Jump to content

Talk:Greater Pittsburgh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revising the municipalities

[edit]

I think instead of listing every township borough and city maybe just list the ones with a population of 10,000 or more and create a seperate wikipedia page for the rest? Any suggestions on this would be welcomed.Hholt01 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what does population matter? it's still the metro area. and pitt's metro is a bit unique in it's own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.11.222 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest Point Elevation

[edit]

I'm collecting references to the lowest point elevations in the various counties. Once all counties have references, the lowest of them all will be put in the infobox on the main page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paschmitts (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pittsburgh Project Assessment

[edit]

Matching WikiProject Pittsburgh rating to WikiProject Pennsylvania rating. – Paschmitts 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence County, other counties

[edit]

I am not sure if wiki is following a standard here, if they are Pittsburgh metro should be greatly expanded.

Cleveland's metro article includes the equivalent of Pittsburgh's Lawrence County (Cleveland includes a non MSA but CSA county Ashtabula without any note or explanation), Charlotte does note the difference between their CSA and MSA but then includes a county in neither one (Chesterfield SC) and includes counties in neither with the explanation that they are "sometimes" included in metro Charlotte. Metro NYC does a good job explaining MSA and CSA but then includes two CT counties that are in neither in their metroplex. Would love to hear what the standard is. I plan on adding Lawrence and the DMA counties soon here thank you. Hholt01 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Map of Pennsylvania highlighting Lawrence County.png

[edit]

Image:Map of Pennsylvania highlighting Lawrence County.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Consolidated Area, Ohio, West Virginia, and Indiana County Pennsylvania

[edit]

Should we merge Weirton–Steubenville metropolitan area based on this updated government definition? Also since the "consolidated area" is now 2 counties in Pennsylvania, 2 in West Virginia and one in Ohio for a total of 5 counties, is the term "Pittsburgh metropolitan area" accurate as a common usage or should we change this articles title to "Greater Pittsburgh" or "Pittsburgh Consolidated area", I would vote to keep this article's title intact and provide the defintions within. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you merge here. The Weirton–Steubenville metropolitan area did not go away. It is still a government designated area (#48260), separately designated and on its own. It is now included in the Pittsburgh Combined Statistical Area (#430), along with Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area (#38300) and the Indiana (#26860) and New Castle (#35260) Micropolitan Areas (p107 of government bulletin), but it is still different than the defined Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area. Although this article and the Pittsburgh metro article can and should talk about that the Combined Statistical Area (no need for two separate articles), I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to merge two separate metropolitan area articles (sort of like merging Allegheny County with Western Pennsylvania...two separate topics).
BTW, based on the government document, the lead for this article is incorrect. This metro area is not a subsection of the Pittsburgh metro area. Both metro areas (#48260 and #38300) make up part the Pittsburgh Combined Statistical Area (#430). Two different things and the lead should reflect that technical precision, per WP:TPA. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed that CP, yes with this expanded definition there is a wall being run into with linking to an article with a title that although used a lot is not the technical definition. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against merge, support renaming of page The Pittsburgh Tri-State article was deleted some time back that had all the areas included while this article initially focused on just the metro area. Additionally, not only is Weirton/Steubenville still considered separate, but it is more distinct culturally from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, especially the eastern counties. (Weirton/Steubenville does have a lot of similarities to Beaver and Washington Counties that border the area.) I wouldn't be against bringing back the Pittsburgh Tri-State page, but I don't support a merge. I do, however, think that this page should be renamed Greater Pittsburgh. There is precedence on other such articles. Jgera5 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) UPDATE Someone actually preserved the Pittsburgh Tri-State page here after the page was deleted. Could use as a reference source. Jgera5 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

definitions

[edit]

these 'metro' definitions have gotten totally out of whack. 'megalopolis'? give me a break. and do we really need an explanation of the media market within the area? aside from the city-area, "pittsburgh" was nearly always defined as the four original counties (allegh.,westmore., wash., and beaver) locals know that. i guess maybe a 'new pittsburgh' definition which includes armstrong, butler and fayette needs more pronounced? or am i just splitting hairs on this topic? either way, this "CBSA" "MBCSA" or whatever it's called needs trimmed down. 98.122.28.76 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this thread. I updated the current article to reflect the consolidated statistical area, but I am thinking that it would be best to split the CSA, MSA, and region into separate articles (all linked to eachother). Jnz 15218 (talk)

I completely agree with you Innatenobility (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

misleading population table

[edit]

There was some slight of hand in the historical population table, which switched from MSA to CSA numbers in 2010. While documented above the table, it was nonetheless misleading. I have edited the table to distinguish the two. Sbs9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of controversial and not widely agreed upon categorisations of Pittsburgh's identity and regional scope.

[edit]

The passage on regional identity is extremely problematic. It references multiple non-academic texts--including newspaper opinion pieces--categorising Pittsburgh as 'Appalachia' 'Southern' 'Midwestern' etc., etc. This is NOT widely agreed upon ans NOT how most Pittsburghers view themselves. The "Paris of Appalachia" is especially heinous. It reads as an advertisement for the book.

The section also does little to nothing in describing the actual identity of Pittsburgh. Instead it is an ARGUMENTATIVE text, written to convince the reader of new theories and definitions that are not well substantiated and furthermore have little quantifiable basis in the ACTUAL identity of native Pittsburghers.

As many of the statements and postulations in this section are NOT widely agreed upon--and many are just flat-out false--I propose removing the controversial texts. They are not accurate. Innatenobility (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting removal of large blocks of sourced material

[edit]

I've restored a large chunk of sourced material removed by User:Innatenobility from 21:20, November 5, 2021 to 11:38, November 6, 2021‎. Included in the edit summaries is dismissal of references from Brian O'Neill and Christopher Briem as "opinion pieces" or "advertisements for books." O'Neill was a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for over 30 years, and Briem is an economist at the University of Pittsburgh's University Center for Social and Urban Research, which I'd say qualifies both as subject matter experts. Briem's book Paris of Appalachia was published by Carnegie Mellon University press [1] and has been written about extensively.

Also removed was a paragraph on the "Power of 32" organization, a non-profit that provides funding for projects within a large geographic area around the Pittsburgh region. [2]. As to whether that section belongs here is more debatable, as it's sourced to a column about the chairman of that group. [3]. I'd lean toward agreeing that the sourcing for that section is insufficient for the conclusions drawn, and I've re-removed it per WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links, non-peer reviewed references

[edit]

No matter what I change Ohnoitsjamie reverts everything so I thought I would at least least start a discussion. I hope that's acceptable to the apparent arbitor of all knowledge, Ohnoitsjamie.

The economy section of this article is riddled with broken references. This is disturbing as all of the claims in the economy section are highly disputable at best. If you are going to redefine 200 years of history it would be great if the article at least referenced some source. Even if the sources in question are themselves highly disputable, non-peer reviewed, non academic newspaper articles. Innatenobility (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in your own commentary regarding the claims is what we call WP:SYNTH, and is against policy. I removed a section tied to a now unrelated link and restored your change of "popularized" to "coined" regarding "Cleveburgh," as the latter is more easily supported by the refs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary and argumentative text that does not directly describe anything about the economy of greater Pittsburgh

[edit]

Why is the following passage necessary in a text about the economy of greater Pittsburgh?

He notes that, conversely, the population centers of northeastern Ohio are primarily connected with Pittsburgh and only secondarily connected to the state capital of Columbus.

This does not describe anything about the PITTSBURH region's economy and would be better suited in an article about northeastern Ohio. The tone and implication is that Pittsburgh is actually Midwestern even though it is quite literally not Midwestern. This passage is one of just a series of 'sources' of argumentative texts which try to convince the reader that although Pittsburgh is Northeastern it actually should not be considered as such.

This is wrong. Encyclopedic articles should present facts in the most impartial manner possible. Encyclopedic articles should NOT present opinions as facts and even worse, opinions that have little to no justification nor a SUBSTANTIAL body of evidence to back up their claims. It should not be controversial to state the fact that Pittsburgh is a Northeastern city and nothing in this article proves otherwise. It simply raises a debate about a subject in which there is no debate. And if such a debate should take place WHY is Wikipedia the right forum for it? Innatenobility (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is contextually tied to the preceding sentences about Pittsburgh's economic connections to other cities in nearby states. It is certainly debatable as to what regional definitions Pittsburgh fits in to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually understand why you are so adamant on redefining basic geographical facts about Pittsburgh but the fact remains that you only ever reference Chris Briem and Patrick O'Niell both of whom coincidentally reference eachother. You've also referenced the same same author five times in one section of the economy section. Three of the references are to the same editorial (read: opinion) piece which is simply published three different places. This is called confirmation bias--I'm sure there's some Wikipedia rule about that. Even the opinion piece you just linked uses this very Wikipedia article so this is just a closed feedback loop of the same theories by the same two authors. The most irritating thing is that, as also stated in that article, something being stated in Wikipedia basically means that it becomes true even if it is not in fact true. I'm beginning to understand that OhNoitsJamie is actually the Bill Price mentioned in that article. 

Innatenobility (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, Pittsburgh has a unique identity. Why does that need to be redifined as 'Midwestern' or 'Great Lakes.' Why can't Pittsburgh just be Pittsburgh. And my very valid point still stands that Wikipedia is NOT a debate forum. That would be Wikipedia. Disputed and thinly supported theories should not be presented as facts and that is something you simply ignore every time I've stated it. Innatenobility (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section update

[edit]

I would like to update the economy section of this article as it currently does not describe anything concrete about the economy of greater Pittsburgh. However, before I invest a lot of time into researching and writing I would like to request permission from Ohnoitsjamie, as every edit I make is reversed regardless of how much or little I explain it. I will first post my edit in the talk page, so I can get approval from the guardians. Innatenobility (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current section does indeed describe Pittsburgh's economical connections to other cities and regions. Feel free to add to it, but all of the current material there is reliably-sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section needs a rewrite

[edit]

The economy section of this article is incredibly bad verging on completely misleading. There is no information about the actual economy of Greater Pittsburgh. The section reads as an argumentative summary of Chris Briem's editorials than an actual, unbiased source of information about the metropolitan economy. There are currently no statistics or numbers in the entire section. The referenced material includes no statistics either. 217.21.226.229 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've brought this up before. You're going to need to be more specific with the changes you are proposing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Pittsburgh&oldid=1213844217"