This is an archive of past discussions about Kansas City, Missouri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't know for certain exactly when, but Walt Disney did sell news papers in the plaza in the late 1900's (that's pre-1910). He found his first mouse in Kansas City, which he named Mortimer(spelling?), when he was still young, and drew a caricature of, which was later renamed Mickey Mouse. What used to be known as "The Plaza" is now known as "The Mickey Mouse Plaza". Just some side notes. I am a KC native, and a was a big Walt Disney fan in my younger years....It's worth looking into???
Believed that KC has more fountains than any other city in the world except rome?? THAT IS FACT PEOPLE
Someone (probably from that craphole across the state) came on here and edited the article to say that it is "believed" that KC has more fountains than any other city in the world except Rome. This is a fact that is accepted and confirmed by multiple sources-- and by multiple I mean hundreds. This is an accepted fact. So it is not simply "believed" it "is". I changed it back.
Lets not start talking in caps, now, that just won't get us anywhere. First off, let's go back to the wikipedia standards, and one is verifiability and that includes good sources. As for the source of the founatins, it is a kansas city web page, not an independent source. At any rate, the citation even says it doesn't keep count of the fountains, and so how can even confirm its comparison? While the source is verifiable, its data is not, so while it's probably something that should go in the article, maybe we should move it out of the introduction. Rhetth14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree with Rhetth, while kansas city is known for its fountains, I'm not sure where the claim most fountains in the world comes from other than the Kansas City Tourist Board. Just off the top of my head, Pairs is five times the size of Kansas City and also known for its fountains, one would think it would have more. However, seeing as how Kansas City is known for them I think they at least deserve a mention.
Maybe the original poster could provide some of the multiple sources? That would clear this whole thing up. And while we're on it, maybe we could fact-check the boulevard statement. And hey, I live in KC, so don't think I'm just knocking the place. I would like the article to be up to WP standards. Rhetth01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've done a little poking around on google, I could find plenty of independent references about KC's fountains having a hard time finding a claim for 2nd most in the world that has substance. What we really need is a "the [blank] study/survey conducted by the [Fountains of the World] organization found Kansas City to have [blank] number of fountains, more than any other city in the world except Rome." Most sites seem to say stuff more along the lines of "it is said kansas city has more fountains, than any city but Rome," which seems to be a regurgitation of the KC city website. Grey Wanderer | Talk20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Who changed the heading "Kansas Citians" to "Kansas Citizens"?
I'm guessing it was someone who is not from Kansas City, has never been to Kansas City, and knows nothing about Kansas City. Everyone knows that people from Kansas City call themselves Kansas Citians... not "Kansas Citizens." If you fit into any one of the afformentioned categories, please do not edit this article!
Stop deleting the KC picture!!!
About two months ago, I uploaded a picture of Kansas City onto this web site. It was deleted. I took another picture just recently from the EXACT same location and uploaded it. DO NOT delete it unless you have another picture on it. I gave it a GNU licence. KC is a big city and all the other major cities have pictures of their skylines on their wikipedia entries. It makes us look small if we don't have one. Plus, we have one of the best skylines around so it wouldn't make sense not to put that picture there.
Here's an idea - WikiProject KC
So, I was marvelling at how far along all of these articles about the Kansas City area are coming along, when it also occurred to me that it isn't all that easy keeping track of new articles cropping up that we may be interested in and/or are able to contribute to. Perhaps the time has come to start a WikiProject Kansas City page to help coordinate amongst contributors? Here's the WikiProject page if you want to familiarize yourself with the concept. It would give a place to discuss the organization of all the KC related articles, as well as a way to organize and easily find related articles as they are created. Thing is, is there enough interest in the idea to warrant it? --Reverend Loki19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you need five additional contributors to voice support
So far, that's 5 of us total. I didn't see a hard and fast rule for a number of contributers needed, though... I've considered just operating under the auspices of WikiProject Missouri and WikiProject Kansas (haven't even checked to see if that one exists, actually), but not only is that dealing with two seperate projects, but also may not adequately address cross-state issues, or may cause confusion with tieing together mutliple articles that are domains of two seperate states. --Reverend Loki20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In essence, it is the creation of a team to focus on a particular subject, allowing editors to coordinate resources and develop a coherent and consistent approach to related articles. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver for an example. --Ckatzchatspy05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and did it; see blue link above for the main page, and let's get started! I am in no way trying to run the show though (this is my first time creating a new WikiProject), so please let me know what I've screwed up, left out, or done wrong! -- nae'blis18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with it's omission. I like the store myself, but I have trouble arguing for it's inclusion under attractions. Rainy Day Books, maybe, particularly in light of the number of authors they bring to town and the positive influence they have on the literary scene (the other day, in KCUR (Walt Bodine, I think) I recall hearing some author comment to that effect). Now, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of RDB, just providing a like counterpoint. --Reverend Loki20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Charlie O Mule Gift of Stuart Symington?
In the interest of more eyeballs and adding a little color to the Politics section. If memory serves me correctly, the Athletics mule Charlie-O was originally a gift from Stuart Symington who wanted a Democratic mule rather than Republican elephant representing the team/city. However I can't find references. Any help in finding that reference would be much appreciated. Thanks! Americasroof07:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Also Section
Do we really need this section? The Kansas City, KS link is already covered in metro template (second template after external links). Although I like the People from KC category link I cannot see the logic for having a category for a single link. Can we put this in another section or tag it at the bottom with the other categories (only until we find a better location)? Thanks --Abernaki13:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
People from Kansas City is also linked under Kansas Citians in the History section, so no reason to keep it. OT/Also, I'm totally stealing your profile layout. That's awesome! --Hobbes74717:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Kansas City Population
I know since this could be considered personal research, that it doesn't belong in the article, but I thought it was interesting.
Everyone knows the US Census is frequently wrong on their estimates. But I just recently realized how wrong they have been about Kansas City. Most of us can drive through Kansas City and see how drastically different much of it is from 2000.
The Kansas City Home Builders Association keeps monthly records of Residential Building Permits in major cities in several major metropolitan counties. For the past few years, they've shown that KCMO has been breaking it's own records left and right.
As of September 2006, there has been 14,008 residential building permits in KCMO since the year 2000.
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2000, Kansas City, MO had 202,334 residential units, 183,981 of which were occupied. This leaves 9% (.09) of them unoccupied. It also showed an average occupancy of 2.39 ppl per occupied unit.
If you took that original base number and added on the 14,008 permits, that would give you 216,342 residential units. Assuming that 9% of that total remains unoccupied, that gives us 19,470 unoccupied units. If we subtract that from the total amount of units, we come out with 196,872 occupied units. Assuming that 2.39 ppl occupy each unit, that would give Kansas City a total approx. population of 470,524 people in September of 2006. This is a simple estimation, but even if we assumed 11.% of the units weren't occupied, it would still give KC a total population of 460,182 people. In either situation, it shows how off the US Census Estimate possibly is. Comments? --KCMODevin03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a development/town/golf course located in Cass County, try here. Oak Park is a mall in Overland Park, but it is not a town.P.Shack20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd wait until OutKast, Diddy, or Big & Rich calls us that. UrbanDictionary.com isn't exactly canon in the eyes of civic leaders or rural residents. --KHill-LTown03:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how that works. In the last few days I've been compiling a section (article(?) on Crime in Kansas City which I hope to post in the next few days. The city ranks as the 8th most dangerous city with populations more than 400,000 in the country on a per capita basis on its murder rate. And it's not just the rust belt inner city problems. There's a whole pattern of violence virtually from the city's founding in 1853 with the lawless Bleeding Kansas raids, the burning of all occupied Jackson County south of Brush Creek and east of the Blue because of lawlessness during the Civil War, the celebration by the city newspapers of Jesse James, the whole Tom Pendergast era, a big Bonnie & Clyde shootout by what is now KCI, and lots of mafia stuff. Unfortunately the slang fits perfectly. It probably needs attribution but it still fits. I'm glad to see somebody with street cred editing here. Americasroof04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added whatsoever, it's obviously disrepectful and derogatory. It has no place on Wikipedia, or any article on Kansas City. While we do have high crime, we must remember there are reasons for the crime, and there are areas of Kansas City that don't have high crime. Look at Downtown for example, well over 15,000 people living in, and over 100,000 working in it's 2.9 square miles, and very little crime. Plus the term could also have a racist/prejudice use, referring to inner-city residents as "killers".
