This is an archive of past discussions about Pittsburgh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Seeing is how 2008 is the 250th year of the city of Pittsburgh, wouldn't it be great if we got this article up to Featured article status? I can't find too much history for this article in terms of review (PR, GA, FA), but I would think that it makes sense to begin getting the article up to meeting the Good article criteria first, and then nominate it for peer review, and then put the finishing touches on it before nominating for WP:FAC? In terms of a timeline, I would think we could get GA by March or April, do a peer review in May, and FA by July. Of course, it's a long process, and I can't really do this by myself. Anyone willing to help? Any suggestions on what needs to be added to the current, B-class article? Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Some critiques for what it's worth:
1. The article has lots of good info, but it is way too long.
2. Someone better than I may want to revise it according to best standards.
3. It needs to be a better read, maybe have one bold, but talented soul do a comprehensive revision so the lexical style is the same throughout.
4. Leaving some of it on the editor's floor will hurt some feelings, but it doesn't need to be a book about Pittsburgh, maybe spin off some articles to other pages.
5. I deleted my other comments below because I was clogging the page.
I've removed this image from the infobox and nominated it for deletion because it appears to be copyrighted, and was stolen from the website gocarlo.com by Conk 9. I can't find any evidence that "Conk 9" is the owner of the gocarlo.com website, but his talk page indicates that he's "claimed" several images as his own work, which could have more copyright issues involved. Either way, the pgh17.jpg image also has the "Go Carlo" watermark still embedded in the lower-right corner, which is also indicative of image copyright issues.
I've reverted recent changes by an anonymous editor to completely destroy the media section in favor of a section with multiple second-level headings, very short text, little prose, and multiple tables. Such lists are acceptable for daughter articles, such as Media in Pittsburgh or List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh, but this article should focus on the prose; it will NEVER achieve either WP:GA or WP:FA status if all we have is a collection of lists and tables. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not assembling a collection of lists. It might help other editors to review some of the guidelines on US city articles, here. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
education
The daughter article on Education in Pittsburgh was eliminated because it doesn't make sense at this time and is far too short to be of use. We need to focus on improving the prose of this article, splitting out separate articles only when necessary. A separate article also increases the possibility of a POV fork at some point (although, in this case, the text was almost identical anyways). Plus, there have been less than 20 edits to the education article in the two years or so since it was created, so I think it's seriously premature. If content grows at some point, then it can be re-added. Also, having two separate lines at the top of a section, one for a main link and another for a see also link, violates the manual of style, and is bad form. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to specify what is "weasely language; edits took out a lot of specificity and added more unnecessary 'popular colloqualisms"? All edits I made are backed up by cited references and improved the description of the actual "character" of the institution. 1. "Pitt" is much more than a colloquialism, and referred to throughout the article without previous proper definition as the alternative name of the University of Pittsburgh. It is necessary to have somewhere in the overall article if it is not mentioned in the education section. It is also worth noting the founding date since Pitt is the oldest school in Western PA, and has been a part of the Pittsburgh community since the inception of the city. 2) A defining characteristic of Pitt is the massive research programs undertaken at the school. This research has a critical economic impact on the region and demands some mention. The other major defining characteristic is the focus on biomedical and health sciences, of which the schools of medicine, dental, nursing, rehab, public health and pharmacy are all nationally ranked (US News) and near the top of their fields in research expenditures and output (collectively #6 in total NIH funding with ~$450 million in NIH funding alone). The massively influence of the Pitt-affiliated medical center (UPMC), along with these schools and research programs, more than warrants the brief mentions that I incorporated for the "research" and "biomedical and health sciences". In fact, it would be derelict not to include their mention or not to indicate the research component of the University. 3) The highlighted programs were inappropriate considering their place on the national level. E.g., you cannot single out Asian studies over European or Latin American studies. It is more accurate to generalize the emphasis on international studies as a whole. In addition, information science at Pitt is more notable on a national level than Pitt's engineering, business or law, but all of those programs are notable regionally. I did not remove those mentions as I did not originally write this entry for the article. I only added ones that better reflected the actual "character" of the institution. Your reversion of the edit seem to indicate you either have some bias or lack familiarity with the institution. Seriously, WP:CON. If you want to take each line piece by piece and discuss it, I'm game.CrazyPaco (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Your original edits, I found to be poorly phrased, sub-par, and poorly thought out. It looked like you were just quickly adding crap to the article instead of actually thinking something through, which is why I reverted it. These new edits are fine, with some minor exceptions, which I have taken care of -- most notable is that Pitt is ranked 57th nationally in the 2008 US news & world report, not 20th, and that's what the citation indicates. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting, because the new edits (re: Pitt) are exactly the same as the ones you originally reverted. BTW, it is not bad form to place footnote citations mid-sentence. See WP:ref tags. This is a stylistic preference that doesn't matter much to me, but personally I think it is more convenient for an individual that may be interested in more information on a specific point in a list, as opposed to having to dig through the footnotes manually. But, having them all at the end is appropriate as well. Also, the #57 ranking is overall university ranking, not public university ranking as I had listed. Doesn't much matter to me which is employed, but the text must be consistent with the ranking selected to be listed. I prefer "public" because it helps define how the university is generally categorized by nationally publications (as opposed to the actual state-related private/public hybrid that is its real classification), but I really don't care that much. If I was going for straight homerism, I would have used rankings like the Center for Measuring University Performance or one of the world rankings. That said, I'm reverting it to the #20 public university and changing the reference accordingly, which for US News direct source, requires a subscription to see [1], and since I don't own the actual magazine with the page number available, I will have to use an alternative source because you disliked the original one that conveys the exact same info but would assume that one knows the public/private categories. If you feel strongly about that and wish to revert, please remember to remove "public" from the description of the ranking. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, whatever. The changes (overall) were not the same, and seemed to me to be more POV-oriented. But I was looking overall and not just so much at the Pitt stuff. Anyway, I see how the rankings are now -- both 59 and 20 are technically correct depending on which metric you use, so that's fine. I still think that these US News rankings are pretty much ridiculous anyways, but many people seem to think it's like the bible or something?! I almost wish that wikipedia would seriously de-emphasize these things when writing information about colleges and universities. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you on the US News thing. I wasn't the one to insert the US News rankings originally, so I don't feel justified removing them because they are a metric readers are probably most familiar with, so I left it in and changed it to the public categorization for reasons noted above. Honestly, thanks for your help. I think the section, and article, is reading a lot better thanks to your edits.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Brian Celio may or may not appear to be a writer of significance. But why is he here? He was born. Has he won any awards? Probably. Are there any widely-respected critics lauding his work? I would think so. Why is the website where his book can be bought listed here? Is it really? Is this perhaps just an advertisement? We can only hope so. 71.236.71.40 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I did research too. I found out that Exile Publishing is in fact a bona fide publisher (it has a registered publishing code, which the validity can't be argued). However, I also found out that Brian Celio eats babies and has a television with a remote control. Furthermore, the fact that there's numerous sites debating over who he is and how "significant" he is as a writer says something. He's obviously a newer writer who has built up some hype (and haters) and he is using pods like you all to further advance his name and book. Funny thing is, I asked several people in Pittsburgh if they knew Celio and Kuzneski. Not one person heard of Kuzneski but a few knew Celio and said they had read him, namely in local editorials, but not the novel listed. So obviously internet research shouldn't serve as the ultimate authority for what's really going on here. I call for a temporary stop of this madness before he eats your children. 72.220.189.41 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who bought the e-book version of Catapult Soul, as well as being a native Pittsburgher, I might be a bit bias when I say that he definitely deserves to be listed ONCE the book is actually published. My understanding is that he put the e-book version on his website as a way of letting people who already know him get to read it early, and of course to build anticipation for the actual release. Then he took it down once it headed into print. I was introduced to it by a mutual friend. So again, I might be a bit bias here. But my question is, what if he does in fact become a "writer of significance"? Will all the doubt about him be put to rest? Will those who have torn him apart without knowing who he is be banned from writing disparaging comments in wikipedia? It just doesn't make sense to me why one person is allowed to jump to conclusions that he is a self-promoting nobody, but those who think he is a legit up-and-coming writer aren't allowed to express their thoughts. And yes, Exile Publishing is a real publisher. I don't know why the references say San Diego but it is a small independent publisher in Pittsburgh that rents a space in a warehouse in the South Side neighborhood. Celio has stated to his readership through emails and on the website that Exile Publish is new and not completely established and that there are inventory issues that need to be worked out. But does that mean he needs to sign with Random House to garnish respect or can't he just be respected and admired for keeping it indie? Take a look at the beginnings of the majority of post-modern writers who were in the same boat. Again, I think this is a matter of people who judge success and worthiness according to the names attached to things, instead of the substance behind them. Gotchabad (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not trying to break any of the wikirules but let me clear this entire matter up. Nobody's references or opinions or research is right. Botendaddy was partially right in saying that there doesn't seem to be any independent cites for Brian Celio, so I agree, why list Brian Celio and his work as "encylopaedic"? But the real situation here is that Brian Celio might not even exist. I know heresay isn't the proper evidence for wikipedia but in this context it's a temporary solution for all this confusion. The heresay comes from forums, which I'm not allowed to cite because of the outside source rule, and from word-of-mouth which I can't elaborate on because of the same rule. However, I can say that the general rumor is that Brian Celio is actually a well-established author who is writing under that pseudonym and the biggest kicker is that Exile Publishing is also the guise of a well-established publisher. And all this for what? To start up the controversy we are slowling getting caught up in. Anyway, I went to "his" website and read everything on it. The sample chapters are indead well-written and it wouldn't surprise me if it was by the hand of a bigshot author, especially a post-modern author who would think it's clever and original to do such a thing. So yes, as of now, I think Brian Celio and Exile Publishing is just one big hoax. But we shall find out soon enough whenever the book is released. At that time, we'll have more information to make a final decision on what to do here for the sake of peace and rightness in the wikicommunity. So before anything else is said about "Brian Celio" we need to find out if 1) the book actually gets published and not just self-published/self-promoted, 2) if the book comes out, will we learn that Brian Celio is actually someone else (if so, that's how it should be listed on wikipedia), or 3) if Brian Celio is simply Brian Celio and a self-promoter then we will have to wait and see if he has any impact on the literary world. If he does, then he will have earned his place in wikipedia, but his articles would need to be written by those who haven't already displayed any favoritism, skepticism, or hatred for him, which means everybody on this talkpage is already disqualified because of the neutrality rule. The end. InstantMountain (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yinz vs. Yunz
In the Dialect section, the article speaks of locals as "Yinzers" and refers to the name coming from the word "Yunz". Yinz vs. Yunz seems to be preferred primarily based upon which neighborhood you grew up in. Let's avoid a heated argument about which is "correct" by citing one as a variant of the other.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Yinz": 99,100 Google Hits. "Yunz": 32,400 Google Hits. Not the most comprehensive or scientific method, but it should start us off. Ever wonder why you are called a Yinzer rather than a Yunzer? The word really does change from neighborhood to neighborhood, but Yinz appears to be more prominent.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yunz?
