Talk:Kansas

Wichita is the largest metro area in Kansas? Absolutley not. Wichita is not even a major city. It's metro population is UNDER 1 million people. In Kansas alone it only has around 600 thousand. Kansas City is a major city and metro area with population exceeding 2 million people. Even the Kansas suburbs of Kansas City, including Johnson County (with 500 thousand), Wyandotte (with 150K), and Leavenworth (50k) are larger than the entire Wichita MSA. I have changed the infobox accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.212.191 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, except that the KC metro area isn't based in Kansas...If you are looking for the biggest one based in Kansas, it is the Wichita metro. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Disagree, regardless of largest city in the particular area, a "metro area" is simply defined as "a contiguous area of relatively high population density". By that definition, the KCK/JoCo area can be considered a metro area, and one that is larger than the Wichita metro. The July 2007 census estimate put the Wichita metro at 596K, while the latest estimates put Johnson and Wyandotte counties alone at 688k. I've changed it to reflect Kansas City, KS metro area. Wichita is certainly the largest city in Kansas, but by definition, is not the largest metro. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Adding my voice: I think KC Metro should count, even if it doesn't qualify as largest city. The same issue arises with Maryland and Virginia, where the D.C. centered Metro area is the largest. In Maryland, it is referred to as the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area (the population center is closer to D.C., but the suburbs stretch between them), and in Virginia simply as Northern Virginia. In the latter case, it isn't properly centered around any particularly large city in Virginia (there are cities within it, but they aren't the center; NoVA is an adjunct of D.C.). If there is some name for the KC Metro area that distinguishes it from Kansas City, feel free to use it, but if it has the largest population, it doesn't matter if it is centered around an out of state city. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

I could go with that, just so long as it is differentiated from being Kansas City, MO (although technically the same metro area)...In other words, how it is now is fine by me. Good thinking putting Kansas City, Kansas metro area. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

I made an edit to make it even more specific. This does three things I think: 1) Specifies that it includes more than just Kansas City, Kansas. 2) Doesn't give the impression that KCK is the central city 3) Makes it clear that the metro area straddles the state line. I wish there was a way to also include Wichita, but I couldn't figure out a way. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Is it possible to tinker with the infobox to where it has "largest metro area" and "largest metro area centered in state" or something similar?? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thats what I was thinking, but I can't figure it out. We could always propose a change at the city Infobox page. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Sbmeirow: I was wondering why you removed the Kansas City MO-KS urban area from the page. As you can see in these references here ^{[1] [2]} It is the largest metropolitan area in Kansas. Kansas City MO-KS is the official MSA name because it is in both states. I also was looking at pages like Florida and New Jersey and as you can see they also have their largest metro areas on their pages. I’m curious as to why it’s hidden away in the tiny info box instead of being in the lead as it is the most important place in Kansas.

The Topography section includes the statements

It is a popular belief that Kansas is the flattest state in the nation, reinforced by a well known 2003 study stating that Kansas was indeed "flatter than a pancake." [ref]Study finds Kansas Flatter Than Pancake[/ref] This has since been debunked, with most scientists ranking Kansas somewhere between 20th and 30th flattest state, depending on measurement method.[ref]Fracas over Kansas pancake flap[/ref]

The study may have been well known and even scientific, but it was not a serious scientific study. The first cited article says of the study:

The results, published in the tongue-in-cheek Annals of Improbable Research, have created a flapjack flap among geologists and others in Kansas.

"My guess is you could put Colorado in there, the way they're calculating it, and it would be flatter than a pancake," said Lee Allison, director of the Kansas Geological Survey. "I think this is part of a vast breakfast food conspiracy to denigrate Kansas. It's a cheap shot."

Sheesh, the Annals of Improbable Research. Should it even be mentioned? Anyhow, I have added a link to the "study" itself on AIR's website, so that anyone bothering to even look at the URL will see that it is indeed "improbable". --Thnidu (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Reply

I think it's worth including, simply for the sake of debunking or showing it to be a joke. As a Kansan, i've numerous times had someone from out of state say something to me along the lines of: "Didn't some study prove Kansas was flatter than a pancake?" Most people seem to believe it was a genuine study, not a joke. Might help to change "well known 2003 study" to something like "well known 2003 tongue-in-cheek study" or something like that. Ryan2845 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Reply

Done. Thnidu (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

I have never never heard people from Kansas referred to as Kansonians. It's usually (or always) Kansans. Can't figure out how to change it myself, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsesemerson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

In the section entitled "Important cities and towns" I have changed the chart from cities with a population of 10,000 (37 cities) to cities with 15,000 (25 cities). I thought the chart with 37 cities took up undue space on the page, and I don't believe the section loses much by eliminating those towns with populations between 10,000 and 14,999. It's a fairly arbitrary cut-off in either case, but one argument for adopting 15,000 as a meaningful number is that this is the population statutorily required to become a "city of the first class" in Kansas. Comments on this change are welcome. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