Also, UrbanDictionary is like wikipedia, and users can add virtually anything to it, it isn't very reliable. --KCMODevin11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do we even need to put something negative about Kansas City on here? It makes us look like a dangerous place or could give people the wrong idea about Kansas City. --KCMODevin02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that adding "Killa City" as one of KC's nickname is not sound, I disagree with this position. AFAIR, Wikipedia is not a mechanism for public relations. Perhaps a section on fluctuating crime rates that includes the nickname is more prudent. --KHill-LTown03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The murder rate has gotten pretty bad. My mom even got a license to carry. Americasroof is working on a crime section. --Hobbes74704:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
So long as the name "Killa City" is limited to the crime section, I'm game for that. (Personally, I blame Channel 5's sleazy reporting tactics. What says ratings like flashy graphics, blood, gore, sex stings, and a feature on the latest Survivor castaway before Katie Horner's forecast?) --KHill-LTown04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I'm here to represent Kansas City and promote it. I'm not here to deter people from living here by lying and saying that we are a dangerous city to live in. While our crime rate has been high, that does not mean that we are dangerous, it merely means that we have more people committing crimes that are usually only committed in the family, or among friends. The only reason this is happening is because we are so sprawled out (which is a big mistake in the first place). Our police department cannot police a city spread out over 313.5 square miles. It doesn't mean we are dangerous, it just depends on where you live. If you live near places like Prospect or some suburbs, you are in a more crime-ridden area, but you cannot label all of Kansas City as dangerous. Downtown has had a low crime rate, yet has a high density of people. (well over 15,100 people in 2.9 square miles... Plus over 100,000 employees during work hours) The claim that this is a nickname that have shouldn't be added to wikipedia whatsoever because it reflect negatively on our image and promotes false assumptions. --KCMODevin14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
How is it libious if leaving this in the article could make people think we are a dangerous city when we aren't? It'd be promoting a false fact. This name is disrespectful and does not belong in this article. --KCMODevin18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Libious isn't even a word. Do you mean libelous? The name Killa City isn't derogatory to some, as another said it's practically "Street Cred". Why are you guys trying to 'sell' Kansas City? You should just try to accurately represent it.
You should also sign your comments, 208.10.112.107
Plus, you might want to note that KC is 16th most dangerous, but not the most dangerous in the state. Any "Street Cred" names you can think of for St. Louis a la "Killa City"? --KHill-LTown23:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ya! Absolutely right KHill-LTown, St. Louis is ranked #1 highest crime city in the US, while KC is only 16. And if your gonna call it Killa City, you out to call it St. Shootus :P CloversMallRat03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Killa City is a nickname for Kansas City and that doesnt need to show up an an urban encyclopedia to be true. I've heard it my whole life and it came from Kansas City having one of the highest murder rates in the 80s. All this talk about KC not being dangerous is not true. While its not Detroit, or Oakland, it certianly is capable of bearing that nickname. I think most of you live in the suburbs and don't really see what goes on here day to day.willyammer 12:48, 26 March 2007
No one said it wasn't dangerous, we just said it isn't as dangerous as it was... It is also turning a corner where hopefully the gang fighting will be largely stopped by the police, and depending on who the next mayor is tomorrow, and what the nect mayor decides to do, that area of town can be improved, not only on the crime side, but also education and hopefully eventually integration wise. Still, it's disgraceful to our great city to refer to it with that name. --KCMODevin22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it somewhat disturbing that people who use words that do not exist, and people who do not know how to spell even basic words, are editing encyclopedia entries. --Anonymous 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"World city" claim
I have removed the following text from the lead paragraph:
Really? hmmm... I know wer were added to the list of potential cities. Remember, it says potential world cities, not a world city. --KCMODevin14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can find a specific citation, my apologies. However, I can't see support for the claim in that particular report. Any city can be a "potential" world city. Furthermore, a check on Google found that the references to "Kansas City" and "world city" came from Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If I had time, I'd blow your claim out of the water. Promoting KC is far more important than anything else... Oh and by the way, are you just going to be stupid and erase the Global Cities link too? How about delete every KC article while your at it? I'm here to present facts and overall, promote and represent Kansas City. I hope you have enough respect to let us represent it properly. Next time, do your research before you eliminate a fact from an article. --KCMODevin01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And I suggest you read the actual report pdf... It does list KC along with other world cities and potential world cities, comparing them to each other. --KCMODevin01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't turn this into a personal dispute. I have done nothing to warrant your use of language such as "stupid", "I hope you have enough respect", and "How about delete every KC article while your at it?" This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or an extension of the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. Arguments like "Promoting KC is far more important than anything else" do not hold water - the aim is to provide a balanced, fair view of the subject, using verifiable information. Your claim, that "The Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network recently designated Kansas City as having potential of attaining world city status," is not supported by the reference you have cited. If you wish to use those references, you can write that "Kansas City displays minimal evidence of world city formation" (your first link) or that "Kansas City is a minor global legal service centre." (your second link). However, from your reply above, I doubt that is the message you wish to disseminate about your city. --Ckatzchatspy04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is my paraphrase in question. Given the links provided, I am going to agree with Ckatz on this and suggest including the first entry.
Devin, I suggest calming down. We both agree that Kansas City is freakin' awesome, but (sadly ;) ) we're not the only freakin' awesome city out there, and as such we must be careful not to make the article look to PRish. (Besides, I hate PR fluff.) --KHill-LTown04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not here to make it look PR-ish, i'm here to make us look like a great place, I personally won't include negative things, I'd only mention the good things, or if I include something negative, I'll put a positive spin on it. I get very offended because I feel I've worked hard to represent Kansas City, and I don't like it when someone who doesn't know much about KC comes in and edits something. Those sources support the idea that Kansas City potentially could become a world city. Heck, while we are probably decades from it, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't include it... It's like saying they shouldn't call Burj Dubai the future world's tallest building (in wikipedia) because it's 2-3 years out from being completed. Like I said, i'm not here to promote anything that could reflect negativity on Kansas City. I try to make it seem like a NPOV because that is what wikipedia is, and I support it. But I don't believe promoting a NPOV means presenting the negative side as well as the positive side. Sure, I edit other non-KC articles for NPOV and revert vandalism, or present more facts. But I don't do that for KC because I care a lot more about it.
It isn't that I don't think anything is wrong with KC, I know there is. I just choose to ignore it and only consider the positive things, otherwise I wouldn't love it as much as I do.
Like I said, I am only offended because I feel that people are trying to not make KC look good... But I'll try to find other ways to make us look good within the Wikipedia rules. --KCMODevin11:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be frank, the conduct you have described is unavoidably on the wrong side of WP:NPOV. I would personally recommend that you back out of editing articles which you will be tempted to present from only one point of view. (ESkog)(Talk)11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No-can do... If I stayed away from articles I care greatly about, I wouldn't be on wikipedia. I'm here to represent Kansas City, not violate it with negative/pessimistic comments... (IE the Killa City statement)
Like I said, I'll try to edit the articles with an NPOV, but I will still promote it and show ppl it's not some low-density, sprawled out, polluted, crime ridden, cowtown. --KCMODevin19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what NPOV stands for; we're not saying we're trting to cast KC in a Negative light, just a neutral, unbiased one. We can't write either biased, glowing praise or biased, negative condemnation; we can cite what other reliable sources say, without giving it "undue weight" by blowing it out of proportion, but this isn't the place for "representing". We're collating or reporting, not trying to offer a one-sided view. -- nae'blis22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In my view, NPOV doesn't mean that you say... "Look how dangerous our city may or may not be..." then allow the ppl to draw their own conclusions based on the very minimal information provided on Wikipedia. I created the articles about Downtown and Architecture to promote those two aspects of Kansas City, and provide information on them that otherwise would take some research to obtain. Same with the rest of the KC articles, I edit them to promote and represent Kansas City, and show ppl what Kansas City is really like. If something says that the crime rate has been high, it should also say those crimes are only in specific crime-ridden areas of the city, and most aren't just random acts of evil, and that they aren't all concentrated in singular areas.
I'm not here to say "Hey! My city is better than yours!"... I'm here to present facts from reliable sources and just show ppl how great our city is.
--KCMODevin19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I know someone on here is going to be adding a new section on crime in Kansas City, but I was thinking about something. Why is Kansas City considered dangerous by some when it really isn't that dangerous?
I decided to look at a new type of crime statistic... Crimes per square mile...
When listed against St. Louis, Independence, KCK, Overland Park, Lee's Summit, Olathe, etc... KC has only about 171.36 crimes per square mile.
Here is a list of the cities and their crimes per square mile:
St. Louis - 1050.61
Kansas City - 171.24
Independence - 136.81
KCK - 128.09
Overland Park - 90.54
Olathe - 78.62
Lee's Summit - 44.07
When you take into perspective that KC has over 300 square miles of area, then you realize that it's crime is not necessarily as high as some people may believe...
If Kansas City was more compact, with more people in a denser area, it's crime would be a lot lower. The reason crime is as high as it is (though i'm not saying it's a high crime rate), is because of how spread out we are. Sprawl leads to an increase in crime. Not the other way around.
--KCMODevin11:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, this paper would seem to contradict what you're trying to say here: I don't think Kansas City's sprawl has much to do with our crime rate, as most criminal activity occurs in the urban core[1], which is more positively correlated to socioeconomic status than density. -- nae'blis16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
However, soon, in the next decades, you will see a rise in crime in the suburbs... Also my friend, sprawl is bad and does contribute to crime. If we weren't so spread out, we could have better funded police in a smaller area. Also, it depends on what you define as the urban core. Downtown has a very low crime rate, I believe it's lower than the plaza's. However you enter neighborhoods like Prospect, and there is a much higher crime rate there.
Just read Jane Jacobs and you will understand more.
If Kansas City wasn't so spread out, we wouldn't have as many crimes because the police wouldn't be so spread out and could focus on a single area. Look at NYC for example, especially Manhattan. It doesn't have a very high crime rate (at least, homicides) compared to other cities. Yet it is the most dense of all American cities. The more spread out you are, the higher the crime, and less spread out you are, the lower the crime.
Also, many crimes do occur in the urban core, however you must keep in mind that they aren't random acts of violence, and that those areas don't have good police funding or coverage.