Actually, the term is a contraction of "you ones" and might be better spelled "you'nes"(similar to y'all). Pluralizing the pronoun is easier in Philly, where they just say "yous."
--NameThatWorks (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"Youns" is considered proper in the local dialect. It is plural only.
"Yins" is considered substandard. To be called a "yinser" is a disparaging remark.
"She sure was a nice girl, but she was a yinser".
It's also possible that youns is a contraction of "You" and the Germanic plural "ens."
The isogloss for "youns" extends Eastward to near The Pa Dutch region.
Y'all is a Southern equivalent. The isogloss for "y'all" runs through southern Pa near Uniontown.
I just created a new Wikipedia account, and as of this morning I've went through and revised the main introduction section of the Pittsburgh entry. The old one had some ambiguous language and some irrelevant information such as the fact that Pittsburgh has shrunk from 671,000 people. That seems to be a point of view statement as most American cities lost population after WWII as the nation suburbanized.
Also, I added some economic data with proper links to back the information up. Pittsburgh has been one of the few cities to actually grow jobs during this national jobs recession, and I believe the story of the collapse of steel industry and Pittsburgh's economic resurrection is a story key to its history and key to any article written about the city.
I don't think it's fair to say "President Roosevelt whose New Deal began the recovery from the Great Depression". It's very hard to say the New Deal brought the United States out of economic depression when GDP growth did not completely resume until World War II. It should be rephrased to say the New Deal created new jobs or provided more government social welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwenger (talk • contribs) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the daughter article's history, there are less than 50 edits over there. Furthermore, the content of said article is virtually identical to this one, save for an image that isn't really of Pittsburgh anyway (a suburb). There really isn't a reason for a separate article on the climate of Pittsburgh, and if you look at the examples set by other major US cities, there isn't separate climate articles (just subsections in geography). Dr. Cash (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The numbers in the "Temperature" section disagree with the numbers in the table above it. I propose to just remove the "Temperature" and "Precipitation" sections entirely, since they only restate in paragraph form the information that is already available in the much easier to read chart above. Sbs9 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Koppen Climate Classification
I have provided an article from a peer-reviewed, refereed journal which has Pgh in the Dfa classification. This also agrees with every less-reliable source I found on the internet, and agrees with the earlier versions of this page. If you are going to change it, you need to provide some evidence other than "because I'm right." Preferably, more than one article from peer-reviewed, refereed journals. Sbs9 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
On a very quick search, I find several references from German universities, though I can't speak for the journals mentioned (Meteorol Z.[2]and Klimastatusbericht[3]) and in either case they have the same data. (And this is cited by others, for example, the U. California at Berkley: [4]) My gut would be to consider this data valid since the journals are peer reviewed and they have been picked up by other academic sources. Not quite a smoking gun, but perhaps there is no such thing.
Unfortunately, though I have access to one of the finest research libraries in the world (Harvard), I can't seem to find either of those two journals above in their catalog for me to pull and verify that the articles say what the web sites represent they say. Perhaps those names are abbreviations for other names that I could find and if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.
My gut says that Wikipedia and we should stay out of this. Let's rewrite the section to indicate that Pittsburgh is at best on a climatological boundary between two zones and that there is not scholarly consensus on which zone the city is in. JRP (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But if you read the text, it is talking about a difference of 7 degrees F (which is a difference of 4 degrees C) not an absolute temp of 7 degrees. Mfield (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
table of suburbs?
The table that was recently placed in the article showing the locations of suburban areas in relation to downtown Pittsburgh seems somewhat flawed. Pittsburgh Int'l Airport should not be placed due west, as it is quite far from the city center. Also, McKees Rocks is placed north and west, and grouped with Sewickley, a town that it is moderately far from. McKees Rocks is due west of the city and should be placed in the table where the airport is, along with the name of another nearby suburb, such as Kennedy or Robinson. A suburb such as Emsworth or Ben Avon should replace where McKees Rocks is, next to Sewickley. 216.141.212.131 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the suburbs table. It's horribly unaesthetic, incorrect and misleading, and doesn't add anything to the article. Wikipedia articles should not consist of a collection of tables and templates. There are significantly better ways of illustrating and discussing Pittsburgh's suburbs than slapping a table in here and calling it "done". Dr. Cash (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What presentation of Pittsburgh's suburbs would you consider acceptable, Doctor? What were the specific errors and misrepresentations in that table? If you can enumerate them, I'd be happy to fix them, as I think the list helps the linking of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am discussing it in prose. You're discussing it in sarcasm. I'd love to have the list, but if you can't clearly express why you didn't like it, how can it be improved? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Without any constructive or actionable feedback about it, I've replaced the suburbs table--though I relocated it to the bottom of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Table removed, again. Sigh. The table is redundant and serves no purpose other than wasting server resources by pulling yet another template enladen with more variables for processing. No wonder wikipedia articles take like ***forever*** to load.
The other problem with this stupid thing is that it's just plain not accurate. It singles out some suburbs while not including others, and it doesn't really reflect the true direction, instead horribly simplifying it to standard compass points. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Separate from the above referenced discussion, I propose moving Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh. Unlike many of the other cities in the current mass discussion, Pittsburgh has no disambiguation page of article with "Pittsburgh" because the city has a unique spelling. The disambiguation page Pittsburg is a completely different word, and therefore not only does Pittsburgh most commonly refer to the city, it always refers to the city. GrszReview!21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since "Pittsburgh" already redirects here, you have an identical argument to conduct as those taking place right now at Boston, Los Angeles, and that has already passed successfully at New Orleans.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, let's hold off on this for now and see what happens with the "mass move" discussion, which would effectively make an individual move proposal for Pittsburgh moot. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Climate
Please discuss here and reach consensus on the the current edit war over the correct climate and Koppen zone. This constant reverting has to stop now. Mfield (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
According to The Weather Channel's data, all twelve months in Pittsburgh average above -3°C (January averages -2°C). By definition of a humid subtropical climate, according to the Koppen Climate Classification's page, it has to have twelve months with average temperatures of at least -3°C, and although Pittsburgh barely meets the criteria, it is still humid subtropical. Sbrown146 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
We go with what reliable sources say, and the NationMaster source says otherwise. What you're doing is original synthesis – taking two pieces of information and linking them together to make an assumption: A+B=C. Wikipedia needs something that flat out says C is C, which NationMaster does. Grsz11→Review!04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence as to how NationMaster arrived at that conclusion. They obviously didn't calculate the climate properly, because I have seen multiple sources that say Pittsburgh's mean temperature for January is above -3°C, and none that say it is below. And again, according to Wikipedia's Köppen Classification article, a humid subtropical climate has all twelve months averaging above -3°C. That is the best way to determine a climate. The Köppen system lays out a clear set of criteria for determining climate, and there is nothing wrong with using that information, along with a reliable source like The Weather Channel, to calculate climate. Sbrown146 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, then, I have a map from a reliable source [7] that says Pittsburgh is humid subtropical. And anyway, it is not original research, because anyone can use the criteria stated on the Koppen page to calculate Pittsburgh's climate, not just me. It's not like I went through a long complicated process to arrive at this conclusion. It's simple. Sbrown146 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at Boston, which is a featured article, it reads: "Boston has what may basically be described as something between a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate, such as is very common in New England. Summers are typically warm and humid, while winters are cold, windy and snowy."
