Talk:Kansas City, Missouri

Template:V0.5

Walt Disney came to KC long before 1923

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.

• For older talk page comments, see /Archive.

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. Rhetth 14:08, 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. Rhetth 01:42, 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 | Talk 20:09, 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 Loki 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need five additional contributors to voice support

Well, four: I'm in! --KHill-LTown 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Count me in. Americasroof 07:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In. There's enough in this sprawling metropolis for a project, without a doubt. -- nae'blis 09:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for it. --Hobbes747 23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Loki 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Still up for the idea. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia looks like a pretty good role model (or see Category:WikiProject Cities of the United States); also, we should consider the idea of a Portal. Maybe after Thanksgiving? -- nae'blis 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat confused as to what a Wikiproject is. --KCMODevin 00:12, 23 November 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:07, 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'blis 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help with the portal. I'm more of a wikinoob, but I'll try to help. --Geobeedude 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude

Prospero's

I love prospero's but if we take out the Roasterie then should we take out Prospero's also? --Gbleem 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gotta go unless somebody can come up with a rationale to save it. Americasroof 07:53, 9 September 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 Loki 20:53, 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! Americasroof 07:53, 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 --Abernaki 13:22, 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! --Hobbes747 17:11, 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? --KCMODevin 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearby locations

Does anyone know anything about the Village of Loch Lloyd, Missouri, which looks like it's in Cass County, Missouri? I see some businesses with that address, with ZIP code 64012. I couldn't find an article explaining what that entity is. I was also confused about Oak Park, Kansas (see the talk page there). -- Beland 22:38, 17 October 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.Shack 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Loch Lloyd is a recently designated villiage which broke off from the city of Belton, Missouri Loch Lloyd, Missouri

Killa City

After the last round of edits, I googled it and the term is apparently true. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=kansas+city+%22killa+city%22&btnG=Search Sad, but true. --Hobbes747 03:39, 20 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-LTown 03:57, 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. Americasroof 04:06, 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. --KCMODevin 11:34, 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. --KCMODevin 02:17, 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-LTown 03:24, 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. --Hobbes747 04:04, 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-LTown 04:48, 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. --KCMODevin 14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also libious. Which is against Wikipedia's rules.P.Shack 14:30, 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. --KCMODevin 18:40, 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-LTown 23:59, 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 CloversMallRat 03:29, 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. --KCMODevin 22:03, 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:

"The Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network recently designated Kansas City as having potential of attaining world city status."

I searched the cited report, and could not find anything to support the designation claim. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? hmmm... I know wer were added to the list of potential cities. Remember, it says potential world cities, not a world city. --KCMODevin 14:19, 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 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. --KCMODevin 01:11, 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. --KCMODevin 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html --KCMODevin 01:18, 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:16, 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-LTown 04:44, 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. --KCMODevin 11:32, 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. --KCMODevin 19:46, 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'blis 22:39, 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. --KCMODevin 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for sounding like a jerk, i've been sick and my temper has been pretty short. --KCMODevin 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crime

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. --KCMODevin 11:53, 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'blis 16:03, 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. --KCMODevin 19:36, 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. Americasroof 20:45, 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'blis 22:35, 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. --KCMODevin 23:28, 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:11, 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!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:20, 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. --KCMODevin 00:31, 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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:41, 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? --KCMODevin 11:41, 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'blis 15:15, 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:30, 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. --KCMODevin 04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently links from KCMO.org to KCPD.org were bad links... It isn't actually down --KCMODevin 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Information on crime in KC from the KCPD website: http://www.kcpd.org/

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. --KCMODevin 05:14, 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. --KCMODevin 11:30, 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'blis 14:20, 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'blis 14:20, 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. --Hobbes747 18:04, 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 Loki 19:59, 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. --KCMODevin 05:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I made sure the update was neutral, or at least it appears to be neutral. --KCMODevin 05:46, 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-LTown 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No way. Well awesome! Anyone remember when Chastain threw the stack of papers in City Hall? What a goof. --Hobbes747 19:53, 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 Loki 19:59, 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. --KCMODevin 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Awards

Computerworld and the National Policy Research Council just placed www.kcmo.org in their top 10 websites for large cities (over 250k).[2] Maybe time to revisit some sort of structured section location for awards... -- nae'blis 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

KC Flag

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? --Xyzzyva 19:19, 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. ---- Mike14 17:37, 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

Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette

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. Americasroof 19:21, 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:

Downtown

Northeast

East Side

Northeast Bottoms

East Bottoms

Midtown-Westport

Plaza

--KCMODevin 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neighborhoods_in_Kansas_City%2C_Missouri --flyingember

ok ty, I organized the page so it wasn't so cluttered, it's now organized into larger districts.. --KCMODevin 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

U NEED 2 HAVE A WORLD MAP ON HERE!

---

   -------------------------
       -----------------

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.169.139 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cities with State Names

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. PubliusFL 14:39, 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. --KCMODevin 22:22, 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). PubliusFL 23:07, 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. --KCMODevin 23:38, 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. PubliusFL 23:50, 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? Americasroof 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the Town of Kansas/City of Kansas wasn't named after the tribe rather than the river? --KCMODevin 02:16, 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. Americasroof 12:11, 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

J. D. Redding 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spare ribs

Kansas City-style spare ribs should probably be mentioned somewhere. Badagnani 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like Kansas City-style barbecue? --Reverend Loki 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Community Center

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.

Thanks. SnapManSlide 00:55, 30 May 2007 (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. --KCMODevin 15:55, 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.