Either way, Kansas City doesn't have an extremely high crime rate compared to other cities. Also, i'm not denying it has most to do with poverty rate. If you look at the maps of Irving (which is in no way comparable to KC), the densest areas don't have a lot of crime compared with the poverty stricken areas. --KCMODevin19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You should probably watch the local news once in a while. I wish we could say the crimes were confined to a relatively small inner city area. However looking at the [KCPD maps], the crimes take place in a pretty big swath south of the river. On the basis of this discussion I've become obsessed with the the United States cities by crime rate which shows KC ranking #8 in the murder rate in 2004 for cities over 400,000. I'm going to rewrite those tables with [data from 2005] for cities over 300,000. KC with 126 murders will rank #5 behind, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and DC (St. Louis didn't show on the earlier wiki table because it was less than 400,000). If you look at the stats in the Kansas City Homicide Quarterly, the vast majority of the murders were black on black, involved cases where the VICTIMS had criminal records and were mostly men under 25 (sounds like gangs to me). As been mentioned elswhere in this discussion, wikipedia is an encyclopeda and not a p.r. outlet. Like it or not, KC is notable for its crime. Welcome to Killa City. Americasroof20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Devin, you'll get no argument on "sprawl is bad" from me (even though it's an opinion, not a cited fact), but you can't take that and then say that "The more spread out you are, the higher the crime"; that would make Montana the crime center of the United States! Obviously Laclede County, Missouri doesn't have the same problems as Jackson County, Missouri. I do know something about crime statistics, as it happens. You even seemed to say at the end that it is in fact about socioeconomic status, not density, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this idea... -- nae'blis22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow AmericasRoof you've shown just how little you know about the KC area... There is a reason I don't watch local news... It's all trash and is worthless. And by the way, you are forgetting that while we have 124 murders, that those 124 are in a city of 313.5 square miles. If you counted the murders just in the urban core, the number would be lower than that. I suggest you visit KCSkyscrapers.com sometime, and try to tell them that we are a dangerous, crime ridden city. Also, that name is very disrespectful to our great city, it has no place on Wikipedia. Americasroof, you just seem like the normal KC suburbanite...
Nae'blis, you should read all of my reply, not just parts of it. I admitted that crime is mostly connected to poverty rate.
And Americasroof, the best thing for you to do is to stop watching the local trash, bias, negative reporting media, and stop reading so much of the liberal KC Star. Kevin Collison is the only writer for the Star that people need to listen to, and the local news, well, KCTV5, WDAFTV4, KMBC9, etc... are all negative, bias, trash news stations. Start looking at the facts Americasroof, and stop listening to the local media, it's all negative trash. Saying we are the 5th most dangerous city in the country (among cities of 400,000) is a deliberate lie and a false statistic. I know people who have walked from Downtown to the Plaza, and even from Johnson County to the River Market, and I know people who walk all around Downtown, Midtown and the Plaza. They've never been harmed. --KCMODevin23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Devin, as a neutral observer, with no vested interest in the KC area, I'd encourage you to step back and calm down. Another editor suggested that perhaps you shouldn't be editing articles you're so close to. You may wish to consider this, at least temporarily, as it is obvious that your judgement in the KC articles is coloured by your enthusiasm for your home town. (This is perfectly natural, by the way, and certainly nothing to be ashamed about. It is, however, not appropriate for creating an encyclopedia article.) There are a lot of things I'd rather not see in the Vancouver article, for example: our Downtown Eastside neighbourhood won't sell the city to tourists. However, it is a reality, and soft-selling the problem on Wikipedia is not going to make it go away. By the way, your standard for judging the safety of the city (" I know people who walk all around Downtown, Midtown and the Plaza. They've never been harmed.") isn't particularly reassuring; I would hope that one would consider that feat to be perfectly normal, rather than something exceptional. For that matter, the murder rate isn't exactly what I would call "low" either. 124 murders is higher than the total for all of British Columbia (almost 4 million residents, 112 homicides in 2004) - and it doesn't compare well to Canada as a whole, with 622 homicides in 2004. Just my two cents. --Ckatzchatspy00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, please don't misinterpret my last post as a condemnation of KC - it sounds like an interesting place. I've never been there, but that is due to the fact that it's a bit out of the way from where I am... Having a realistic understanding of the city won't stop people from visiting, and it will make them feel a lot more reassured when they do come. (As opposed to the typical travelogue nonsense which paints every town as paradise, a myth which is quickly dispelled as soon as one arrives!) --Ckatzchatspy00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ckatz, no one understands that I will be spending my entire life in Kansas City, trying to improve it through artchitecture and design. I have spent more than 5 years promoting Kansas City on the internet. Without me, there would be virtually no information about KC on SkyscraperPage, there would be less information on Wikipedia. I've promoted KC on SSP, SkyscraperCity, UrbanPlanet, etc... I've done days upon days of research on Kansas City for the past 5 years. I've talked with city officials, developers, architects, and just normal ppl.
My statement about people walking that far wasn't meant to make it sound like a feat to a normal person... However to a typical KC suburbanite, they'd consider that a big feat that would be very dangerous. (when it actually isn't)
I am getting upset because i'm very passionate about this city. I know it isn't perfect, and while I don't deny that parts of the city are dangerous, I choose to ignore it. If I wasn't so passionate about it, I wouldn't want to dedicate my entire life to improving it. I am willing to even sacrifice personal wealth to improve the urban core, not only Downtown, but areas like around Prospect. I don't mind neutral point of views, but I don't like negative point of views being heard on this subject. People can know the crime rate is somewhat high, and should know what areas to avoid, but they shouldn't be told the entire city is dangerous, or that only the suburbs are safe. That is what Johnson County wants you to believe, but I'm trying to make sure articles like these are not imbedded with KC-suburbanite type propoganda or statements that make the suburbs seem like a paradise compared to the inner city. --KCMODevin00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, kudos to you for the effort, and for choosing to focus your passion in an attempt to improve your home town. Your enthusiasm can be an incredibly valuable asset to this encyclopedia, and should be encouraged, assisted, and supported. Just remember, though, that improving Kansas City and improving Wikipedia are two very different tasks, which may not always be mutually compatible. You can certainly choose to ignore the dangerous aspects of the city in your personal and professional dealings, as you see fit. However, in your role as a Wikipedia editor, you have to take a more objective view of the city, and make every attempt to represent both the positive and negative aspects. It is a tough thing to do, and it really is challenging to write something negative about a place that you treasure. The end result, though, can be a balanced, well-rounded article that fairly and accurately represents Kansas City. My personal believe is that readers are far more media-savvy these days, and less likely to accept an article that only paints a positive picture (or, going the opposite direction, only a negative spin on things.) --Ckatzchatspy05:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ckatz, regarding your last revision... Do we really need a citation for the Downtown information in the crime section? Everyone knows from many sources such as the Downtown Council, and the KC Star that Downtown crime is low and that many people are moving there... It'll take me a long time to find the citations for that information. Can't you just link them to the Downtown KC & Downtown KC Redevelopment articles? --KCMODevin11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's cited in the Downtown article and linked directly to it in that paragraph, we can probably get away with not repeating the citation here, but "everyone knows" is only usable in very limited circumstances (we don't have to cite that Missouri and Kansas border each other, for example). -- nae'blis15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The information should really be in the main article AND any article that references it. Links to other Wikipedia articles don't count, unless they are properly cited - and even then you are taking a chance that nothing will change on that page. As Nae'blis said, you wouldn't need to verify that Kansas and Missouri are neighbouring states. However, anything that involves statistics, population figures, crime rates, and so on should be cited. Otherwise, there is no way to verify that the information is accurate. (This affects other editors who wish to check facts, and readers who want to follow up on information they get from Wikipedia.) The open nature of Wikipedia makes it essential that everything is well-documented; the same policy that allows anyone to edit means that anyone can change things. You would be amazed at how often certain articles are vandalized - before Canada was semi-protected, I would notice many edits every day that were just anons having "fun". The KC articles have, in recent weeks, gained new attention because of the series "Jericho" (that's what led me here) and are probably getting more "out-of-town" readers who won't have any of the "common knowledge" that a resident can take for granted. Besides, references are "cheap" - one good citation can cover a lot of facts, it doesn't take up much screen space, and it makes the article look more professional. (Just remember to avoid using blogs and web sites that fail the "notability" test - something from the local/state/federal government is good, but a comment on a personal blog won't hold up.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
However, it isn't possible do a reference on the information as the KCPD website has not been up recently. Also, we cannot leave people hanging, thinking falsely that the entire city is dangerous. Reading something that says we may/may not have a high crime rate may lead them to have the idiotic suburban mentality that says most crime occurs in the inner city. Thus if they decide to form an opinion about KC, it would automatically lean to the negative side for the urban core, because there is nothing in the article that states only parts of the urban core have high crime. --KCMODevin04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
87 homicides so far in 2006
127 total in 2005
91 in 2004
92 in 2003
So far it looks like 2005 was a freak year, and as I remember, new years last year started off with several homicides immediately.
Also according to their information, there has been only a single homicide in DTKC apparently at the Police HQ, and no aggravated hotspots are located in Downtown. (one hotspot is barely in the DTKC boundary, on the border between midtown and downtown)
The only robbery hotspot DT is near the Central Business District around the major banks and government buildings.