Sounds good, I updated the table data recently and wasn't sure why 10k was the cutoff. At least 15k has the "first class" city reasoning behind it. There's a lot of cities in kansas hovering around the 10k range, but not many nearing 15k, so hopefully it will keep the table from needing extensive updating too. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

Please refrain from changing the capital city from Topeka to Google. This is just a publicity stunt by the mayor to get Google to notice the city. Changing the official name of a city--especially one as established as Topeka--takes more than just a simple "proclamation". If you change the name to Google, it WILL be reverted. Bhall87 ^{Four Score} _{and Seven} 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

I added an inline note about it; probably won't keep all of it out but should help a bit. Go ahead and remove it in after a month if I haven't done it already. Alexius Horatius 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

It is only for one day and EXCLUSIVELY as a April Fool joke.--IViking (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

Please add the correct reference points on who thought and suggested the Google Kansas Name, It's listed above, it was Ryan Gigous that thought of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.162.178 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

So? This whole publicity stunt is over and done (has been over and done since April 2nd) and probably 95-98% of people have forgotten it even happened. Also, if included in an article it would be better placed in the Topeka, Kansas article, not in the Kansas article. Bhall87 ^{Four Score} _{and Seven} 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

The temperatures should be in Celsius!! 153.1.30.116 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

As the US uses the Imperial system of measurement, no. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Reply

There are 7.5 billion people, most of which use SI units, to which the 300 million inhabitants of the USA have also officially adhered to. Wikipedia is not a localised but an international tool. Therefore only SI units should be used, i.e. °C or °K for temperatures. If it is necessary for the USA, local units can be added. Have also a look at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement.

As for climate there should at least be two indicators: mean monthly temperature and monthly rainfall. Mean montly maxima and minima is an addition. A standard climate diagram showing the two key indicators mean monthly temperature and monthly rainfall should be added. I can do that, if we agree an units and indicators. Mregelsberger (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Reply

Temparatures are still in °F almost 10 years later! The reasons why this is wrong are clear and have been stated. No one done the work though? I might come back later to take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.145.174.93 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Reply

Is there a reason that Kansas doesn't have any history for the last 100 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.244.56 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

What kind of history are you talking about? California's history stops in the 1930s, New York's history stops in the early 20th Century. After establishing the state and noting its significance in the formation of our nation, the rest of the history tends to fall toward the individual cities and any type of political or demographic history would be included in those sections. Bhall87 ^{Four Score} _{and Seven} 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

What is the criteria? I can understand leaving companies like Wal-Mart off however other companies such as National Beef(Smithfield Foods) although it's companies headquarters is in Virginia has at least 5,000 employees in Kansas(most notably their Dodge City and Liberal Plants). Cargil operates an meat processor in Dodge City with 2700+ employees and in Garden City Tyson Foods operates a 3,000+ employee plant. Is the separation based on whether or not they are headquartered in the state? Source Link:^[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.39.31 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

The table simply reflects the data put out by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce in the data book that is linked in the table. I assume it is companies headquartered or with major offices in Kansas Ryan2845 (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

This section is incomplete. It should discuss the railroads with links to the AT&SF and other relevant articles. 4.249.63.20 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Reply

Why is the geography section before the history section? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Albacore (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

I agree, but someone else will have to fix it. I'm currently confined to editing from an iPod; I can't edit if the part to be changed is below the length of the edit window. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

Done. Grey Wanderer (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

There is a newer license plate design now.Unclemikejb (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

Probably better just to link {{main }} to List of people from Kansas rather than have that very long list of people from Kansas. Same goes for the "Landmarks" section. Major change, thought I should bring it up here first. Albacore (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Reply

Agree. Alexius Horatius 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Reply

Sounds good. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Reply

Done, thanks. Albacore (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Reply

The few pictures on this article enforce the stereotype that the Kansas countryside is boring and flat. I request a couple more pictures c: --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Reply

"In 1996, when Kansas Republican Senator Bob Dole failed in his bid to become President on the party's national ticket, the state became the second in the nation (following Minnesota and preceding Arizona by identical twelve-year intervals) to produce two losing major-party presidential candidates, and the first in which the said candidates ran on the GOP ticket (following Alfred Landon's loss to FDR in 1936)."

I'm not sure what this editor is trying to say, but as it appears, it is false. Several states have produced multiple election losers for major parties. I'm going to remove it from the article but keep it on the talk page in case he or she wants to revise it. Gtbob12 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Just reading through the wiki for my home state and I noticed that there was no mention of the Cimmaron National Grasslands under parks and historic sites. Not much of a park in the traditional sense, but still might deserve a mention. Also no mention of the "Dust Bowl" days of Southwest KS. Lots of interesting history from that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.80.122 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

The list of parks and historic sites are areas currently under the protection of the National Park Service which the Cimarron National Grassland is not. As for the Dust Bowl, it is covered a little bit in the History of Kansas article but could be expanded with info from the Dust Bowl article but even that focuses more on Oklahoma and Texas since those places were hit a lot harder. If someone from the WikiProject Kansas team had some info to add about the Dust Bowl/Great Depression in Kansas, it would definitely be welcome. Bhall87 ^{Four Score} _{and Seven} 01:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm

Kansas 75% circumcision rate (2012) Still Medicaid funded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.105.20 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Reply

What is the purpose of this? Are you asking for it to be in the article? It seems like just an arbitrary stat, not really significant for the article. Scarlettail (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Reply

I just created a redirect from Brownbackistan to here. This article should discuss the use of the term in popular culture and how the image of Kansas in popular culture is often compared to an oppressive, third-world religious dictatorship. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Reply

Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the education section of the page:

"Kansas ranked 24th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 74.6 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

Kansas posted a B-minus in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 17th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Kansas received a mark of C and finished 25th for School Finance. It ranked 33rd with a grade of D-plus on the K-12 Achievement Index."

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: ^[1] Csmithepe (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)CsmithepeReply

"Kansas was first settled by Americans in 1827"--lead, para 2. This might come as a surprise to the Kansa Natives, who were non-nomadic and quite settled by 1827. Sure, we all know what is meant, but an encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard of accuracy. "European Americans", perhaps, although I'm not quite comfortable with that either. And "in" 1827? All in one year! I think the whole sentence needs recasting--what is actualy meant? I don't have a good answer; perhaps a real historian can clarify. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Reply

It seems we've completely reworded it, but I think the original wording was also good. Yes, the first year of white settlement was 1827, so what other year would we list? And as to your other point, I've never heard Native Americans refer to their ancestors as just "Americans", so I think the meaning was clear the way we had it. Lastly I'm a bit put off by your "real historian" remark, as if the rest of the community here are just mindless drones ... I'd say the day Wikipedia submits to credentialism is the day the project dies. — Soap — 16:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

A request has been submitted to WikiProject Kansas for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in Kansas. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Reply

Shouldn't the official name of Kansas be the "State of Kansas"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.134.44 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Reply

There is discrepancy between rank ( as per population ) mention in Lead section & in the Infobox. In Lead it is mentioned as 34th & in Infobox it is 35th.Saankav (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Reply

The current version of this article states:

In May 2011, much to the opposition of art leaders and enthusiasts in the state, Brownback eliminated the Kansas Arts Commission, making Kansas the first state without an arts agency.

However, doesn't the Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission fulfill some of this function? Shouldn't we create an article for this agency, or at least mention it briefly in this article? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

We currently write

It is a common misconception that Kansas is the flattest state in the nation—in 2003, a tongue-in-cheek study famously declared the state "flatter than a pancake". In fact, Kansas has a maximum topographic relief of 3,360 ft (1,020 m), making it the 23rd flattest U.S. state measured by maximum relief.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the science. If I hold a piece of paper level, we can all agree it's flat. If i tilt sideways a bit, it remains flat. So it is with Kansas and the other Great Plains states. I don't think we should list this misleading "fact" at all. — Soap — 16:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I would prefer to simply remove the sentence rather than express what most people already know, but i may look for the original science behind the pancake thing as well. we call it tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps that's just part of the misunderstanding i'm getting at. anyway, the picture at right is what we would call a mountain if maximum topographic relief was a meaningful measurement of topography:

— Soap — 19:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

this study confirms what i suspected .... Florida is the flattest state, but Kansas is close behind. I had forgotten about Illinois and some other states, however, and it seems Kansas is only 7th. It may worth mentioning this study just to confirm that it isnt the very flattest state, but also to clarify that a slanted flat terrain is still a flat terrain and therefore the argument that it's 23rd place is also wrong. — Soap — 19:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Jews in Kansas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 5 §Ethnic group redirects until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

The redirect List of Kansas state agencies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 21 §List of US state agencies until a consensus is reached. Squawk7700 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think that, even though they are less than 1% of the state's population (actually 4% if including also mixed-race individuals with partially Native ancestry), including a map of Native American ancestries (which I added to the article) is relevant, because they were the original inhabitants of the land, and they have created much of the state's folklore. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

'The name Kansas derives from the Algonquian term Akansa, referring to the Quapaw people. These were a Dhegiha Siouan-speaking people who settled in Arkansas around the 13th century. The stem -kansa is named after the Kaw people, also known as the Kansa, a federally recognized Native American tribe.'

This doesn't make sense, IMO. A stem can't be 'named after' something, it can only have a certain meaning / refer to something. What's the idea, that some Algonquians somehow named the Quapaw people after the Kaw people? Seems unlikely. The name is either derived from the name of the Quapaw people or from the name of the Kaw people, and the section can't seem to make up its mind as to which of the two it is. Anonymous44 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi - I tagged this article for AI, and in this case it is not ambiguous, as the text added in these mid-2025 edits inserts the ":contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}" source markup bug, which is an unambiguous indicator of AI use. Someone came along later in Special:Diff/1284086311 and (well-intentionedly) removed the markup, but did not change any of the text.

So, per WP:NOLLM, the text added here (which is still in the current revision) needs to be either completely rewritten and fact-checked without AI, or removed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply