Talk:Topeka, Kansas/Archive 1

Google etymology
The previous discussion of the etymology of "Topeka" was insufficient, citing "a Kansas tribal language" but not stating the tribe, and giving an inexact translation. I have changed this.

I have also included more discussion of the controversy on the etymology. "Place to dig good wild potatoes" should be given the greatest profile, since it has been argued robustly for by several people and is supported by the name for the city in the Ioway and Kansa languages as well. However, if my wording is not completely viewpoint-neutral I welcome any minor revisions.

It might be worthwhile to move the discussion of the etymology to its own section. Typically city name etymologies go in the top section, but this discussion is unusually long and seems to break up the flow of the top section.

Additionally, I have changed "was an important food for Native Americans" to present tense. Referring to extant people in the past tense is not only inaccurate, but highly offensive. Balshan (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Offense shouldn't be taken where none was implied. Actually saying "was" implies that it no longer is an important food for them.  Is it still?  But more importantly if you are referring to Indians of a particular era, then the phrase just needs to be clarified to indicate that. —Mike 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Offense shouldn't be taken where none was implied" is a particular point of view whose possessor probably doesn't hear very many offensive comments made about him/her, or perhaps chooses not to feel offended when they are made. Offensive statements are made all the time by people who do not understand what they are saying/doing. It is troubling to assert that other people "shouldn't" have a particular reaction to such statements when reading a "viewpoint-neutral" body like Wikipedia. Instead, it is the Wikipedia community's job to extirpate non-neutral, offensive material.

It is possible to argue that "was" simply dates the food, and not the people. However, it is also a part of a larger discourse which purports that Indian cultures have passed and been replaced by contemporary American culture - which is both false and offensive, whether it was intended by the writer or not. A quick Google search of "Native American past tense" will reveal countless sites which describe at length the offensive nature of this unthought-out rhetorical device, and its rootedness in scientific accounts of "passing" cultures that "needed" "preserving".

I have gathered wild potatoes myself. I would wager that, for the majority of Indian people living in Kansas, wild potatoes are more of a cultural food or heritage food than an everyday food. We eat such foods at clan gatherings and namings and other important ceremonies, while very few of us have the privilege to eat them every day as our grandfathers did. So, in answer to your question, yes, they are still important. balshan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation July 2009
I have removed a section entitled "Cost of Living" it was pulled straight from the Chamber of Commerce website here. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to "google, kansas?"
The city, I believe, changed its name.Fusion7 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the section above, the city did not change its name. It was merely a proclamation by the mayor in order to get Google's attention.  It is temporary and after March is over, it will be forgotten.  Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 04:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He thinks it's a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.239.208 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish that was made clearer..... Fusion7 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, they only pretended to change their name. Can we then "pretend" that it's in the article and stop this non-sense?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Google, Kansas
Please stop changing Topeka's name to "Google" in the heading and infobox and adding the story to the heading or history section of the article. The temporary name change is already mentioned in the pop culture section where it belongs and is properly sourced. The name change is temporary and will be forgotten pretty quickly. Thank you. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we shouldn't keep the encyclopedia up to date? Per WP:CRYSTAL there's no way to know whether or not the current proclamation will be extended. -- Kendrick7talk 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's a gimmick and pop culture at best, the cities name is still Topeka. Should not be changed. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions Has the state legislature approved a name change? Has the official charter of the city been changed?  Are drivers licenses being issued to people in the city of "Google, Kansas" ?? If I were to send a letter to Google, Kansas, would the U.S. Post Office deliver it?  In other words, is this a "real" name change associated with a gimmick (like Truth or Consequences, New Mexico) or an "unofficial" name change like "Black Squirrel City" Marysville, Kansas??--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote that should pretty much settle it: "Now, to be clear, this isn’t a legal name change. Lawyers advised the mayor and the city council that they wouldn’t be able to change the name for just the month and then change it back (no word on if they also advised them that it would be well, stupid) — so instead they’re going with this proclamation asking people to simply call the city “Google.”"{1} Ryan2845 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Fixed your link) Oh, well in that case we shouldn't call it Google until most everyone else does per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kendrick7talk 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also added a note up top to discourage well-meaning randoms. I'm sure this will be old news in a week and will try to come back to remove it. -- Kendrick7talk 00:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get protection on this article? It seems as if everybody and their grandma has edited some part of the article to include the name Google. This was just a proclamation, in order to legally change the name, even for a month, would require votes, legislation and a general consensus from the public, politicians and the State. Lawrence renamed itself "Jericho" for a day because part of the TV series was filmed there but that does not mean that needs to be included in the opening header or in the history section. This is a publicity stunt for Google to notice Topeka and when the month is over we will forget "Google, Kansas" ever happened. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's absolutely a publicity stunt, and an annoying one at that. Semi-protected until April.  Enigma msg  05:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore...someone just changed the protection time/level. Sysop EC. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys are all nerds... who cares! Go do something productive with your lives! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.101.31 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010
 * Oh, why thank you! I couldn't think of a higher honor...nerds FTW! And question: Why are you here if you don't think editing Wikipedia is productive? Have a nice day, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Topeka is officially changing its name to Google for one month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickD2010 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not official, as discussed in this section. Please do not change it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reset the protection as move=sysop for the rest of the month. Alexius  Horatius  21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though it's not an official name change, it seems reasonable to include a sentence about it in the introduction just for now. After March is over, and the town no longer refers to itself as Google, then that sentence can be removed. I firmly believe that it is significant enough to warrant a mention in the introduction while the name is current. The article for Topeka recieved about 11,000 views during the entire month of January, and 10,000 during February. It has been viewed over 13,000 times in the first eight days of March. The Google name is drawing a lot of interest. Gimmick or not, it is significant enough to mention near the beginning of the article. Chris3145 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement on March 3 that "when the month is over we will forget "Google, Kansas" ever happened." makes me smile in retrospect. CopaceticThought (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.255.188.200, 9 April 2010
The name change and mayoral proclamation was suggested and written by Ryan Gigous. Gigous thought Topeka needed to be re-branded to develop community pride and potentially draw national and international attention.

24.255.188.200 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The name change was not inspired by a stupid Nintendo game. I never heard about it until there was a story in the local paper. Please change this to reflect what was written above.

If you have any questions, please contact me at ryan.gigous@gmail.com

If I need to send the original email with all of the information to further prove this, let me know.

http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-04-01/blog_all_things_google_topeka


 * Hm; I see what you mean. For now, I have removed The city was renamed "ToPikachu" for a day, which is a play on the name of the Pokémon character Pikachu. Special events included skydivers parachuting onto Forbes Field. - because it lacked a reliable source.


 * In order to clarify the information that you state above, please could you supply an exact piece of text to add, with appropriate reliable source(s) - I'm sorry, but emails will not help - it will have to be something verifiable. Please add a further editsemiprotected request if you are able to supply such. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the link from the blog on cjonline? http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-04-01/blog_all_things_google_topeka

Also, here is another story from the local paper. http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-03-09/postal_service_joins_google_crush

I would still submit to you the original text edit from the post on April 9, 2010 - Ryan Gigous

prominence of Brown vs Board of Edcation
I believe that Topeka is best known in the United States for its association with the supreme court case Brown V. Board of Education. Of course it is known as a city in Kansas. But an average American would associate the city with that decision and it was a landmark decision in the history of United States. Will it be useful to include this information in the first paragraph itself rather than relegating this to a corner of the article? I altered the article but a senior editor reverted it and I thank him for being polite about it. But I also think that this merits mention as a historical fact relating to Topeka.Kc27 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest the first paragraph be rewritten to say the following:


 * Topeka (Kansa: Tó Ppí Kˀé) is the capital city of the U.S. state of Kansas and the county seat of Shawnee County. It is situated along the Kansas River in the central part of Shawnee County, located in northeast Kansas, in the Central United States. The population was 122,377 at the 2000 census, and it was estimated to be 122,647 in the 2007 census. The Topeka Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Shawnee, Jackson, Jefferson, Osage, and Wabaunsee counties, had an estimated population of 226,268 in the year 2003. The city is well known for the landmark United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson and declared segregation in public schools on account of race to be unconstitutional. Three ships of the US Navy have been named USS Topeka in honor of the city.


 * The case is quite prolific, and is covered in most US History classes that cover the civil rights debates of the 1960s, so it seems prominent enough in Topeka's history to be covered in the lead section. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick reply. I think the above paragraph will be appropriate. The reference that can be included: http://www.nps.gov/brvb/historyculture/upload/brown%20US%20supreme%20court.pdf Kc27 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Important Notes Before Editing This Article
If you would like to edit this article, please review the following to get a better idea of what to include: Sbmeirow (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) All city articles MUST follow this guideline for layout and content: USCITY
 * 2) Please examine these city examples: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania; Stephens City, Virginia; Kent, Ohio; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Grand Forks, North Dakota.
 * 3) Please do NOT add text that sounds like a realtor advertisement, but instead write like a neutral-party encyclopedia.
 * 4) Please read the  editing tutorial and  new contributor help page before editing the first time.
 * 5) How to cite sources by adding references? Add references or someone may delete your text.
 * 6) What is Verifiability?

name change
Does anyone feel this should be added to the article anywhere? If so where? Aware it does need further explanation if added.

On April 1, 2010, the city changed its name from Topeka to Google. Calmer  Waters  07:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did they change it for the month of April too? See the above section about the name change. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything about an April 1 change of name of the city. I think there was only a change that lasted for the duration of March.  There is, of course, the April 1 fake name change of Google to Topeka.  Ketone16 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is presently an asymmetry in the article. The section on 21st-century Topeka has a subsection on the 2010 temporary name change to Google, but the section on 20th-century Topeka does not have a subsection on the 1998 temporary name change to Topikachu. That information has been lumped in with the Google name change in the 21st-century Topeka section, which is not really correct. I would argue that the first name change is more significant; the second just continues the trend. Ketone16 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy that thought of the temporary name change (Ryan Gigous) wasn't inspired by the Topikachu change in 1998. He's a marketing guy that understands the value of updating a brand and offered it as a Big Idea at the original Heartland Visioning meeting in 2008. Here's his interview about it: http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-04-01/blog_all_things_google_topeka - Alissa Sheley —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlissaSheley (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) When will you remove this line "The name change was inspired by a previous name change in 1998 to "Topikachu" in honor of the Pokémon franchise.[1]" this isn't what inspired the name change... -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.162.178 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When will the front page be edited.. This is simply NOT TRUE. "The name change was inspired by a previous name change in 1998 to "Topikachu" in honor of the Pokémon franchise" It was explained and linked to the original name change idea 2 years ago... Please edit the home page to reflect the TRUTH... Thanks - Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.162.178 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You people are retarded. This April fools joke is totally lame. It is just the popularity of Google that makes it appear "funny". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.84.104 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You, Mr. IP, need to calm down, thank you. I'll leave a message informing you of this on your talk page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am just curious why the pronunciation on this site is Toe-peka instead of Too-peka. I lived there for years and seldom ever heard someone call it Toe-peka? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.232.2 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is just regional differences. In other parts of Kansas, I've heard it said Tuh-pekuh, Toe-pekuh, or even Top-eka. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah i've lived in Kansas my whole life and have never heard another Kansan call it "too-peka". Ryan2845 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my ex girlfriend, a native of Topeka, pronounces it "tuh-peka". Good enough for me. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We always called it "Peak-er"... ahhh us rednecks.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that R from?? - 71.87.116.224 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

im confused what is the name changed to? Isn't the spelling we have on wikipedia correct or is it actually spelled tepika —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * People have been trying to change Topeka, Kansas to Google, Kansas against consensus. See the sections above. Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 18:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Currently there exists a redirect that, until I got my hands on it, redirected to the general article. I've gone and refined the redirect to reflect the blurb in particular. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested minor corrections
2 suggestions for edits: 1) all KC TV stations (except for PBS KCPT) have been removed from the Topeka Cox cable lineup. 2) I've lived here 15+ years and have never heard anyone use the nickname "Top City". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.134.9 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of the Kansas City stations. As for the nickname, I've heard it used jokingly but as I mentioned on the talk page for Lawrence, removing it would probably be more trouble than it's worth. I've lived in Lawrence for 30 years and never heard of it called "Larryville" unless jokingly or derogatorily and I don't consider it an official nickname as only college students and self-proclaimed hipsters seem to use it. I feel "Top City" is also in this camp. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church
Apparently some residents of Topeka take issue with verifiable, pertinent, and relevant information about the Westboro Baptist Church being included on this page. It cannot be deleted simply because it might embarrass or shame people who live in this city. Including this information and citing a verifiable source is within the scope, mission, and purpose of Wikipedia. If non-positive facts were never allowed on Wikipedia it wouldn't be much use as a reference site. If non-positive facts were never allowed one could never add crime statistics or any other fact or statistic that one might find to be embarrassing or shaming. Wikipedia is not a place for "boosterism." It is an online encyclopedia. Therefore, this information will continue to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.89.37 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the section "Religion" in the article. LionMans Account (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just did. And now the aforementioned information will be reinserted into the header, per the scope and mission of Wikipedia. I am sorry if this embarrasses or offends you but it is relevant, pertinent, and does not negate other less-controversial facts about the city. Therefore, it belongs and will stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredin323 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you go, WP:LEAD. If you must know, the purpose of the introduction of an article is to summarize the topic and mention the most important things.  In this case, the church isn't a major part of the city.  Its worth a minor mention in the article (which is already done), but not major enough to be at the beginning. LionMans Account (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. It will be mentioned in the Religion section, along with visual proof. Your editing privileges could be revoked should you continue to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredin323 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Information about the WBC belongs on their own article, not this one.LionMans Account (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to unilaterally decide what does and does not belong. WBC is a part of your city; therefore it belongs as a small part on this page. Blame them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredin323 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem quite intent on promoting the church. Are you affiliated with them? This article is about the city of Topeka though, not the church.  They have their own article. LionMans Account (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The fact remains that it does belong in the Religion section, as it pertains to the religion of Topeka. It is one part of that section, not the entire part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredin323 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment While I would agree that User:LionMans Account or any other individual editor does not get to "unilaterally decide" what does and does not belong, I must also point out that nether does User:Fredin323 have that privelige either. Nor do I.  We come together with consensus.  I support the changes made by User:LionMans Account at this time, but if there continues to be a dispute we should discuss the changes here on this talk page rather than get in to an edit war.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It should remain as a small part of the Religion section because it is without a doubt the most well-known church in Topeka. Like I said, you don't get to delete it simply because it embarrasses you (as it should, in my opinion). After further consideration, I agree that it does not belong in the opening section. It does, however, belong in the Religion section, along with any other religious group that you would like to mention. If you don't like WBC affiliated with Topeka, blame them, not me or anyone else.


 * WBC looms large in the public conscious as well as the national news media. Being from Missouri myself, I would put forward the proposition that WBC is one of the few things people tend to know about Topeka and that that trend only increases as one gets farther from Kansas. Unfortunately they make headlines here too. At the very least they need to be mentioned. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the issue here. The WBC has always had a paragraph in the Religion section. Only the image and unsourced sentence has been removed. Bahooka (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The unsourced sentence is correct, but I feel it doesn't belong since if someone wants to know why WBC is controversal, they could simply read the article on the group. As for the picture, I think it doesn't belong simply because articles on various cities don't include random pictures of people who live in that town.  Might get a mayor (if the mayor is prominent) and maybe town founders.  Otherwise, you could see an article full of pictures of random people who have little to do with the actual town. LionMans Account (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both about the unreferenced sentence. It is not germane enough to the article topic. The picture, however, is quite illustrative and there is currently no picture in the religion section besides it. Replacing a picture illustrating the religion section with a picture of the mayor does not make sense in this section. The picture is not of random people as you suggest, instead it is illustrative of the some of the people describe in the religion section; the opposite of random. Your willingness to overlook this and claim they are pictures of random people make me question your objectiveness. I think it is grasping at straws to worry about the article becoming full of pictures of random people who have little to do with the actual town. That problem simply doesn't exist and I don't think it is likely to. We are documentarians on Wikipedia, of the good and the bad, if we start removing pictures just because we don't like the subject then neutrality loses out to censorship. If a picture that is more indicative of the religious climate in Topeka is found than perhaps that would make a good addition or substitute but until then there is really no reason to remove it besides personal opinion of the subject, which probably shouldn't be at play here. If that was a picture of say the Bahai congregation of Topeka would your objections be the same? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, a picture of the people at some event of Bahai congregation would be as pointless. But if we're including pictures of one, might as well have pictures of people of other congregations.  Some pictures of the more well known churches (such as St. Joseph's, which I think is on the national historic registry) would be an improvement to the section.  All, IMHO. LionMans Account (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Topikachu
I think at least a small paragraph should be added talking about the renaming to Topikachu and the associated event, it feels weird that the search for the word redirects here but it isn't mentioned once on the page. It is important because it was the starting point for Pokemon in the US which had a pretty significant impact on our country's culture. I just noticed the previous discussion about this, if a source is needed I can provide one. (ISBN: 0520245652) Andorhal (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is this?
Why is there a footnote on this page? I've put this section in to help divide the silly footnote from the discussions...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a and  markup in the section above called "name changes" that caused it to appear like a reference normally would at the bottom of a page. I killed the markups so it won't show but I did leave the external link in the original post. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the whole "Google, Kansas" thing be in the article, yes or no?
Enough time has passed that we can look back at the whole "Google, Kansas" thing and have perspective. A recent editor removed the entire section on the subject. To prevent any edit wars, let's discuss the issue here (I am admittedly undecided myself at this time). However, I'm certainly in favor of having the discussion and putting the issue to bed (at least for the time being). Go!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think it would hurt to leave at least a well referenced mention of the event somewhere in the Topeka article. If you have watched the Topeka article like I have you would notice that people edit that section of the article at least frequently enough that if it were missing that someone would put it back in and probably with less referencing than it had at its removal. I would be in favor of a short well referenced mention perhaps in the culture section. Remember that this revision of the article is just one man's opinion of the content and it is my opinion that he acted boldly to remove referenced content without a discussion such as this. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It got enough mentions in the news, even as tongue in cheek news, to keep.  I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a Jeopardy answer someday. LionMans Account (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I restored the section in the article because there appears to be a trend to support its inclusion at this time. At least this way we can better discuss its inclusion.  If, after appropriate time the consensus is to not mention it in the article we can always delete it then.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Find me a single secondary source that mentions this subject. Have any academic journals, reliable books, major retrospective online works, etc. addressed "Google, Kansas"?  A flash-in-the-pan incident like this is not likely to be getting any secondary-source coverage, and encyclopedia articles are based on secondary sources; news sources from the time of the incident are primary sources and thus unable to give a sense of an incident's historical importance.  The vulgar culture appearance is thoroughly unrelated to our goals of building a professional-quality encyclopedia.  Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my above comment, if the mention is removed from the article there will be some thoughtless but well meaning editors put the incident back into the article; probably without referencing it. It's inclusion doesn't have to be lengthy, but it should include a reference. There are articles on Wikipedia that have worse instances of fluff in them. It did happen, but in the long view it was a very minor part of Topeka history and only deserves a cursory mention in the article. There is a segment of the readership that would expect to find mention of it in the article because it is the popular media view of things now days for many less educated people. The goal may be to build a professional quality encyclopedia, however, if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" then there are some that will keep putting the Google thing back in to content in the Topeka article. Personally, I would rather spend my time writing articles than riding herd on amateur editing errors and no referencing as the mention of Google, Kansas is repeatedly inserted back into the article. A short referenced mention is preferable to constant removal of claptrap. Just an opinion and I am in agreement with you about the ultimate goal of a professional quality encyclopedia but I would remind you that we are still quite a distance from that goal. Required registration is my answer to some of the fluff that is entered at Wikipedia. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)