Things like Auto-theft and theft from auto, and burglary exist Downtown, but not at the level they do in comparison to the areas around Downtown. --KCMODevin05:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This all gets back to the earlier debate of what downtown is. The city defines it as 31st Street and that puts two hot spots on either side. But most people view Union Station as the southern edge and so yes downtown is save. Yes, KC is basically pretty safe if you're white and keep out of the problem areas. Almost all the crime is black on black. There was an astonishing 21 drive by shootings in September. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the year. It's amazing that the police have to keep that stat. Even if KC "only" has 100 or so murders in 2006, it will still have a very high rate. Unfortunately, we're going to have to look to see how Detroit handles all this. And they include the crime stuff.
07:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't the borders of Downtown. The official borders of Downtown according to City Hall and the Downtown Council: River to 31st St. I435 to Bruce R. Watkins. People can certainly have their own opinions, but what is official is official and nothing can really change that unless they change it themselves.
However the hotspots for aggravated assault are not in Downtown itself... One is in the West Side, just west of I435, and the other is right on 31st St. in SE DT and northern midtown.
Even talking to people I know who live Downtown, it's not that dangerous of a place. When a rape occured in Quality Hill, they weren't really surprised, but were upset about it and it seemed like rapes were not very common Downtown.
Just do not trust KCTV5, Fox 4, KMBC9, KSHB, or even the Kansas City Star. The TV stations generally make it seem like it is dangerous for any suburbanite to go Downtown, and none of the anchors really live Downtown themselves or even know much about it. The Kansas City Star is just a normal, liberal, pro-suburbanite newspaper. The most coverage Downtown gets is on the side of redevelopment, and that is well represented by Kevin Collison.
There are also reasons crime is in Downtown so much compared to other neighborhoods. (however it has the least out of the surrounding areas, except for the plaza, which is a much smaller area.) Poverty rates in surrounding neighborhoods are poor. Downtown is a place where you have government and big businesses in one area. You have lots of cars in a small area. You also have well over 15,000 people (which was the figure in Jan. 2005, it should now be over 17,000) in 2.9 square miles. Most of which are medium to upper income. It in a way, is the candy store, and the bad neighborhoods are breeding some bad people that choose to be the children in the candy store, who steal and run back to these neighborhoods which shelter them. It isn't impossible to rehabilitate these neighborhoods. This is what I hope to do in my future. Use my beliefs, and use Jane Jacob's ideas to rehabilitate these neighborhoods. These people in poverty don't need to be evicted, however their neighborhoods can be improved. They need community leaders to help uphold the law. Their children need things to keep them out of trouble. They need good police coverage, and they need local small businesses that can be run by local people. There is a lot more that needs to be done, and I don't fully understand it yet. However, I hope to improve these neighborhoods using architecture and design in my future. Improving these neighborhoods will not only improve the inner core, and it's image, but also will bring more people into the urban core, and especially Downtown itself. --KCMODevin11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
further editing future
The page is now 50k in length, which is almost 50% longer than it should be (Wikipedia:Article size). What sections might be able to be split out to their own page, logically? Unfortunately when I look at it I see a lot of small sections, none of which independently seem to be able to stand on their own as subarticles. History of Kansas City already has its own article, and is 36k by itself. -- nae'blis14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, the water purity award seems really awkward in the header (and I'm the one who put it there). Maybe a section on awards and commendations? The All America City award would go there as well, and the website won awards for being among the top most useful municipal websites in the late 1990s/early 2000s. -- nae'blis14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Urgh. And I've been wanting to add a Flora and Fauna bit like St. Louis has (mainly because of the Monarch Butterfly route through the area). I think the lists should go first. Schools could be a seperate article. I see a lot of other city articles done that way, like Dallas. Sites of Interest should really be written out instead of listed, and could really be a separate article.
Also, I think they've relaxed the maximum size limitations somewhat. I'll have to try to find where I read that. Dallas is 79k. Detroit is 84k and a Featured Article. --Hobbes74718:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The bit about water quality speaks on the quality of life in KC, as well as on the local environment, and could be included in either one. However, as it anecdotally is representative of the importance of nature and the environment in this city (I've seen many visitors remark on how park-like the entire city is, with all the trees and natural elements of the city plan), and as such does fit into the header, if just barely. Plus, as a recent award, it is temporally significant - it fits in now, but maybe not in another 5 years. Perhaps have a sentence or two in the header commenting on KC's award-winning water supply/environmental.. whatever, and then expand on it with specifics about such award(s) in a specific subsection. Yes, the page is getting long... but then again, so are a lot of other pages. I say that, though we shouldn't add information for the sake of making a large article, we also shouldn't cut info just for the sake of shortening the article. As long as the info is encyclopedic and not merely trivial, I say put it in. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to go in this particular article. If we keep adding info into subsections until they spawn off into their own main article leaving only a summary in this one, well, that accomplishes both goals at once. --Reverend Loki19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Light Rail
Finally! Light rail baby... It's just sad that it required Chastain to pass a plan (though faulty), hopefully the city will wake up and revise this for decent funding and start work in a few years.
Not to mention remove the aerial gondola system included for Penn Valley Park. --KCMODevin05:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, he better acquaint himself with the Northland. He just drew a marker up the old interurban (surrounded by a bunch of backyards now; Zona Rosa's a mile west) and didn't bother to touch the bulk of Clay County. I'm still in disbelief, and I've been compared to the expatriate idealist.--KHill-LTown06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, it's still far from becoming a reality. City hall can still reject it if the plan is outright unfeasible, which it may very well be. I believe the plan makes certain broad assumptions about the overall cost of the project and just how much matching funding we'll get from state and federal government. I'd personally love a good light rail system, but we'll see. --Reverend Loki19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the city government (err council) is coming out in support of light rail, and said they will honor voters, but will have to work on funding it. --KCMODevin20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not the flag one sees outside public buildings in KC. The one I have always seen is a basic Frech tricolor, with KC's Fountain/Heart logo in the center stripe in black. Much better than this abomination, though it is cited by NAVA. Does anyone know the official status of the flag I mention? --Xyzzyva19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Kansas City school students of the '20s/'30s
Is it just me or did the majority of kids who graduated from Kansas City high schools during the '20s/'30s seem to graduate one or two years earlier than the normal graduation age of 18? For instance, most of the kids who were in the first graduating class of the University of Kansas City had graduated H.S. at age 16/17. What's up with that? Did the Kansas City public school system offer you the chance to just fly through some of the grade levels back in those days? It's always puzzled me. ---- Mike1417:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wasn;t everything done earlier (finishing school, graduation, having kids) until the 1900's? Graduation is completion of a set of requirements, not a number of years --flyingember
If somebody could give some citations on Jolliet and Marquette visiting KC I would appreciate it. This claim is repeated on some other KC websites so I'm not sure which came first. But Jolliet and Marquette explored the Mississippi River and never went far upstream on the Missouri. Some articles define the first explorers "in the area" as Jolliet and Marquette. That of course means that you have to call St. Louis "in the area." The article states they visited during a "six day canoe" trip. Six days coming upstream against the current from St. Louis?!?! Lewis and Clark who could only manage about 10 mile a day would be envious! The first documented French explorer in KC I believe is Étienne de Veniard, Sieur de Bourgmont in the early 1700s. I am finalizing a biography in my sandbox before I post it. The wiki articles make no mention of Jolliet and Marquette. That's a pretty big factual error for us to have let slide all this time. Americasroof19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Kansas City Neighborhoods
I'd like to start a neighborhoods section that includes the main neighborhoods in Kansas City... I've started an article for the East Side already, here are the neighborhoods i'm thinking of including first, with more being included in the future:
I have added this article to the above-named category. The category was recently removed from the article because Kansas City, MO was named before the state of Kansas was. But the category is not "Cities named after states," it's about cities that share the same name as a state. The category contains other examples of cities that were formed before the state of the same name. For example, Washington, Connecticut was established long before anyone imagined that that chunk of land north of California would also be named Washington. PubliusFL14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
By your flawed logic, Washington D.C. would be in there because Washington is a state. KC came well before the state of Kansas, and was named after the Indians. There is absolutely NO reason to include KC in such a purposeless list when the state of Kansas came after it's founding. Also, KCMO doesn't need any connection to the state of Kansas, ignorant and idiotic people are already stupid enough to believe KCMO is in Kansas, don't give them anymore of a reason to be confused. Removing the tag until this issue is resolved. Don't add it until we all come to an agreement. --KCMODevin22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"By your flawed logic, Washington D.C. would be in there because Washington is a state." Exactly. Washington D.C. IS in there. As is Washington, Georgia, Washington, Arkansas, Washington, Illinois, and the previously-mentioned Washington, Connecticut -- all established before the state of Washington or even Washington Territory. They are all in the category because they are cities that share a name with a state. Being located in the state with the same name or being named after the state has nothing to do with it. KC is also a city that shares a name with a state, and therefore it belongs in the category just as much as the others. If you think the category is purposeless, propose it for deletion. And please try to be civil in this discussion. There's no need to use words like "ignorant," "idiotic," and "stupid" (although I understand that none of them were directed at me personally). PubliusFL23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll edit the article and make sure people know there is no connection between the names. And I am being civil, is just apparent you have no idea about the history of KC and the history of Kansas. We are sick of the affiliation with Kansas and people cannot EVER assume KC was named after that state.
Also, change the name of the article/catagory so it isn't so suggestive that certain cities were named after the state. --KCMODevin23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the category has just been proposed for deletion, and it seems like the nominator makes a pretty good point. So I won't bother trying to re-insert the category here. You might want to give your input about the purposelessness of the category, if you care to. Incidentally, I was aware that Kansas City was not named after the state. As I explained above, I just didn't think that was relevant to the category. But I do think your idea of pointing out that KC came first is a good one. PubliusFL23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The Town of Kansas was incorporated in 1850. The City of Kansas was incorporated in 1853. Both derive their name from the Kansas River (the mouth of which formed the entire north south Missouri border from Iowa to Arkansas until being extended north of the Missouri River in the Platte Purchase). The Kansas River in turn derives its name from the Kaw (tribe) which also spelled Kanza (whose closest major village was in Leavenworth although they had a smaller village at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas. The Territory of Kansas was formed in 1854 and it became a state in 1861. The category in question is "City with State Names." Historically, the category is incorrect. From an etymology point of view it is probably correct. I don't have strong opinions one way or the other. When do we start debating Missouri City, Missouri? Americasroof00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That's almost impossible to determine absolutely since they are tightly interwoven. Rivers were typically named for the first major tribe encountered on the river upstream from the mouth. Americasroof12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
motto
Found @ kc library site:
Kansas City, Its Resources and Their Development: A Souvenir of the Kansas City Times (Citation - Book) Citation of the "motto" of Kansas City: "Si quaris civitatem amoenam, circumspice." (If thou seekest a beautiful city, behold it.) Related Subjects: City Motto, Poetry
Does anyone know when the old Jewish Community Center Building in KC at 1600 Linwood Blvd (Linwood & Wayne) was demolished? It was definitely after 1989.
There are too many photographs. A lot of them are unnecessary, and a lot of them are simply terrible photos.
signed comment added by Iknowthegoods (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 May 2013
Colleges and Universities
There is one college that I attended that isn't included. I don't want it included necessarily because I attended but more for the fact that it is the only FAA Part 147 school to allow one to obtain an FAA Airframe and Power Plant license in the region. This means the accelerated program according to the FAA FARs allows someone to get the license in 18 months instead of the next minimal amount of time of 36 months. I propose adding "Aviation Institute of Maintenance" linked to "http://www.aviationmaintenance.edu/" This isn't something new as it has been around and used to be facilitated at the old TWA training facility off 31st Street and Terrace Street before moving in summer of 2007 to I-435 and Raytown Road in the old rental company facility across from the South exit from the Truman Sports Complex. Both locations Kansas City, MO, addresses.
The1who (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Population Change
According to an article on KCMO's official web page, at http://www.kcmo.org/cco.nsf/web/020609, the US Census had underestimated the population of the city. As of Feburary 6, 2009, the US Census has changed its estimate for Kansas City to be 475,830 in 2009. So I am going to change to reflect the new population accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop Changing the Picture
You did not have authority to do that. It was settled before that we would use the first picture of the skyline from the north. Reasons are:
1) It makes the skyline look bigger and more profound
2) ALL major buildings inside the downtown loop are found in the north view
3) The view you have shows the uglier buildings such as the Longlines buildings (an eyesore) and the Federal Building. If someone wants to take a better pic from the north fine, but that is the best view I think we have. I am changing it back! If you really want a superior KC article, show a good pic of our skyline. We want to be represented the best possible way to people who view us from out of town, especially since we have a negative image of being associated in some way "Kansas", agriculture, and a "cow town" (Despite the fact we are the largest city in Missouri and a thriving metropolis of 2 million + people). If someone sees a profound skyline, which is the first thing you see in a city-- that will leave a lasting impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Importance Level
Kansas City is rated with small cities such as Wichita, Topeka, ect in "importance level" ranking. It should be ranked with peer cities like Denver, St. Louis, ect. Why are we given a "mid" importance level ranking despite a metro area of over 2 million people and having a major city status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.142.218 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I made the above post. After doing some looking into, Maddison Wisconsin was given "high" importance. That is ridiculous! Kansas City is definatley a major city in the US and is very important to the US economy. It has major cultural atractions and a population of over 2 million people, as well as being considered a major US city. I changed it's importance level to "high". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Clay Chastain
This bugger doesn't deserve a mention in the Kansas City article and it is an insult to the city to even mention him. People don't need to know he initiated the ballot. Adding his name to the article does nothing except add a piece of information that isn't important. Especially when he is just a crazy piece of crap who is doing a lot more harm than good to the light rail plan in Kansas City. He doesn't deserve ANY mention in the Kansas City article and should be wiped from ANY connection to our wonderful city.
And he is NOT an activist! He is only a crazy guy who doesn't know jack about light rail, and has always been crazy. He is worthless and calling him an activist is only a compliment to him. People in Kansas City don't recognize him as an activist.
They also did not vote for his plan, they voted for the idea of light rail. They could care less if his ideas went through. He belongs back in Virginia and needs to stay out of our beautiful city. --KCMODevin15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we include lots of people whose contributions to the world aren't necessarily positive. I think that it's hard to talk encyclopedically about light rail in Kansas City without discussing Chastain's role. Doesn't matter what you feel about the subject personally or politically. (ESkog)(Talk)16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, you are dead wrong, KCMODevin. Clay Chastain was the primary engineer behind the actual infrastructure and layout planning for the measure passed in November of last year. The Light Rail measure is HIS idea and he alone pushed it through the legal system 6 times to get it on the ballot. He IS light rail in Kansas City. Personally, I agree with you, and think light rail is superfluous and not needed here in KC (for god sakes our roads are shit!), but none of this matters. He is an activist and he is tied to light rail, therefore he needs to be mentioned and linked. --Active1x0
No he doesn't, and light rail does belong in Kansas City... He may have been the chief engineer, but he is not smart enough and doesn't know enough about the Kansas City area. He does not deserve a mention. He did nothing in regards to infrastructure, and the only layout he gave was a completely flawed plan. The voters were NOT voting for his idea, they were voting for light rail... The voters would accept a city planned light rail plan. This guy is nothing more than a quack, and it's an insult to KCMO to include him in this article.. He is not an activist, and like I said, to call him one is only a complement to him and an insult to our city. He is not light rail in Kansas City, and you're being butt buddies with him doesn't change that.
Also, my edit has been changed to be NPOV. IT states facts found in the various referenced/sourced newspaper articles that are relevant and important.
Also, active, sign your comments...--KCMODevin20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If I ask 10 Kansas Citians who comes to mind first when talking about light rail, I bet Chastain would be the leader by far. Right or wrong, he is the public face of the light rail movement in Kansas City. Changing that is a matter for political activism, not an edit war on an encyclopedia trying to report facts. (ESkog)(Talk)20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Soon he won't be though, and I will be more than happy to wipe him off the face of this article when his plan fails and the city-backed plan goes forward. --KCMODevin20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to Clay Chastain
Nobody has the right to decide whether somoene is worthy or not of being listed on wikipedia. Facts are Clay Chastain is intimately involved with the Kansas City Light Rail initiative. The fact that he had a plan placed on a ballot and it actually was voted in by residents enforces that idea. It's history and it should be documented accordingly to its relevance. Any personal feelings in regards to any political figure or citizen whether positive or negative are not to interfere with the neutrality of Wikipedia. wikipedia exists for the sole purpose of educating people. We do not have the right to dilute relevant information to a topic regardless of how we feel for somoene.
ESkog had a perfect example. Adolf Hitler is a large part of the history of Germany. Regardless of how we feel in regards to his crimes and his opressive rulership it is sitll history and cannot be erased. If anyone has negative remarks to share, they should be voiced on a different forum. Kcuello (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Also with this said, nobody should be proactively looking to list Clay Chastain's name unless the portion of news in relation to light rail directly involves him. I will personally follow these developments and anyone seen removing relevant information will be reported to administrators. Kcuello (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Intro Comment only - no changes made
The intro says "Kansas City... is the largest city in the U.S. state of Missouri". This is technically true, but it's misleading and immediately sounds incorrect to this reader. I assume it sounds misleading to many other readers familiar with the area and may cast doubt upon the article's accuracy in general.
St. Louis is much bigger and less of its population lives outside Missouri. Based on the "Greater St. Louis" and the "Kansas City metropolitan area" wikipedia articles, only 24% of St. Louis' ~2.9mm residents live in Illinois, while 42% of KC's ~2.0mm residents live in Kansas. I know that is not the specific claim of the sentence as-is, but it is another indicator that the phrase misrepresents the sizes of MO's two biggest cities.76.92.124.62 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the city, not the metro. If that's not clear, we should make it clear. But how many people live in other, nearby cities, in whatever state, simply is not relevant in this context. Feis-Kontrol (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It is now clear that the article is about the city. The first comment above was older than most of the intro including the hatnote. A couple things about your changes. First, Kansas was the original name, the "town" part is just a formal descriptor. I know that Chamber of Commerce and similar website like the Town of Kansas moniker, but it complicates an already complicated naming situation and doesn't represent the historical truth well. This was common for almost all towns founded in Missouri and Kansas in the 19th century. Second, "central" is better than "principal" because it avoids confusion with the census designated principal cities of metropolitan areas, of which KC has three. Thirdly, the population is entirely appropriate for the intro, you will find this on many city pages. I would also assert that a city is as much its people as it is its physical location and buildings, hence the opening line. Finally, because we are describing the suburbs of Kansas City, with whom they form an intimate relationship, it is appropriate for them to be included, though Im not attached to their population being listed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Intro rework
I rewrote the intro to be a little more streamlined and to put a little more emphasis on things like KCs contribution to culture (civil war, jazz, blues and BBQ) and moved the mention of the city's tap water being clean which, though interesting, embarrassed me a little to have in the opening paragraph. Kansas city has made much interesting and varied history and has made more contributions to the national stage than the old intro let on. I also glanced at the rest of the article and removed somethings that are located in the metro are not the city itself. The article will look much more impressive if it seems that it does not have an agenda, and is simply telling it as it is.
I've also changed the wording about having the second most fountains in the world from a fact to a claim, as we still need a reliable third-part source that is not a regurgitation of the tourism boards advertising. Grey Wanderer | Talk20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
On my list of things to do is to bring the page up to the standards described on Wikiproject cities. The page isn't far away but needs major sourcing aand the famous people and schools section need to be pared down a lot. Individual schools should not be listed, school districts however might. with the amount of people from kc with wikipedia pages we really just need a link to the list or category of notable citizens not list them on the article itself. Grey Wanderer | Talk20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Crime Exaggerated
The crime artile is much very exaggerated, especially in the article of the entire metropolitin area having bad crime. Johnson county is relatively crime free when compared to the inner city of KCMO and KCK. this is proven especially with the fact that suburban cities Overland Park and Olathe Kansas are both in the top 15 best places to live. The link with that article is dead and no longer active. Crime rating in Olathe, Overland Park, Lenexa, Lee's Summit, and Shawnee is very low. No facts to support that crime is on an increase because of 2 rappers being shot. I have deleted that portion of the crime section. I know for sure that New Orleans, Houston (needs 500 more cops), St. Louis, Detroit and Miami are highly unsafe. Thats 5 metro areas that are for sure worse off in crime than KC metro. More up to date informaiton should be listed.Kcuello22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Kcuello, if you live in OP or in that area, then of course you don't know much about the inner city or what goes on in it. The gang wars in KC started with the deaths of those two rappers. The murders/fighting kicked up temporarily, causing a rise in the crime rates.
Also, not all of the inner-city has bad crime, which is a falsehood that many sheltered people from the SW suburbs tend to believe. Only sections of the inner-city have bad homicide rates. KCMODevin13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a former resident of Kansas City MO. and that dates back to July of this year. As a former resident of City market and my parents living in "Northeast" I highly contest the exaggerations of crime. Once again, the listing of 2 rapeprs that obviusly have no bearing on crime spike is still highly questionable. I see it as more of a ploy to popularize the rappers. Kcuello22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Both KCMODevin and Kcuello seem to have some good points. I think that this might be resolved if KCMO could provide a few sources for the gang wars, surly there must be news articles, or statistics on that sort of thing? Otherwise it should probably be removed. Grey Wanderer | Talk22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that any proof consist of the following:
1) Direct reference to both rappers.
2) Prove it is the cause of gang wars that have increased crime
3) be as recent as within the last 6 mnths to a year.
Otherwise the article would be considered out of date. this event occurred mroe than 3 years ago. I will remove the post until there are facts to prove such claims.Kcuello (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is too much attention to crime in this section. Just note the most recent crime stats and be done with it. It really is a debbie downer the way it is presented and is clearly written by someone who wants to emphasize that KCMO is a dirty crime ridden city overall, which is pretty much focused on just the East Side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.62.168 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent Edits to Kansas City Page
Recent edits over the past few weeks have subtantially improved this article. I just wanted to leave a big Kudos and thank you for all of those that have worked very hard to make this article informatice and respectable! Kcuello (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
How should we talk about this stuff in the article? Just put SubTropolis in the "Sites of interest" list? Even many Kansas City natives do not know about Kansas City's underground city, I think it at least deserves a mention in the article. We have a massive limestone shelf (thought to be 20 miles deep) and some of the oldest exposed igneous rock on Earth that has provided for many unique facilities under the Kansas City metropolitan area. Jizzbug (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
When the 2001 anthrax attacks occurred, Kansas City's underground US Postal Service pre-sort processing center (the largest in the United States) was contaminated with anthrax.
Kansas City as underground nuclear weapons manufacturies operated by Honeywell and missile manufacturies operated by others. Honeywell is proposing the construction of a new nuclear weapons plant in the Kansas City metropolitan area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzbug (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sister Cities
Hanover Germany was listed on the Sister Sities International webpage. I have promptly added it to the list of sister cities Kansas City has listed. Kcuello (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Why in the world is Clay County highlighted in the MO State map on the main page, right beside an equally silly close-up of an emboldened Clay County? Is not the downtown district and city headquarters in Jackson County? Auror (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, your completely right, thanks for catching that. I don't have the graphic skills to fix it, but I'm sure someone does. I can however provide the link to the Jackson County highlighted map .Grey Wanderer | Talk00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tuileries Plaza is Kansas City’s most distinguishing new mixed-use lifestyle center. The enchanting courtyards, tranquil fountains, lush landscaping, rock waterfalls, slate rooftops and brick paved drives add a distinguishing European Old World flair to the rapidly expanding Northland community. The 65 foot tall glass and stone tower monument offers a beautiful night-time light show for all to see. Tuileries Plaza hosts enticing unique restaurants like Bonefish Grill and Em Chamas Brazilian Grill, Häagen-Dazs Ice Cream Shop, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Caribou Coffee, boutique fashion retailers like Posh and Bliss at La~De~Da, unique home décor like La~De~Da, Curtains Bedding and Fabric Gallery, and Enix Ornamental Iron, one-of-a-kind shops like Epic Bike and Sport, specialty services like Ideal Image, professional offices, and others unique to the Kansas City area.
The development features different events year round, including a Summer Concert Series, Festival of Cultures, Children's Fest, sleigh rides during the holidays, and many more.
The charming Children’s Garden is located between the lake and the courtyard area. It boasts “kid’s size” European Landmarks perfect for parents to bring their kids to climb the Eiffel Tower and Louvre pyramid. Children can also wander through the maze, under the Arc de Triomphe and cool off in the misting river. Tuileries Plaza is located just West of I-29 on NW 64th Street, and just minutes from Downtown and KCI Airport.
We hope you will link our homepage, www.tuileriesplaza.com to Kansas City, MO Sites of Interest.
Wow, blatant attempt to add advertising. I can attest, living within view and earshot of this place, that it's nothing special. Just a collection of small strip malls and vacant storefronts. For the Tuileries Plaza to be a site of interest, it generally needs to be both unique (historically or otherwise) and an attraction for people living outside of the city. Tuileries is neither of these. Auror (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The flag of Kansas City uploaded by User:Enorton on 30 May 2007 is not correct. I took a photo of the flag in front of City Hall today, 17 July 2008, to make absolutely certain what I had seen in so many other places was the most current design. (The images are at left.) The order of the colors from the mast is blue-white-red, as in the flag of France. It also has the logo of the city, in black, with text above and below it in the center. The text reads: CITY OF FOUNTAINS, HEART OF THE NATION, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI." The font appears to be "Trajan," which is derived from the Garamond family, and is available from Adobe and other font vendors. The proportion appears to be 2:3, which is unlike the State of Missouri flag or the United States flag, but is probably the most common format for flags, in general. I redrew the flag in .JPG format. The proportions seem correct and it is better than the old one. - - - If someone would redraw this in .SVG format, it would be better. (I do not have a program that makes .SVG files.) Best regards, Charvex (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above post was made by me-- I forgot to sign in. The picture that we had before has been used for over 6 months. It shows all the major buildings in our skyline, and is a recognizable view of our skyline that many people would associate with Kansas City. It also makes the city appear "grander" and most people would agree that it looks larger. The shot we have now is NOT commonly associated with our city. When I first saw it, I could barley even recognize Kansas City, as it shows buildings from the back such as the AT&T Longlines building and everything looks meshed together. The person who changed it was from France and isn't even from KC. I have lived in KC for all of my life and can assure you that the picture we had from Soutbound 169 in the northland is a better shot than one from Northbound Highway 70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
... just sayin bro. Charvex has a barnstar for his spectacular photographs of kansas city. He seems to have a pretty good idea of the city. Not saying your pic isnt impressive. just... let's leave the panoramas to the qualified people. Thanks! Chris (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Infobox skyline picture
I'm presenting three possible skyline pictures for opinions. The first by User:Enorton has been in place for about six months. The second by User:Charvex was added early this week and removed by enorton in favor of his own. The third, by myself, is a cropped version of Charvex's based on a suggestion by User:Reddi Please compare the three and support one. This is not a vote, but simply a way to see if there is an obvious consensus.