According to Boston's data from the weather channel, it too would be humid subtropical. I do realize, however, that both Pittsburgh and Boston are extremely close to the -3°C isotherm, so they are both borderline. If we could phrase Pittsburgh's climate section something like Boston's, that would work for me too. Sbrown146 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You're right, you can't cite a Wikipedia mirror, and it might be better so say something like, "According to the Köppen Climate Classification, Pittsburgh has a humid subtropical climate, although its cold winters make it very close to being a humid continental climate." Sbrown146 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
So if we're all in agreement it's cfa, why don't we change it already? Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
If NationMaster cannot be used as a citation, then Weather Channel shouldn't be able to be used either. Outside of its headquarters in Atlanta, The Weather Channel does not do any of its own meteorology or studies, it simply compiles data from many other sources and puts it in one spot, just like Wikipedia. (Jrw91284 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
No, that is not correct. The Weather Channel cites their sources (all data are from the NOAA or one of its subsidiary agencies), and is a reliable source. Wikipedia (and its mirrors) are not considered reliable sources, because they are open wikis which can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically states:
“
Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources.
I'll not interfere in the debate any further, but as has been said already, the current source, NationMaster, is definitely unacceptable, as it is a Wikipedia mirror. We are using our own article as evidence (source) for itself... If you can't agree on what to use, then please remove the Nationmaster ref and add a "citation needed" tag instead. Fram (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No, thank you, Mfield. You reverted an edit that could have started the same edit war. It would be easier to argue Pittsburgh being dfa if the Orlando comparison wasn't in there. I didn't spot that. Press olive, win oil (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
pittsburgh does not meet the requierments of -3 but how then can we include other cities like cincinatti, cleveland, chicago, indianapolis, new york, boston, columbus, and many others that are included in the (Dfa) classification--Dzd (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) previous unsigned comment added by User:Dzd, 21:42, 5 December 2008
Okay, I've looked on The Weather Channel's website, and Pittsburgh DOES NOT meet the requirements for humid continental (using the -3), and neither does Boston, Cincinnatti, Columbus, or New York City. Indianapolis and Cleveland are precisely borderline. Chicago is decisively humid continental. sbrown146 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
ok then the koppen scale is incorrect because if you look on the koppen climate scale map the map pretty decicivly shows cleveland, indianapolis, boston, columbus, new york, and pittsburgh in the humid continental climate area and could you please explain to me your definition of "boarderline" --Dzd (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, using the definitions of the Koppen scale is far more accurate than using the map which was created by a completely different source. The map on the Koppen page, as agreed upon by many, is in many respects inaccurate. The true border between humid continental and humid subtropical should be further north than that map shows. And by borderline, I mean that the city's coldest month averages exactly -3, which is the borderline between the city having a humid continental and humid subtropical.
sbrown146 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
well then someone should go and change the climate section in the cities of cleveland, indianapolis, and boston which i may add is a featured article--Dzd (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
ok i just realized something, i checked the weather channel too, and how is chicago humid continental when the coldest month there january is 0 degrees celcius or 32 degrees farenheight
no one answered me do any of you actually live in pittsburgh.--Dzd (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What does whether anyone lives in Pittsburgh have to do with their ability to discuss this matter? The primary criteria is reliable sources for the weather data not personal experience of it. Mfield (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
really nothing but i just figured it would help in you had some personal expereance in the climate you were tyring to discribe. because here it shore does feel like humid continental, it hasnt been above freezing in almost a week tommarows high here is 23 with yes more snow on top of the 2 inches allwready on the ground--Dzd (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you were looking at the average high for Jan, not the mean temperature. Check the Weather Channel again and make sure you see the mean for January. I'm seeing -4°C. sbrown146 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
mfield i was just wondering have you ever gotten the chance to see snow
wtf? Maybe you should check who took the Pittsburgh panorama in this article. Maybe I have seen snow one time in one of the 6 countries have lived in, or one of the over 30 countries and 49 states I have travelled extensively in. Mfield (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
ok im sorry i made a mistake i was refering to the average high of chicago. i would be fine if we could say borderline between humad continental and human subtropical, and maybe if we could compare pittsburgh to eather boston or cleveland i would be fine with that--Dzd (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
yes finally ive found it a reliable source that has pittsburghs average january high at 35 and low at 19. that would be wpxi one of the news stations here in pittsburgh, and they have some of the best meteorologist in pittsburgh here is the site [9]--Dzd (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Folks, it is a BIG stretch to classify Pitt as exclusively humid subtropical.
Coldest Month
Boston (January) Average High - 36 Low - 22
Cleveland (January) Average High - 34 Low - 19
Pittsburgh (January) Average High - 37 Low - 20
Yet according to wikipedia, Boston has a cross between humid continental and humid subtropical, Cleveland has a humid continental and Pitt is in the humid subtropical zone. It's stuff like this that causes some people to not really take wiki that seriously.
There are quite a few American scientists that define a humid subtropical climate with an average temp as never falling below freezing. I propose we should just say that Pitt has "what may basically be described as something between a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate", just as it is written in the Boston article.
I removed the following text from the "Etymology" section:
The effort to remove the "h" from Pittsburgh was based on a national, even federal, movement to purge all German names from the country leading into World War One. Actual legslation at the federal level removed the "h", but it was restored after a few years due to a public campaign.
This is lacking citation and dubious as an explanation for the removal of the "h". De-germanizing the spelling would restore rather than eliminate the final "h". The real cause for the name change seems to be that the US Board on Geographic Names eliminated final "h"s on all place names ending in "burgh" in the US in 1890, but Pittsburgh's citizens preferred the old spelling and reverted to it eventually.
Krazychris81 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Some spiritual Indian-American gurus have labeled Pittsburgh, "The Holy City of the West" Just as a dip in the confluence of three rivers--Ganges, Yamuna and Saraswat--in India is known to take away all your sins, a dip in Pittsburgh's confluence--the meeting point of the Allegheny, the Ohio, and the Manogahela Rivers--is known to take away all your sins by a growing number within the Indian-American community. This belief, though not yet widespread, represents an amalgamation of Indian Spirituality and Religiosity and Western New Agism belief structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tru12345 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is the elevation listed as 1,223 ft.?
I'm curious as to why this number is chosen. Does Wikipedia have a policy that a city's listed elevation is always its highest point(if indeed 1,223 ft. is the highest elevation in the city proper)? I know Rand McNally and possibly other mapmakers will usually list a city with the elevation of its center of government, which in the case of Pittsburgh would be much lower given the location of the City-County Building in the Golden Triangle. Krazychris81 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
About.com has the elevation at 1,223 ft. Not sure exactly where in the city that is; or maybe that's an average elevation. Wunderground.com has the elevation of Pittsburgh at 960 ft, which is apparently the elevation at their weather station in Forest Hills. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The Sala Udin article is over 3 years old, and still is stub (and a pretty bare one at that). Anyone want to beef it up? I would, but I don't know much about city council and he was before my time.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did some touch-up on the article. I don't know anything about him, so won't be able to expand on this. The article is listed as a "Start" article for WikiProject Pittsburgh; it still looks like a "Stub" to me. You might want to consider downgrading it for now. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Geography and extreme terrain
"In fact, of all U.S. cities, only San Francisco and Seattle have more extreme terrain."
I have tagged this as cite needed. It seems like conjecture or original research. How is this measured. It is a fact that Los Angeles has several of the steepest streets in the US, certainly steeper than any in Seattle and has more mountains within the greater LA area so it seems odd that is is not mentioned. Mfield (Oi!) 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the above sentence. If a reference can be found, then place it back into the article from here. Since cities range in size; does it mean to say "major cities" in this case? ~ All is One ~ (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fallout 3 Downloaded Content Package
I added in a revision to include this in the media/pop culture section [10], but it seems it has been reverted due to "uncited trivia". Since I'm not sure the proper way to cite things on here, I was wondering if someone can re-add in the bit about the DLC with the following citations. MTV Multiplayer1UP Overview PageG4TV Thanks! RogueA (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It was removed because it was uncited. However, I am aware that this add-on to Fallout 3 exists. That still doesn't make it notable enough to be included in this article, though. As much as fans of Fallout 3 want it to be included, it simply doesn't belong. Sorry. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
City of Bridges, Steel City, The 'Burgh, Iron City, The Smokey City, Steel Town, The College City, The City of Champions, Roboburgh, Blitzburgh
probably could be pruned a bit. It's best if there were only about 2-3 actual, official nicknames. That is, nicknames used in official marketing campaigns and such, and not local colloquialisms. I've heard of City of Bridges, and that seems notable. Steel City/Iron City/Steel Town all seem to be similar, so could be just combined -- might just stick with Iron City here, going along with the Iron City Beer thing. The 'Burgh seems like just a local colloquialism, as it's just the last part of the city name -- not notable and should be dropped. The Smokey City, The College City, City of Champions, and Blitzburgh -- I really don't hear much of these at all, and they should probably be dropped. Even City of Champions -- I think with the Steelers most recent victory, people favor "Sixburgh" over that anyways (but I've used the name Sixburgh among people in other towns, and they don't get it, even after the Superbowl, so that's probably not notably, sadly). I've heard Roboburgh used before, but I don't think it's very common. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've pared down the list to three nicknames which seem to be fairly long-lived, currently used, and somewhat unique to Pittsburgh:
City of Bridges, Steel City, Iron City
I think those three are pretty uniquely "Pittsburgh" and have lasted a reasonably good amount of time. The rest are used more by minor subsets of the population, or haven't withstood the "test of time" yet. I removed "Steel Town" simply because it means about the same thing as "Steel City" and seems redundant; I think "Steel City" is the more widely used one. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Infobox image
I removed the image "File:Pittsburgh WEO Night 1.jpg" from the infobox because the dark background makes it look grainy and very poor quality in the infobox. I think it's fine to include elsewhere in the article, but please DO NOT CHANGE THE INFOBOX PHOTO WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS. An anonymous editor seems to be intent on changing this for some reason, which is unacceptable. Dr. Cash (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2005-2007
Hi there,
First of all, I'm a new member to the wikiproject (both Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania), so hello :)
86.121.10.37 (talk·contribs) recently added a bunch of new material under the demographics section of the article. I don't really like it, since it appears to be just an estimate—not official census data. I did clean up the reference from a bare external link and made it more-or-less properly formatted, but I think the better thing to do is to just stick to hard census data and strike these new demographics estimates. I didn't want to be too bold right off the bat, though, as I'm still easing into this project. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:USCITY, only information from the US census bureau should be used. The census is done every 10 years, with estimates every year. While it's ok to use the US Census Bureau estimates in Wikipedia articles, estimates of population from other sources should not be used. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
world city status
i think think it should be mentioned that pittsburgh is a world city because of its economic and cultural influance on the world. pittsburgh is home to 6 fortune 500 componies tied for 7th most in the nation. pittsburgh is home to some world renound museums including the largest complete dinosaur collection in the world in carnegi museum of natural history.--Dzd (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
pittsburgh meets all of the criteria to be called a global city except for a core population of 1,000,000 people but the metro area has 2,400,000 people.--Dzd (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? World city? Have you been downtown after 8pm on a weekday or even a weekend? I don't think any world city would turn into a ghost town so early. I don't think even "global city" applies. The majority of the non-white, non-black ethnic people there are students or interns. I even doubt there are any neighborhoods left where you can still find people speaking German, Italian, or Polish fluently. Angry bee (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Cradle of Quarterbacks?
