenexa, etc. to be suburbs of Kansas City, KS. I've spoken with three friends that grew up in KC, KS and they feel that if they are to be listed as suburbs it should be under Kansas City, Missouri. Perkins5622 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Olathe, OP, and Lenexa are all in Kansas. It would be idiotic to list them in a state that they do not exist in. I grew up in Olathe, KANSAS, not Missouri. I think the only reason that they are considered suburbs of KCKS is because you really cannot tell where one ends and another beings while driving through them. It is pretty much just one long, continuous sea of people. I would tell people that Olathe is a suburb of Kansas City because it is only a 30 minute drive from the outskirts of Olathe to downtown KC. Besides, Olathe, OP, Lenexa, etc. all have that suburban feel to them anyway, that it would be difficult for someone to say that they were not intentionally planned to be suburbs. (Kansans hate to be confused with Missourians, by the by.) Tragicomic 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in Overland Park, and I hate people claiming OP is a suburb of KCKS more than the idea that it's a suburb of KCMO. OP is bigger than KCKS, which was the point of my original suggestion here. JFMorse 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri) is really the suburb of Overland Park...they just don't know it yet. ;) —Mike 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... this seems to me to be a "state line war" of some type. Maybe this should be put under "bleeding Kansas" ... nah. But seriously, I think that the idea of "suburbs" in Kansas really does not apply. For example Schaumburg, Illinois is a very large city but is considered one of many, many suburbs of Chicago. The "suburbs" of the KC Metro Area are much, much fewer in number. Does that matter? I think so. Let's discuss!--Paul McDonald 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Government

Does anyone know how the state government is set up? I heard Nebraska is the only state with one legislative body. How many state senator and legislators are there? How long is their term?

Just thought someone out there would know.

[edit] Important Cities

The Important Cities section seems lacking and a bit onesided to JOCO.:( Maybe some editing or addtion of cities could help this section out! --buzlink 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it lists Salina as having 85,000 people. The page for Salina, though, cites that it has a population of something like 46,000. I never thought that Salina was more populous than, for instance, Lawrence, but could I be wrong?

I fixed it. It was done by an anon user in October. —Mike 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African American Settlers

Whoever is editing out the parts about African American settlers and calling it "drivel" needs to do a reality check. African American settlers were far more important to Kansas State history than many realize. StudierMalMarburg 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A picture is worth quite a few words

Came here looking for a few nice photos of Kansas, to get a general overview of the state. There are zero photos on the page. Vranak 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

True, it could be better, but you might want to start over in Commons:

Category:Kansas
User:Moverton/Southeast Kansas, a few I took —Mike 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[3]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Geography

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Economy

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)

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/n/Talk%7EKansas_2c5c.html"

Categories: WikiProject Kansas articles | B-Class United States articles | High-importance United States articles