Support Charvex's cropped It is a much higher resolution, clearer, and it is much easier to see detail. This is the pic I'd want if the article was an FA. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Crop the cars out of the bottom picture. The top one should be edited to lighten up the picture ... both are good ... both need further editing. J. D. Redding19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Charvex's cropped. But keep the other one around for another part of the article or another article in the metro area. J. D. Redding19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Charvex's - Mainly because it catches some of the buildings at a better angle. But it's a tough call. The Enorton photo includes shots of the KCPT Tower and Pylons. Shooting from north oe south obviously catch different structures. We should make sure both don't get lost.Americasroof (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I support the Enorton's Enhanced version. It is more colorful. The reason that I believe that my shot is superior to either of Charvex's shots is the fact that Kansas City looks much larger, nicer, and better layed out with this view. It shows a greater panorama and gets all of the major buildings, while Charvex's does not. You can not see the Bartle Pilons as obviously and Commerce Tower is blocked. So is the City Center Square. A skyline image is the "stamp" of uniqueness of a city. When you see KC on the news or in books, they usually show three views. This view from 169, a back view shot from the liberty memorial, or a view shot from Wyandotte County coming towards downtown. You NEVER see the shot that Charvex is showing. I can assure you if you look on any postcard, news skyline shot, or whatever, you will NOT see that shot. Even KCMO's web site shows the shot from the liberty memorial. The shot from southbound 169 is the best I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a view from 169 south is a best view, but I'd like a shot that includes the bridges across the missouri. I don't know if there's an angle available that does that well, however. It seems like shooting from the airport would be too close and low, but maybe from near that curve where 169 goes around the airport from the north. I don't know if there'd be a shot from near Briarcliff or whatever that place is called. Another good reason to have a 169 south view is because most non-regional visitors would be entering the city that way from KCI.Subversionarts (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Charvex's - This photograph is much more clear and I feels captures KC better. Tubahero (talk)
Total 7 for Charvex, 2 for Enorton," not sure if Subversionarts was just a comment on the view or supporting a version of that picture. Support a version if you have an opinion one way or the other. I agree with Subersionarts that the view from Enorton's picture is better, but overall Charvex's is a much higher quality picture. With the current results I'm going to go ahead and change the pic to Charvex's cropped, this can always be changed if a new consensus develops or we get a better quality picture from 169 south. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We never had a vote. This was simply just a discussion. No one OBJECTED to any of my comments. I don't see what position of authority you are in to revert that picture back. I will not change the picture yet, but I say you should give it another week or so before making a final decision. No one has yet to counter any of the arguments presented, only that Charvex's photo is of better quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It was NOT clear at all. I am changing the picture BACK again. That is NOT a snapshot of our skyline, that's an image of the back of downtown. Let me explain something. The infobox picture is the first picture someone sees of the city. It should show ALL of the important landmarks/buildings. Charvex's picture DOES NOT show the bartle hall pylons. It does not show a good view of One KC Place, Town Pavillion, or 1200 Walnut. You can barley see the commerce tower or city center square. Is all you can really see, is a crappy version of One KC Place, part of the Town Pavillion, City Hall, Bryant Building, and the Oak Building. You also see the very UGLY AT&T Longlines building and the federal building. My shot gets every important part of our skyline. It doesn't matter that his is of better quality, because at that small size it doesn't even matter since the quality doesn't matter at such a small picture. Please DO NOT change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Enorton, I think its clear 6 to 2 which picture is preferred, and I've already said I do think the view from your picture is better. But there seems to be a consensus to use one of Charvex's pictures. You seem to have close ties to your work, which is great, but it is not for you to force Wikipedia to use your picture when a clear majority thinks otherwise. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This is enorton, I forgot to sign in. With all due respect, you aren't even from Kansas City. You don't know about our skyline, and I see no reason why you are taking such a stance on this issue. I am changing the picture back. You are also a hippocrite, because you said that this was not a vote. And it's not. NO ONE has argued against my points. That shows me that they were valid and that if anyone has anything to agrue against my points (which were obvioulsy good ones) then the picture could change. But since no one did, then im changing it back. Stop chaning the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.227.238 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't change your picture back, two other editors did. Three editors total have reverted your edits. You are clearly too attached to your own work and close minded towards anything else. I'm not saying you didn't have some good points, I'm saying it is clear which one is preferred as demonstrated above. For the record I know quite a bit about Kansas City's skyline. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Good for them. I am not attached to my work, I simply want what's best for this article. That picture is an UGLY shot of Kansas City and fails to show some of our most prized landmarks, like the bartle pylons. Instead it shows the most ugly building in our skyline, the AT&T longlines building. The infobox picture is the most important picture in an article because it must show a good snapshot of a city, including all of it's important landmarks/skyscrapers. Mine does, while Charvex's does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In my Opinion: "Charvex's photo cropped by Grey Wanderer at half size" works well, it seems a bit clearer. It was cropped nicely too. I also think Enorton has a point about the Pylons not being in the shot, and it's no secret the Loneliness Building is an eyesore. I liked the previous photo, and will continue to use it in my UserPage. Let's all agree KC is too awesome to fit in one picture! ^, ^ Sorry I'm so late to the "Debate"! SakuraAvalon86 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the Charvex photo better. And I live in KC, just to get that out of he way. No it doesn't show some of the more prominent buildings, but it's a much nicer picture. The other picture might lead someone to believe that we have bad air quality or something. I would find a better quality picture that includes the better known landmarks, so that we end all of this debate for good. (Hibbidyhai August 25, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.129.129 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I like Charvex's photo better, as well.
The simple reason for this is that.. being a KC local, I know most people approach the city from the south, simply because the majority of the metro area is due south of the city.
A picture of the skyline from this angle would make for a much more recognized skyline.
Besides, this picture is much more colorful, and generally of a better quality.
but hey, that's just my opinion.
Thanks!
topherTRAGEDY—Preceding undated comment was added at 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC).
Why aren't we using the classic shot of the city's skyline looking north over Union Station from Penn Valley Park? In my opinion that's unquestionably the most iconic view of the city's skyline, and it also highlights some of the city's most significant low buildings (Union station, the Kauffman Center, the Sprint Center, and Bartle Hall). Plenty of great shots taken from this vantage are available under acceptable licenses. Feis-Kontrol (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Kansas City, Kansas
IMHO there should be some sort of prominent mention of this "other" city in the KCMO article, if only because of the confusion engendered by having two neighboring cities with the same name but in different states. The situation should be pointed out specifically and addressed in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the lead paragraph, and linked via a disambig page at the top of the page. Seems like a fairly prominent mention to me. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no explicit discussion of "there are two Kansas Cities: MO and KS. They are on opposite sides of the river. The one in MO is a lot bigger." These are important facts about "Kansas City," and my life experience tells me that most people from Pennsylvania don't know those things. I'd bet that most people who hear the song "Kansas City" don't know them either. (Where IS 12th Street and Vine, anyhow?) Lou Sander (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up an excellent point. As i said before, being a displaced KC local, I've found that many Tennesseans think of Kansas City as being in Kansas. I believe that a redirect at the top (is that the name?) is in order, for example... Not to be confused with Kansas City, Kansas
So six years later I finally got around to addressing this point. Let me know if you can think of anyways to improve on it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It needs work. The second sentence of the intro is now factually inaccurate (KC's original name was "Kansas Town", not "Kansas") and ungrammatical (dangling modifier). I'll try to bang on it a bit if I get the time. .... Feis-Kontrol (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I responded above not seeing you also wrote here. You are partially correct. Please do what you can to fix my grammar. "Kansas" is the best way to describe the original name. Though the city did incorporate under "Town of Kansas," this is simply a formalization of Kansas. As far as I know "Kansas Town" has never been used as the settlement had already grown to city size by the time Kansas Territory (later state) came along. As you can read the unusual order is due to this event. Indeed without that fluke of naming, people would probably be living in the city of Kansas today. I know there are sources on the web, mostly parroting the chamber of commerce website short history of the city, that use Town of Kansas. But that doesn't reflect the historical situation well. Folks would have said: "Im going to "Kansas" not "Town of Kansas". The published comprehensive histories of the city and area make this clear. Columbia, Missouri is example of this, among many others in the region. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Notable people list
There are more than enough names in the notable people list to justify a seperate article. Recommend the notable people template be used.
In addition, references for the entries need to be added. -- Absolon S. Kent(chat), 08:55, Sunday, December 1, 2024 (UTC)
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
It is only mentioned under architecture for its Euro-Style addition in 2008. It wasn't even linked to the main article. Shouldn't it be also mentioned as an Art Museum in section Culture? I think it's one of the important Art Museums of the USA. HoverfishTalk19:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Kansas City capitol
Well this doesnt say anything about Two states have a city named Kansas City. Name the state that calls Kansas City its capital.
I have tried editing articles before, and I am not very good at it, plus they modified some within 24 hours anyhow.
They have the December and alltime low temp. for Kansas City as -19 deg. F. It hit -22 deg. F. in Dec 1989. (fix the Celcius also)
They have the average annual snowfall as 12.6 inches. It is 19.9 inches (fix the metric also)
They have the length of the street the Paseo as 19 miles. Not possible, it would be approximately 9 miles.
They have The first casino facility in the state opened in September 1994 in North Kansas City by Harrah's Entertainment. The Argosy
in Riverside, MO opened a few months earlier.
Kansas City definitely has a Jackson County Courthouse (branch?) but I am not sure if it is a county seat. Independence is the only county seat
as far as I know, but I may be wrong.
I would guess West Port is 4 or 5 miles from the river, not 3 as listed, but I am just guessing.
The little map of Downtown should say Bruce R. Watkins Drive, not just Bruce R. Watkins. The funny thing is, it was named after Watkins who
Independence and Kansas City, Missouri are both county seats, though Independence is the original. There are few sources, however, to back this up, so the data will be monitored and edited accordingly.Madd0817 (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The record low is actually -23 deg F. in on Dec. 22, 1989. I would fix it if I could find a citation. I can verify the temperature from wuderground.com, but not that it's a record. Jbo5112 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'Cityscape' section reads like a brochure. Can someone please clean it up to be more neutral and less of an advertisement? Ben (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Real Location?