I don't think that one should say: ( The Pittsburgh region also has developed several NFL quarterbacks, giving Western Pennsylvania the nickname Cradle of Quarterbacks) because the source for this come from a Pittsburgh POst Gazette editorial. I feel like the writer was using it as his own creation and that there would need to be an outside source declaring pittsburgh or western Pennsylvania to be the cradle of quartebacks. I'm looking for other thoughts but I will edit it out if no one can provide a nonbiased source. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Google provides over 50,000 hits for the search query "cradle of quarterbacks" pittsburgh, and I can say as a native that I've certainly been familiar with the phrase. That 2005 editorial absolutely did not coin the expression. To prove it, I've added a 1991 NYT citation. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty trivial, quarterbacks have lots of cradles. As a comparison, Google has 24,000 hits for "cradle of quarterbacks" Purdue, but I'd guess there are at least 5 towns/teams that claim the same thing. Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
History
Uncited sentence "By the 1840s, Pittsburgh was one of the largest cities west of the Allegheny Mountains." has some problems. Actually, Pittsburgh was probably THE biggest city west of the Alleghenies starting in 1758 (if not earlier), but looking at Largest cities in the United States by population by decade and the sources it gives. New Orleans was bigger in 1810, Cincinnati in 1820, and the later you go the further Pittsburg drops back. Clarify or remove? Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Weather effects due to proximity to the Atlantic Ocean
209.2.60.95 (talk·contribs) removed prose to the effect of "winters are somewhat moderated by…proximity to the Atlantic Ocean". I reverted the removal, but it's true that the assertion doesn't seem to be supported by a citation. Something to be looked into. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If that statement seems highly suspect why keep it? Pitt is about 300 miles from the Atlantic, while it's much closer to Lake Erie. If someone can't source that statement, why should it still be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Capo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 June 2009
Yeah, and the Atlantic Ocean is just a tad bigger than Lake Erie and is rumored[citation needed] to have a greater effect upon regional weather patterns and general climate. If a gigantic mountain range were in place of the Atlantic Ocean, or a large desert, or some other geographical feature, I'd fully expect the climate to be substantially different. There's no reason to say that 300 miles marks some acceptable cutoff point beyond which there is no climate effect. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
...that the G20 hasn't led to the sort of vandalism of Pittsburgh-related pages that the Stanley Cup series did. I've been checking in every hour or two, but things look pretty good. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Updated some of the pics and switched "Iron City" nickname
Hey all, I threw in some more descriptive pictures of the city and its beauty spots in the sections. I would love input but lets try to remember that many who visit this wiki page have the mistaken impression they will be looking at pictures of Steel Mills and 1940's housing. I think both of those should be represented but the Children's museum, the skyline shots from the stadiums and arena, the Phipps and murals etc. should be highlighted somehow. Interested on your thoughts, but please lets add like images or better yet take ones that are even more amazing!
The three "nicknames" yes I know its Iron City Beer, but besides ex-Pittsburghers the name Iron City is more of a antiquated 1800's term. Steel City more then represents our industrial heritage, City of Champions (only metro to have TWO years in which multiple teams won it all, 1979 and 2009) and the fact that The Sporting News declared it undisputed should make it obvious that City of Champions is a much more relevant nickname then a 1878 horse and buggy, gas lamp, no indoor plumbing or air conditioning or television or wikipedia era Iron City. Steel City does fine capturing our history, Iron is a bit redundant and obsolete even when we were the Steel capital of the world.
Hholt01 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Changes to basketball section
I thought it was important to note in the section about professional basketball that Pittsburgh has never had an NBA team. Anyone disagree? MikeR1717 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem relevant at all, actually. We should focus on the three teams that are here, not teams that aren't. Perhaps if there was a push to start or relocate a basketball team here, that might notable, but that would also need to be well documented and cited. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Oceanic Climate?
This may sound crazy but if we're going strictly by Koppen climate classification (as this article does), Pitt is a Humid subtropical climate bordering both a Humid continental climate and an Oceanic climate. Take a look at what constitutes an Oceanic Climate and then compare with Pitt's average temps. If the monthly average of July is about 1 degree (celsius) lower than is listed, Pitt would be an Oceanic Climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Capo (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 June 2009
If you can find a reliable source that specifically addresses Pittsburgh's proximity to the border of two climate classes, it would be appropriate to paraphrase or quote from it with a citation. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that the record low in the table does NOT match the record low in the text. Neither of them matches the record low on www.weather.com, for what that is worth.MichaelCYoung (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Livability
Was this article written by a pro-Pittsburgh PR firm? There are numerous mentions of how livable the city is, and next to nothing mentioned about any of the poor national ratings Pittsburgh has received. For example, the American Lung Association has given Pittsburgh consistently bad ratings almost EVERY year for the last several years. Also, Forbes has ranked Pittsburgh as one of America's worst cities for singles -- not just once, but SEVERAL times. And for at least two years in a row, the magazine ranked the city as THE WORST place for singles (in 2003 and 2004, I believe). (As someone who used to be single in Pittsburgh for YEARS, I can attest to this fact. You have to actually live there as a young, single, educated person to know what I'm talking about.) I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be unbiased. Obviously that's not true because this article is significantly skewed. A major contributor obviously has a major conflict of interest with the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.185.67 (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Your tone is such that I'm unsure whether you expect a serious response and wish to contribute productively to the article. If you wish to help, then say so, and please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to learn more about the sort of behavior encouraged on article talk pages; otherwise, I will assume your intention was to vent about your (presumably) unsatisfactory personal experience living in Pittsburgh and leave it at that. Best, —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Your sexual frustration aside, if you can show us the sources regarding poor air quality and Forbes ranking for singles, we'd be glad to include them in the article.--Louiedog (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My "sexual frustration aside"? Now _that's_ being a real good behavioral role model for Editing Talk. And this coming from someone who probably hasn't lived as a single person in Pittsburgh. In any event, perhaps I do have a bit of personal bias, but this isn't about me venting. It's about the accuracy of the article, which I truly think is skewed. Here are the sources you requested:
Sorry, I was going for a little humor in how I said it. Didn't mean to offend. It would seem you've provided ample evidence for the city having poor air quality, which I think would merit a mention under the "climate" section.
I'm not so convinced for the singles scene. The most recent ranking, for example, ranks Pittsburgh the 24th best singles location. Your "17th worst" is out of the top 40. Same deal with the other Forbes mentions.--Louiedog (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A city's ranking by Forbes as 24th best or 17th worst of anything hardly seems notable for an encyclopedia article. Forbes seems to do these rankings of various cities and towns quite frequently, and the more I look at them, the more I seem to think that most of them are quite biased, and mostly just "feel good" listings for residents of the cities and towns featured. I think Pittsburgh did get a #1 ranking a few years ago in a Livability survey (can't remember where, but I don't think it was Forbes), and that might be worthy of a mention in an intro to the Culture section; but an entire section on "Livability" seems like overkill to me,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The livability of Pittsburgh doesn't need to be flogged so much. Not to mention how much is uncited in that section.--Louiedog (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
montage image in infobox
I've reverted recent additions to the infobox of montage image (collections of photos) because they were simply added and created by random users without any discussion whatsoever. The most recent montage added is actually rather poor quality:
For starters, these images are not very well separated -- there needs to at least be lines between the images -- the trolley at the bottom really blends in with the image of PNC park, which looks really bad. See the Washington, D.C. article for an example of how this is done.
The image of the Cathedral of Learning is horrible quality -- very pixelated. As a matter of fact, most of these images are very grainy and pixelated, and shouldn't be used as an infobox image. Most of the images seem to be used later in the article as well -- images in the infobox are better if they're more unique, and not used over again. There seem to be plenty of images to choose from though, and we could probably prune some of the images later in the article as well (some sections are very image-heavy).
The image of the astronomical observatory isn't even in Pittsburgh itself, but in the suburbs and surrounding areas, so it shouldn't be included in the montage anyways. The buildings and structures pictured in the infobox should be key buildings that define the city of Pittsburgh. I think we should stick with five images for a montage -- start with a good image of the downtown area/skyline and put that in the middle. Then put two images above that and two images below it. The Cathedral of Learning seems to be a pretty big landmark, and certainly can be included; including CMU as well would seem to represent Pittsburgh's status as an educational city. Maybe put those two as the images at the bottom? For the other two images, maybe either Heinz Field or PNC Park (but not both, as too many sports pictures would be overkill; but we could put, for example, PNC Park in the infobox and then a picture of Heinz Field in the Sports section). For the last image, maybe either a picture of the incline, to connect with the city's industrial past, or a city of one of the bridges?
But overall, I think we need more discussion on this, because the two images that random users have added as a montage were very poor quality, and really were just randomly collected images from the ones submitted to the page so far. I will continue to revert any additions by anyone that adds a montage image without discussion or consensus. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many photos in that montage and the quality was lacking as was the separation of pictures. However, the Allegheny Observatory is indeed in the City of Pittsburgh, located in Riverview Park on the North Side in the aptly-named Observatory Hill neighborhood. Other than that, I agree with your choices for pictures, though I would make a pitch for a photo of landmark bridge(s) rather than of CMU whose main building is recognizable but not iconic in the way the Cathedral of Learning, the inclines, the bridges, or the skyline are. --Conk 9 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I thought the observatory was in one of the suburbs to the north, so I stand corrected. Nonetheless, I still think that the infobox should contain images of things which more closely are associated with Pittsburgh, and I think there are a lot of things that fit that much better. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced, poorly-worded, and horribly 'trivial' information removed
" Even though Pittsburgh fell from the third largest corporate headquarters city after New York and Chicago it has rebounded strongly, winning back Westinghouse and Koppers in the first decade of the 21st century as well as major offices for Google, RAND and attracting American Eagle Outfitters, and Guru.com headquarters, while being able to retain U.S. Steel, the H. J. Heinz Company, PPG Industries, and Allegheny Technologies. "
This needs to be sourced or removed. What does that even mean "third largest corporate headquarters city"??? A generally accepted metric used throughout wikipedia American city pages is the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in a city. Pittsburgh is not even in the top ten. Nor is Chicago number 2.
The following paragraph was removed from the 'government and politics' section. It is not sourced, and seems to be bordering on POV, and not to mention rather trivial. Lots of cities have budget shortfalls and financial challenges. Why is Pittsburgh's situation any different than anyone else?
Like many American cities, Pittsburgh has recently faced financial challenges and budget shortfalls. Although the cause of the city's budget shortfall is debated, many cite the success of the medical and academic sectors, since the nonprofits are tax-exempt. Despite the budget crisis, the city has continued to grow, as evidenced by the recent addition of the American Eagle Outfitters corporate headquarters, renovation of the former Lazarus-Macy's department store into high-end retail, office, and condo space, and multiple mixed-use towers under construction downtown. As further evidence of recovery from these fiscal problems, Pittsburgh had a $15 million surplus in 2005.
Oh, and a disclaimer of potential "ego COI": The lower-left image (of the Cathedral of Learning) is my creation. However, it's been voted as both a Valued Image and as a Featured Picture over on Commons, and I had nothing to do with Yassie's selection of it for the montage, so I'm confident its objective worth outweighs my subjective opinion as its creator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Pittsburro?
Considering Edinburgh has never been called Edinburro or pronounced in any form like that I really think you should remove the line claiming that Pitsburgh may have been called Pittsburro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.138.255 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the standard pronunciation of "Edinburgh" is /ˈɛdənbərə/ (i.e., something like "Edinburra"/"Edinboro"). Your IP address resolves to Cardiff, Wales. Is that correct? I'd be interested in hearing how you pronounce the city name. Anyway, it's unfortunate that we don't have any 18th-century recordings to definitively decide one way or the other, but I'm convinced by the circumstantial linguistic evidence. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced, uncited assertion about the pronunciation. I removed it as it is not sourced or cited to any authority. It is mere personal opinion. It is entertaining, but not fact. If the progenitor of this assertion would like to provide legitimate sources then I won't object. Until then - Kindest Regards nonetheless.
I am the Botendaddy00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't say much for the citation, looks like original research, based on an equally unsupported assertion in a poster of some sort seen at Carnegie Library. I have never heard of anyone pronouncing Pittsburgh this way. Because we don't know who created the poster, it is still uncited. It's like citing a billboard. Oh well, I lack the energy...
I am the Botendaddy01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"I have never heard of anyone pronouncing Pittsburgh this way." Of course you haven't. We're talking about an 18th-century pronunciation by a Scotsman, and asserting that the possibility is discounted because of your having not heard the form in spoken language is a prototypical example of WP:OR. On your other point: policies pertaining to OR don't apply to external sources, provided that a Wikipedian isn't citing their own independent work inappropriately. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing the reason you deleted your message of 07:18 above was that you noticed the following prose on the above-linked page: "Pittsburgh was named by General John Forbes, a British soldier who was born in Dunfermline and would have known Edinburgh very well. It seems likely, therefore, that he intended Pittsburgh to rhyme with Edinburgh!" I consider the matter closed. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are so cool for undeleting my response. "It seems likely" seems like opinon. Once again you can cite no contemporary source from that era or anything other than these most recent postings that validates your assertion. I think it is at least debatable. Wait you win. I will only ever pronounce Pittsburgggg as Pitts-Burro for the next 100 days in homage to your brilliant reparte.
I am the Botendaddy03:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The previously-deleted comment was on topic and introduced salient evidence to the discussion. The guidelines for talk pages include the assertion that "[t]he record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." Additionally, they say that "[i]t is best to avoid changing your own comments" and suggest that, if you wish to withdraw a statement, you may indicate that by employing the <del> tag, which renders text as struck through. The focus here is on integrity and transparency. I apologize that this has made you feel "abused," but the intention is to maintain an unbroken record of the deliberations which lead to a certain consensus. In this manner, talk pages are very different from mainspace article pages. I hope that this summary of general practices will help you to place my actions in their intended context. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate and abusive and something I have never seen done before by a Wikipedia editor. You can pick out whatever you want to justify your actions, but it was the wrong thing to do and you should own up to it and not do it again. It really tarnsihes your brand and will cause others to lose respect for you in the long run. I have nothing more to say.
I am the Botendaddy19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I dispute the archiving of this discussion until it is reviewed by an independent third party. I posted a comment, realized that my citation did not support my proposition and I withdrew it within minutes. I still reserve the right to withdraw it. Anyone has the right to withdraw a comment in good faith.
I am the Botendaddy23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically it's incorrect to remove your own comment; but restoring a comment withdrawn in four minutes, without any replies? Doesn't pass the comment sense test, in my opinion. If it's a matter of the reference, an editor can just readd that in their own comment. Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Removal of Rachel Carson because of the opinon that she is not Pittsburgh's most famous writer is unsubstantiated. I added a reference, and yes the assertion was uncited, but it is now cited and it is accurate. I could have entered 50 citations to this effect. Like her or not, agree with her or not, she is world-famous and has been for fifty years. Pittsburgh has gained some writers of popular reknown such as Chabon, but this does not compare to Carson's serious work.
I removed Guru.com from the list. It is a small, virtually unknown business. There is no citation to Pittsburgh Business Times, Fortune or anything else to back up that it is a "Major Non-Public Company" This is clearly an advertisment for a small business.
I want to get the feel of others about including a Pittsburgh diaspora section. As someone affected by the diaspora and being that the diaspora has profoundly impacted Pittsburgh and the areas where Pittsburghers arrived, I feel that this may be a germain addition. Comments please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texaslegal (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Philadelphia has an even larger disapora, but I don't see any point in a separate section beyond what is commonly done in city articles. Take a look at other city articles before deciding what is appropriate for Pittsburgh. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Pittsburgh is the county seat of Allegheny County, and the city and county share a government building, the Pittsburgh City-County Building. The relationship between the city and the county is important in understanding the history and politics of Pittsburgh. I object to the removal of that fact by an unregistered editor, but I leave it to other editors to decide just where the city/county situation should be described in the article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the county seat deserves mention somewhere in the lead. The county is a big political player in the area. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That was me. I removed it because county seat is a rather obscure position to anyone outside the US and there are 3140 of them in the country, hence, not much a distinction. Mentone, Texas has a population of 15 and is its county seat. Carlisle is a Pennsylvania county seat and has 38,000 people in it. Pittsburgh's being the 61st largest city in the country and the second largest in the state is far more notable than being county seat of one of 67 counties in the state. Remove.--Louiedog (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect: Consensus seems to be against you on this issue. Are you familiar with Allegheny County politics? There are 130 separate municipalities. It's one of the most fragmented political entities in the nation. Here's a bit of reading on the topic. For Pittsburgh to be the one out of 130 municipalities to hold the designation of county seat is actually a very big deal in local politics, even if the distinction has virtually no significance in certain other metropolitan areas (like Philadelphia). —Bill Price (nyb) 03:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A simple vote seems to be against me, but consensus will be shown through follow up discussion. Reading through your link, all the article seems to say is that the metro area (including Allegheny County) is peculiar in how complex and intricate the system is. This does not raise the notability of the county within the context of the city article. To the average English-using reader from anywhere in the world, this gives the city no distinction and instead just looks peculiar to find as one of the first substantive facts about the city. If you'd like to mention the city's particular standing as the highest head on a totem pole of a peculiarly complex governmental system, a mention in the government section is in order, but to claim this is notable enough to be in the opening sentence is overselling its importance to the general reader.--Louiedog (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Many cities are noted as being the county seat in their article leads (see San Diego, Los Angeles, etc). In any case, I don't see how the city's size makes such a fact less relevant. In this particular case, however, the introduction of the county in the lead prepares the reader for an understanding of how intertwined the county and city are in this region, both politically and culturally/geographically. When most people outside of the area think of "Pittsburgh", they are likely thinking of the city and county as a whole. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It's particularly instructive that you should choose the examples you do: the LA article mentions up front the significance of the county, "Los Angeles is also the seat of Los Angeles County, the most populated and one of the most multicultural counties[4] in the United States." And both the LA and SD articles save the county seat factoid for later in the intro, not mentioning it as one of the opening characterizers of the city.--Louiedog (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Instructive? They are two of the first three I looked at, since I live in California. I also looked at San Francisco, which mentions early in its lead that it is "the only consolidated city-county in California". I also know that every single other city in Pennsylvania that hosts a county seat has that information mentioned in its lead, including Philadelphia, because I have just completed a historical project that required me to go through every single county. But here is a list of US cities, ranked ahead of Pittsburgh in population, that specifically have their status as the county seat mentioned in their lead; something you may find instructive: Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Detroit, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Memphis, El Paso, Seattle...you know what, I'm just going to stop there around #20 top population or so, and this doesn't include a city like Baltimore that actually isn't its county's seat. Wow, I didn't realize how wrong your assumption actually was. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am pleased to see that most of the editors agree with me about the county seat statement, and are bringing out more facts to support what I said at the beginning. There is no edit war, so the county seat information will stay in the article. Peace!--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Speakin' as a linguist and as a native Picksburgher, Pittsburgh#Local_dialect is lookin' worse and worse anymore, an' it needs redd up real bad. It strikes me as an amateur account that regurgitates some of the folk lore and popular conjecture which isn't supported by the historical record. I don't feel motivated to do so right now, but I'll pick through the work of Johnstone and Kiesling (inter alia) and do a rewrite at some point. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "Paris of Appalachia" predates Brian O'Neill's book of the same name, and it's attested pretty commonly outside of that context as well, as proven by the fact that I excluded his surname from the search results. However, it hasn't caught up with the other "big three" nicknames yet.
The reason I'm posting this is to give us a sort of "snapshot in time"; depending on how much "Paris of Appalachia" gets embraced in the coming years, it may eventually warrant placement in the infobox, either in addition to or in place of one of the other nicknames. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my statement from above. I realized that a number of the hits really DID refer to O'Neill's book- just not to him by name- so I re-tried the search as "paris of appalachia" -"o'neill" -"The Paris of Appalachia: Pittsburgh in the Twenty first Century" to exclude both author AND book title. This time, I only got 439 results. Wow. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Removal of items not in the city limits
I removed, and will continue to remove, the reference to The Waterfront development in the intro. It is in Homestead, West Homestead and Munhall, not Pittsburgh and should not be in the introduction to the city of Pittsburgh.--GoUrban (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
hockey section
The Penguins have played at Mellon Arena for a long time. Now that the Consol Energy Center is in use, maybe the plans of what is going to happen to it should be included in this section.
Simple. It's mostly cloudy, rainy, cold, and sh!tty. But you can't write it that way in an encyclopedia, unfortunately,. . . ;-) WTF? (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the format of decimal numbers should be changed in the climate data box. For example, snowfall in October is written as ".4" inches and "1" centimeter. It looks like "4" inches. A better way is writing "0.4". 64.78.68.193 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Hawk-Eye
Giving Pittsburgh's history on football a separate article
The current proposed title is "American football in the Pittsburgh area". I would oppose "Pittsburgh" by itself, and the wording "Pittsburgh area" is too vague—it could be interpreted as the city, the county, the metropolitan area, or even the media market. I could support "Pittsburgh metropolitan area" or "Western Pennsylvania" as acceptable scopes, but would prefer the latter. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Any update on this? Sounds like a great idea. I wouldn't mind if things were a little vague as long as it wasn't named "Pittsburgh" alone. Hholt01 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Why "American football in the pittsburgh area". One would think that simply "Football in the pittsburgh area" would suffice. I think 99.9% of everyone with more than two brain cells would know what is meant by that. WTF? (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Great job on the football article. If anyone is looking for a new article to craft, I think we could use "Golf in Western Pennsylvania" that covers the myriad of courses, as well as the history of hosting major events like the US Open, as well as famous players from the area (like Arnold Palmer). CrazyPaco (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Phantoms heirs to 68?
In the pro sports table under the championship column, the Pittsburgh Phantoms (ABA) are listed as the "heirs to original franchise's title" in 1968. The original, defunct ABA and the Pittsburgh Pipers who won its championship have absolutely nothing to do with this Phantoms franchise or the new ABA league. Is there a source for the Phantoms being the heirs to anything? Otherwise, this "championship" should be removed. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey CP, I think we had this discussion a year or so ago in a more general way concerning snother page (Arizona Cardinals being listed as champions for 1925 and 1947, the Atlanta Hawks claiming they brought it home for all their fans in 1958, even Browns fans claiming 4 NFL titles, and annoying LA Dodger fans insisting that they have 1 more world series crown then the Pirates.
I will try to look up a source but as a person with much pathos for sports history nothing pre-1970's as far a championship tallies makes any sense (the AHL champions having far superior talent then some Stanley Cup contestants, AFL champions making claims to that vs. the NFL as well, the NFL not even having a "championship game" until the 1930s, yet NL Pennant winners are not counted the same way as modern champions, yet the Packers claim a similarly earned "seasonal" title puts them ahead of the Steelers six Super Bowl trophies?!?! etc. etc.) and the only logical conclusion would be to throw out all titles prior to that time. All those Celtics and not-one-fan-in-LA-but-LAers-love-taking-pride-in-banners-won-seven-states-away Lakers titles were won with a game that no one on wikipedia would dare call basketball with no 3 point shot, no dunks allowed, etc., how all those generous title collections are related to "basketball" franchises in Boston or LA as you put it really "have absolutely nothing to do" with each other. One might say if I started a Boston no-dunk, no-three point, "Peachbucketball" team then all those Celtic banners could be relevant to Peachball. If Arizonans or Atlantans can manufacture fond "memories" of seeing their "teams" show off title banners from 1947 and 1958 respectively, a non NBA, ABA team in the same city with the same basic fanbase or demographic can at the very least state the obvious, that they are heirs to the team with the same city name, same fanbase and same league in-name and status. If you read a lot of these sports teams pages they state very obvious things that have no searchable reference, and these are the wikipages of teams that haven't moved to three different regions and won the majority of their titles in a game no one would recognize as the sport they profess to play today. IMHO same league, same fans, same city, same demo, yep that is an heir, some expansion NFL franchise in Cleveland or a Mayflower special to Indianapolis or St. Louis's NBA team playing in Georgia etc. etc. have at best equal if not lesser claims as "heirs", and I have yet to find one wikipedian ready to delete those false-titles won in games that had no playoffs, no title games and so many rule changes that rugby became football and peachbucket became the NBA. Marketdiamond (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree in many ways with much of that logic. All of those points have no bearing on the Phantoms. The Pipers and Phantoms are two entirely separate franchises, in two entirely separate leagues, at two entirely separate levels of play, separated by decades of existence. There is no way the Phantoms should be credited with an ABA title of the Pipers, an entirely different title btw. The Pipers stand on their own and are defunct. Giving their original ABA title to the Phantoms actual devalues the title that the Pipers earned, which was earned at a much, much higher level of play than the current, and entirely separate (in all but licensed name) ABA. It's revisionist history at it is worse, much worse, than any previous example you cited where the method of determining a championship has changed (NFL) or where the team/franchise/league still exists, even if in a different city. Even in your Cardinals example, the Phoenix, Arizona article does not list the '25 and '47 NFL titles, but the franchise itself, which is the same exact entity in the same league, certainly has every right to list them, and this opinion is backed by the NFL itself. I do agree with you that the Atlanta article should not list the early Braves titles, or LA shouldn't count the earlier Lakers titles, although the franchises themselves have every right to. However, even if any of those examples were valid arguments for dismissing or rewriting decades of sports history, which I don't believe they are, they would all be examples of WP:OSE anyway. If the desire is to pump up Pittsburgh's championship totals in that table, than the Pipers should be added as a separate entry. Let's just not do anything that is as grossly inaccurate and misleading as suggesting the Phantoms are in any way, shape or form related to the Pipers or "heirs" to their 1968 championship. Otherwise, you might as well just give the Pipers' ABA title to Duquesne or Pitt, which certainly play at a higher level than the Phantoms. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Hholt, while it is an interesting discussion, it seems to be moot. It seems that the Phantoms are no more. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
First, seems you're correct that the Phantoms have moved/shut down, however I did find this: [12] and the link date from the main site is February 2011 so it appears there will be an ABA team in the city this fall. I see the Phantoms were removed from the list which is cool, but should we put "future ABA team" to replace them?
I confirmed that the Phantoms are dead. They were scheduled to play this past season, but never were able to get a team together. That ABA page is already down as "account suspended". With how tenuous these teams are, existing on paper but never actually playing, appearing and disappearing mid-season, I don't think it is a good idea to put in anything about future ABA teams. That league is a total mess and all the teams are hanging by threads. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
CP on a side note I'm sure you're aware how much I respect your contributions and insight, I can see that you did consider the majority of my points, however to devolve into throwing out "pumping up totals" and taking my apples to apples (pro to pro) comparison and adding hyperbole of NCAA teams which no one is suggesting starts us down a path that your own editing rightly seeks to block off (the '68 Celtics would most likely state the "playing at a higher level" point as well). I enjoyed reading the OSE but like most things on wiki OSE is condoned and encouraged in some instances. Being that the ABA is very much in flux and may very well not launch in the fall I will let my previous points stand on their own and will just agree to disagree at this stage, and point out that when its on topic I very much enjoy your educated views.
It is an interesting topic. We don't have to agree, but I don't agree it is apples to apples at all just because some of those Phantom players barely got paid. You are talking about a level lower than high-major D1 ball, more like Duquesne (maybe), compared to something (the old ABA) that was considered equivalent to (and a competitor of)the NBA, the highest level of play in the game. The (old) ABA and NBA are like the AFL and NFL. The new ABA is, well, worse off than the non-affiliated Frontier League than the Washington Wild Things play in. If the Pirates left town, would the Pittsburgh Wild Things be heirs to 1971 World Series championship? Not in my opinion. It is ok not to agree though. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagreement is what makes this town interesting, just instinctively bristled at the "pumping up totals" but just now realizing from what you stated what a garage league that was/is, I admit I'm a homer but I never try to be inaccurate (same demos, same city etc.), I love all and contribute all the blemishes too.Marketdiamond (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Last thing I did follow through on looking up the rights to the Pittsburgh Pipers, they were bought in 1998, by of all things the NBA. In most other industries that would mean the NBA would be seriously considering expansion here. But like we discussed in detail above this is American sports so things aren't always as they seem. Marketdiamond (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that it is more for the rights to the logo/name for the retro jerseys which are a big thing these days. I wouldn't read any more into it than that. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dispute regarding level of sunshine in Seattle
This source has been used to justify values of 43% and 47% for Seattle's percent-annual possible sunshine. Seattle seems to have two listings: "SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA" and "SEATTLE C.O., WA". The first listing is obviously for the airport. The second one, I'm not sure of. I spent about five minutes searching online to try to figure out what "C.O." means, but was not successful. So we have two questions: (1) What does "Seattle C.O." mean, and (2) Which figure best represents the Seattle metro area? —Bill Price (nyb) 02:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not mean to post this in Talk:Seattle. As the iconic "cloudy city" or "rainy city", Seattle is commonly used as a benchmark against which to compare other cities' levels of percent-annual possible sunshine. Seattle's value happens to be extremely close to Pittsburgh's, making the comparison especially germane for inclusion in this article. See Pittsburgh#Climate. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think "WTF" meant that since C.O. is obviously not "county" (since it's King) it might be best to ask this over on the Seattle page. I can see how this relates to Pittsburgh and I'd be curious what the result of the data shows and proves for Pittsburgh vs. Seattle weather, but it's like posting some "Primanti" special on the Seattle talk page, unless they grew up in the 412 I doubt anyone over there would have a clue what a "Primanti" is. Marketdiamond (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Pittsburgh Beadling addition
Pittsburgh Beadling is a current team in the region, and has earned a title (1954), shouldn't we have this added to the franchise table. It appears that currently the "team" is a youth or semi-pro but were they not pro in 1954? Marketdiamond (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact they won the "National Amateur Cup" in 1954, when rules about amateurism were generally much stricter, suggests they were not pro or semi-pro at that point. Earlier that that, in the first half of the 20th century, the history page on their website suggests companies would staff the team with their workers, even by hiring workers who were good players, but that is at best indirect evidence of professionalism (sounds like they could have been skirting amateur rules in the first half of the century by hiring workers who just happen to play soccer). It is hard to know for sure from that web page, but my guess is that they weren't ever considered a professional team, not any more than community league teams or company teams are thought of as professional today. I would talk about this team under soccer (it is an interesting corner of Pittsburgh soccer history), but leave them off of the professional franchise table. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Anybody out there?
I've been spending very little time on Wikipedia recently. I just checked through all of the edits dated March 1st or later, and if I recall correctly, only one of them was a good edit. Another edit was very poorly done but perhaps able to be remediated (I started that process), but the others required reversion. I'm surprised that the article has seen several bad edits in a row across a span of nearly two weeks without folks catching it. (It's hard to write this without sounding uptight or passive-aggressive, so I apologize if that's how I'm coming across; it just feels so strange to see such a backlog of bad edits to fix on an article like this.) —Bill Price (nyb) 23:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I've not been around much since the new year. I honestly haven't been checking the smaller edits with this article recently but will attempt to re-up my efforts. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
We are still out here, and I think we all check in a general way the specific sections that we excel at. Just because we don't edit doesn't mean we aren't keeping an eye on things. :-) Marketdiamond17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and welcome to Wikipedia! If you read the entire sentence however it is clear that the context is that Pittsburgh is 2nd largest in . . . Pennsylvania. Also if you read the paragraph it also describes the metro as 22nd largest in the U.S. Thank you though for taking the time and letting us know, and please feel free to sign up for Wikipedia and join us here on the Pittsburgh wikiproject! Marketdiamond07:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Leyland ordered it be named Pittsburgh?
Unless there is a tidbit of history I am forgetting, I dont think a "leyland" was around in 1758 ordering the site to be named Pittsburgh under the "history" section. I'm deleting the edit without a name for now just to be on the safe side. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 12:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Pittsburgh's relationship to Appalachia
Regarding these two recent edits, both of which I reverted: [13][14]
I understand that Appalachia is stigmatized and some people may feel embarrassment at being associated with it, but the fact that Pittsburgh is not only within Appalachia but actually quite near the geographical heart of it cannot be disputed. There are reliable printed sources confirming Pittsburgh's Appalachian status cited in this article, and so I do not think it is at all non-neutral or undue-weight to acknowledge that fact when talking about the regional identity of the metropolitan area. However, I'd like to open the issue up to discussion. Any thoughts? —Bill Price (nyb) 19:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Bill Price, I went back yes there seems to be a few edits in the last few weeks trying to delete it out. Maybe I am not up to date with all the wikipolicy wonks out there but irregardless of one's opinion of how to present the data, just to delete the vast majority of sourced cited factual and encyclopedic data is troublesome. I welcome any discussion if those editors who are deleting things like that wish to talk it out before massive deletions, as far as the facts itself to me it is what it is, Pgh's problem and it's great competitive advantage is that it rarely fits into neat little categories, so yes to those would be deleters out there, you can be Applachian, Mid-Atlantic, Midwestern and Ohio Valley simultaneously. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Residential segregation
I'm sure this recently-added section will become a lightning rod, and I do think it needs to be reworded for neutrality, but I'm preemptively going to chime in to say it's a section worth having. In my adult life, I've lived in relatively miscegenated areas of the region (generally about 20% black), but outside of the city proper, things tend to be hypersegregated. There are municipalities in western PA with literally no black population, as confirmed by census figures. And there are indeed awful economic disparities. It's worth talking about, and it's something I like to bring up when people paint too rosy a picture of the Pittsburgh metro area. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Bill, although these are very relevant for some suburban municipalities I don't see the vast majority of this data only referring to the 55.5 square miles of Pittsburgh, all cite metropolitan area numbers. Digging into these more I am very confused by the Pitt study which seems not to be available online and is kind of a grabbag of several stats that bring in gender and socio economic issues not directly related to segregation. I appreciate your attempt to discuss a reword and recognition of a lighting rod here, in my humble opinion the lightning rod is that both context (Pittsburgh is comparatively a tiny percentage of its metro when compared to new economy sunbelt and techbelt cities) and relativity (although local perceptions and memory are valid the region and the city seem to be middle of the pack when compared to developments in other cities). Please consider:
IMHO any discussion of the very real and very documented cases of Pgh's segregation needs to be in context. Pittsburgh has a long way to go as both a region and a city but as this is a complex issue, the city and region have dealt with it rather well (especially for a region that post-1964 has seen very little overall change/new homes/in-migration overall). Finally since almost all stats that I could find including your citations are only numbers specific with segregation for metro areas this may be better suited for the Pittsburgh metropolitan area page since each and every metro has a different percentage of "central city" with regards to population and land area making an apples to apples comparison impossible with all available current data. MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 10:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I put together this map a year or two ago. As of this 2000 census data, the City of Pittsburgh proper remained heavily segregated. There is a clear division between "black" neighborhoods and "white/other" neighborhoods, with only a small handful of locations (like East Liberty, Stanton Heights, and the North Side) showing any significant miscegenation. It's shockingly blatant in places. Point Breeze and Point Breeze North might as well be called Point Breeze White and Point Breeze Black, for example. —Bill Price (nyb) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The data is from 2000 yet the links I provide show that there has been some key changes since the 2000 data set. Is there a link to the data? I did find this [15] from Chris Briem which roughly mirrors your data, however it shows your Point Breeze example as not as black and white (also after careful study reflected in your map link). My biggest concerns is that the only apples to apples (context) 2010, 2000 or 1990 data fails to rank Pittsburgh in the top 15 of segregated "cities" and that the only apples to apples cited data links (and reflected by extreme contrast on your map with the North, South and West suburban borders) count the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, my reading of your map justifies that any reworded discussion better belongs on that article. The first concern about ranking doesn't mean segregation over the metro is not a problem but does mean to be encyclopedic data such as this [16] would demand at least context and at most equal article space on Manhattan/Harlem and New York City's article as well as the 16 cities with greater 20 year segregation than Pittsburgh and its metro. User:MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 18:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this is an excellent topic (though I question its unique relevance to only Pittsburgh at present) and I have asked for greater data (some of the news articles were unprofessionally sparse not even noting study titles etc.) I did some deep digging. I believe these to be the data sets the articles refer to BrookingsPitt and Pitt reference for all 2007 works to ID the right one. These confirm that a) a large amount of this data is not about the city proper and b) both city and metro data are never cited as anything unique or exceptional but more middle of the pack nationally, with Brookings citing a litany (25+) of metros that fall under its abstractly defined "hypersegregation" label, context that the cited article fails to report. My recommendation is that although there is both city and area anecdotal evidence on this very important and as stated earlier lightning rod issue, to be truly encyclopedic and reflective of the actual and voluminous findings of these studies the section either needs to be moved to its own U.S. Metro Segregation article for its proper context or added to the 25 something U.S. Census metros and Brookings metros articles as well as moved to Metro Pittsburgh. Given the mountain of data on these studies that were myopically and incompletely reported on, as well as the census data I will await any other insights for some time before editing the section to match the context.User:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 06:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks; glad to see the thoughtful discussion on this topic. I added the "segregation" topic from the third floor of the Pittsburgh library, kind of diffusely processing a stack of books that caught my interest. Segregation was a recurring theme that I thought was particularly underrepresented on the Wiki page. (Another related issue was the destruction of the lower Hill District to make way for the Civic Arena.) Some points, bulleted for legibility:
I think that regardless of the national stats, segregation is an important part of the city's history and its reality. (I do also think that Bill Price's population map is pretty telling.)