I'm fairly confident Kansas City, Missouri is actually Kansas City, Kansas. After all I have visited Missouri several times and know well how proud the Missourians are and their deep seated jealousy of Kansas. My father was a native Kansian and felt the hate of many a Missourian when he moved there in 1980 because he wanted nothing more than to happily live the bland life that can be so easily found in Missouri. He was finally able to achieve that goal only once he agreed to deny his home town of Kansas City as well as the state of kansas as a whole. I have been happy to educate you in this matter, please address this problem immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.9.162 (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'm not losing my mind but the 2010 population figure under Demographics keeps changing back and forth between 459,000 and 507,000. and I'm talking it changing within seconds of viewing the page. Hit Reload and the number changes. Either someone is currently editing this number (although I checked the edit log and don't see any activity regarding it) or I need to see a doctor. 76.250.255.4 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Shawn
Please Merge the unnecessary "Religion" section into the "Culture" section
There is no need for the Religion section to even exist, but if it does it should be under culture. NOT it's on multi-layered section. Similar section in other articles are formatted that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.9 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, most cities don't have large religion sections and it comes across as proselytizing. I've removed the favoritism and posted straight stats. Those who post about their favorite religion need to be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.138 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Good idea to just post stats. The religious fanatics were trying to entice people to their beliefs - evangelicals are loud and annoying and yet represent smallest portion. I made a few minor clarifications to the stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.100.230 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
User 'Hald' needs to be banned from the religion section. He is promoting religious favorites, which other city sites do not do. Is best to just show stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.192 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The history section says Mormons first settled here. I imagine that's true, but the source is weak. Maybe some of you Mormons or history-minded ones can improve it for us. Ernest Wilkinson, a loud-voiced Mormon promoter if ever there was one, who spoke his sympathies with the John Birch Society in religious speeches, was ex-president of BYU when, for reasons the history-minded folk at that university could never understand, he was hired to write the history of the BYU's first 100 years. Wilkinson was a lawyer, not a historian, and the book you cite, the official history of the BY University's first 100 years, had to include a non-objective history of his own lengthy administration. Absolutely guarantee you that Wilkinson never did a bit of original research about Mormon pioneer history in the Midwest. For better sources on Mormon history, try Leonard Arrington's several books, or the work of James Allen. They're both with-the-program Mormons, but they won't write things that history doesn't prove, just to make the LDSaints look better. Wilkinson spent his life fibbing to advance the work of God on Earth, and to support his own ego.
Mob violence pushed the Mormons out. Ever since they have spoken of returning to "Jackson County" to set up the New Jerusalem in the coming Millenial Reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.36.1 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Alan of Tucson
Visual Arts Section?
Would someone be interested in adding a Visual Arts section under the Culture heading? As director of a KC arts organization I understand that I am not the one to write it, but KC does have a thriving arts scene with organizations such as the Urban Culture Project/Charlotte Street Foundation and the H & R Block Artspace, new galleries such as Cara and Cabezas and Bill Brady, and artist-run spaces such as Plug Projects and the Subterranean Gallery (none of these are my home organization.) 65.69.169.137 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Population Not Verifiable
Some user has changed the population to 510,245 when the 2010 Census counted 459,787. Unless there is verifiable content to validate this, the data needs to reflect official data.
As a matter of fact, I am going to change it back to the 2010 data, because it is verifiable. If there's any dispute, feel free to talk with me.Madd0817 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"North-land"
re: "one newer neighborhood just minutes from downtown is Briarcliff, though it is in the so-called "North-land" or simply "North of the River". "
It's a minor point, but I lived in Clay and Platte Counties for more than 50 years, and I've never once seen "Northland" with a hyphen in the middle.
Also, to say it is "so-called" isn't quite right. About 50 percent of Kansas City's geographic area lies in Clay and Platte county, and as far as I know, there's no "so-called" about it.
Nor is "North of the River" the simplified name.
Whether it's referred to as "Northland" or "North of the River" seems to depend on the way it's used. (e.g.: "I lived in the Northland for most of my life." or "I lived North of the River." Most Northlanders use the former.)
I'm sorry I can't cite any sources for this. All I can say is that the two names are a matter of common usage, and "the Northland" is also the usual designation on political maps. I have no idea which use came first (maps or common usage), or even whether they originated before Kansas City Manager L.P. Cookingham annexed the area (in the late 1950s, I think).
Also, before the Northland's population boomed in the '80s and '90s, "the Northland" was also a district designation in the same class as "Westport," "Midtown," and "The Plaza." This has probably changed to allow for the population increase, but there again, I'm not sure.
I would have signed up and edited out the hyphen and the "so-called" myself -- but without citations, I wouldn't really be helping. Also, it almost sounds as if the original author was trying to say something that isn't quite clear.
I figured I'd leave it to you to decide whether to make a change or not.
We all know the famous quote from "The Wizard of Oz". Author L. Frank Baum once traveled drunk on a bicycle over the bridge from Kansas City, Kansas, to Kansas City, Missouri, accompanied by his dog. Suddenly he began to laugh like a madman and cried out: "We're not in Kansas anymore, yet still in Kansas City." He laughed and laughed and finally included that phrase into his (then) newly written book "The Wizard of Oz", according to literatur professor Joseph P. Stern in a TV interview. It should be included in the article. 93.219.129.19 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The article states: "Professional sports teams in Kansas City include the Kansas City Chiefs in football, the Kansas City Royals in baseball, and Sporting Kansas City in soccer." As Sporting KC plays in KCK, this statement is factually incorrect. Since Sporting is nonetheless associated with local culture, I think it's still worth a mention in the article (and after all, the two KCK casinos are mentioned in the article), but what would be the best way to reflect this and retain accuracy? Against the current (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You are correct. The article needs to mention that the team now plays in KCK and should probably make note of the years that the team played in Kansas City as the Wizards. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Climate
I grew up south of KC about 50 miles and there's a mistake in the climate/weather section. It states the record low temp was -22 set in 1899 and it was until December of 1989 when it reached -23 two nights in a row. I was only 13 but I remember it well. The local tv stations will back up what I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD3F:9570:E043:58B9:DABC:5F53 (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Depends on the thread you're using. Kansas City Int'l became the official station in 1972, but Downtown Airport continued to record data after that. I've changed the prose to reflect official records, but due to the availability of Downtown Airport data, the prose should continue citing normals from there unless discussion changes that. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 03:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this article is about the city of Kansas City, MO only, and the provided source is about the metro area, which includes other cities besides Kansas City, MO. http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/missouri/kansas_city is the source for Kansas City, MO. Secondly, mentioning detailed information about various religious organizations present in KC isn't promoting specific churches anymore than mentioning BBQ in KC is promoting meat-eating over vegetarianism. Thirdly telling me to stop editing the religion section or you will have me banned seems a bit much. Hald (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with only showing the % for all religions rather than the old format, which did look like certain people were promoting their own religion/church. Just looked at Hald's profile and it's self-described as 'charismatic' religious. Is pretty clear that person hijacked the religion section. Is better to be fair to all and show the breadth of beliefs and non-beliefs that represents KC through sources, not the specific interests of charismatic types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.100.230 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the blanking of a long-standing section that had been created by multiple editors over several years. That isn't "hijacking". My religious views are irrelevant to the issue of the unblanking the section. (Not really sure why you put charismatic in quotation marks either) Hald (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The old format was favoring some religion/churches/orgs and not others. The % list is much better and is fair. It's now a better representation and the old format did need to be replaced even if by various authors. The ones mostly elaborated on represented less than 5% of KC each, those over 5% were not even mentioned. The % list clearly shows a better picture about religion in KC, not the promotion by various evangelists. Looking at other city sites, they don't go overboard on promoting ones favorite religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.100.230 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Certainly a less detailed picture about religion in KC. Mentioning that KC is the seat of the Catholic Cathederal isn't going overboard on promoting Catholicism. Mentioning that the world HQ of the Unity Church is nearby isn't going overboard on promoting Unitarianism. Mentioning that the world HQ of the Church of the Nazarene is in nearby Lenexa after moving from KC isn't going overboard on promoting that body. Mentioning that the Episcopal Diocese of West Missouri has a cathedral in downtown KC isn't going overboard on promoting Episcopalianism. Mentioning that the world HQ of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) is in nearby Independence isn't going overboard on promoting that body. These are all facts that are true and not POV. Hald (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is way overboard compared to the religion section of other cities. The % list much better represents religion in KC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.100.230 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to strongly disagree. I belong to none of the specific religions mentioned (unless you call "other christian" specific), and I did not feel any of the wording promoted a specific religion or any religion at all, but demonstrated which organizations had a significant administrative presence in the area, which beliefs have been historically important to the KC, and conversely how KC itself was important to various beliefs. Your source is not terribly reliable. The section should be restored. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, There are several IP addresses using the same editing style. There is nothing wrong with this, as this can happen while editing from different computers or just logging in and out, but I think a disclosure is warranted in the context of this discussion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I recall seeing a couple years ago that someone started the KC religion section with only LDS, which seemed inappropriate given such a small portion of KC is LDS. Then others started to add their preferred religions and churches, which was completely unnecessary as there is no religion in KC that is unique to rest of country and it comes across as a pitch. Denver, St. Louis don't have a religion section, Chicago has a tiny blurb. KC's did get out of hand so it makes sense to show only a list that represents the breakdown in KC. Even if not entirely accurate, it's in the ballpark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.124.85.14 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Arusha, Tanzania
Freetown, Sierra Leone
Guadalajara, Mexico
Kurashiki, Japan
Metz, France
Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Ramla, Israel
Seville, Spain
Tainan City, Taiwan
Xi'an, People's Republic of China
Hanover, Germany