There probably should be 'segregation' or 'racial inequality' sections on the pages of most cities in the US. We shouldn't fear this outcome; it's a hugely important part of US history that haunts us to this day. I'm not sure where to talk about this in a centralized way. Maybe WikiProject Cities? Found this page for US cities; maybe I'll talk to the talk page there.
Marketdiamond is absolutely right about the news currently used. I'm sure we can do better. Props also for finding that Pitt "study," which sadly turned out to be not much of a study at all.
The Reardon, et al, article (concerning the pattern of segregation) is the highest-quality on there, and its conclusions seem worth reproducing.
I just removed this subsection. It is poorly written and poorly sourced and completely inappropriate for a subsection in the article, per WP:USCITIES guidelines. If worded correctly, it might be acceptable as a sentence or two in the demographics section, but not as a major subsection. WTF? (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to make that change in the middle of the discussion, especially given all users' above comments about how to proceed. "Poorly written" and "poorly sourced" are things to improve, not reasons to delete the whole section. As far as the guidelines go, they say this at the top of the page: "While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing, it contains some of the basic elements of a city article, as well as useful tips that would help to bring the article to good article or featured article status." I think it is clear the the guidelines are not a good reason to delete substantial content. groupuscule (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Although WTF and I have disagreed at times, from my experience the editor is one of the most knowledgeable on wikipolicies and it appears that aside from its Brookings-Pitt-Census context and placement issues (with stats concerning the county and metro and better placed on those articles or with simply a non-titled mention on perhaps the "regional identity" section of the city's article), the segregation piece doesn't fit WP:USCITIES either. As Groupuscule has mentioned there really "should be 'segregation' or 'racial inequality' sections on the pages of most cities in the US" and I agree that on a topic as important and personal such as this "We shouldn't fear this outcome; it's a hugely important part of US history that haunts us to this day." I would be happy to assist and explore ways along with others on the suggested WikiProject Cities for US cities, but given what the data is saying and that we must be encyclopedic this really belongs on an article devoted to Metro Segregation data along with the wealth of links and studies we have uncovered in this discussion. It should be deleted or if reflective of the true national data and added to other metro articles it should be limited to a sentence or two under the "regional identity" topic of the city article or on the metropolitan article since all data we can put into a national context presently at hand points to regional data sets with only a few city data points (with the Pitt study showing that the city is in most instances better than the region, county and even the U.S. as a whole). To those citing maps, I love maps but they can at times be Rorschach tests, I think many would see the N, S and W burbs having the segregation problem rather than N Pt Breeze and Pt Breeze (more suitable for "regional" or the metro article) and despite all maps (12 year old data maps btw) the national context (and map links of Harlem and Chicago I provided) contradict any encyclopedic notion that this is "topical" on the Pittsburgh city article (to the present exclusion of other cities with statistically much worse segregation) rather than its own article or mention on a U.S. cities or urban areas article. I look forward to exploring and contributing to this topic and data in a wikiarticle that reflects the studies true national and in-context findings.User:MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The silence on this has been deafening. I was hoping several editors would be researching this further both in the "local news" myopic way presented in the cited articles and in the national context that were reflected in the studies. Since in hindsight we were starting to recycle discussion points last week, with no additional or updated research or studies being provided either here or on the discussion topic I dedicated to this here I have changed the article information to reflect the most recent data as well as improving the POV issues by adding other types of residential segregation. If no editor wishes to discuss improving or updating the data almost a week after the neutrality label has been placed I am assuming this is pretty much closed except if more detailed recent data or studies come to light. Also I would recommend shifting this discussion to the metro talk page to ensure that it stays encyclopedic and in context. user:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't able to invest a major amount of time over the past couple days in fighting reverts, and ultimately I don't want this to be a solo crusade. I do think the article on micro- vs. macro-segregation is noteworthy and worth including. I appreciate your (Marketdiamond) levelheaded criticism on this topic, as well as the impetus to scale up to wikiproject cities. Do check out WP:USCITIES. love, groupuscule (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, I agree that given the amount of study data and anecdotal articles this is too great a task for one or two editors even with it being a very interesting and important topic. I'd be eager to explore it further both here and elsewhere on wikipedia, it opened my eyes to some things I was unaware of. The most current and scientific data in the proper context I feel is reflected in the article since my edit, but if further research comes out (or is found) I would be happy to find where Pittsburgh fits into it. I'm glad editors like yourself are further adding to the wikiverse! user:MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 04:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Links to Oliver Evans should be included in the article, with corresponding adjustments made to the initiation of the iron industry in Pittsburg. Evans is reported to have established a steam engine manufacturing plant in 1810-11 in Pittsburgh. Solid citations should be available ... I'm looking for hard copies at this time. The Oliver Evans page may have sufficient references already. Pittsburg is also the point of origin for the first steam navigations from Pittsburgh to New Orleans by two pioneering steamboats, the New Orleans (1811) and the Enterprise (1814), both of tremendous importance in history. Tomligon (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The demographics section appears to be a mish-mash of 2010 and 2000 Census data, with a sprinkling of info from the 1990 Census. It will likely require a complete overhaul, but can someone who's worked on it share some insight as to what's what?--Chimino (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been working on this awhile . . . so please be kind ;-), but since it is a significant and highly visible part of the page I thought it best to throw it here for at least a few days and see if there is any major objection. My reasoning here is that Paragraphs 2-5 are a sedimentary layer of a bit circular, repetitive mish-mash of different good faith and really excellent bits and bites of data over the last few years. It reads more like a talking points that has just been added to item by item by dozens over a year or more. So to streamline it and combine the several spastic references to the 1980's deindustrialization and then modern developments that kind of see-saw back and forth and back and forth without any clear direction I have kept almost all the original wording and the original citations but just grouped it by topic so here it is and I am still working on the final few sentences to try to get the idea that present day Pittsburgh is largely a product of the roots put down by those companies and their charities. Any suggestions would be appreciated and if I am missing something big-picture please do tell, but I think 90% of this is ready to go live, though I will wait for a few days at least. Here it is:
Major publications often note Pittsburgh's high livability compared to other American cities, with Pittsburgh claiming the top overall U.S. spot in recent "most livable city" lists by Places Rated Almanac (2007),[26] Forbes (2010),[27] and The Economist (2011).[28] In 2012, National Geographic named Pittsburgh one of the best worldwide travel destinations.[29] Since 2004 the area has added 3,304 hotel rooms and boasts occupancy higher than 11 comparable cities, including Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Baltimore and Charlotte.[24] A strong charitable foundations base along with long running arts and cultural amenities are complemented by seven venerable city universities and 15 metro area universities, all providing graduate level and post graduate level resources. The world renowned Carnegie Library and the Carnegie Museums provide deep cultural, economic and academic strengths to the city.
In addition to education Pittsburgh's modern economy is strong[21], based largely on healthcare, technology, robotics,[14] and financial services. The region boasts 1,600 jobs in technology and research companies, ranging from major campuses for Google, Intel, RAND, Apple[17] and Disney Research to small startups.[4] Downtown Pittsburgh is home to the global headquarters of the nation's fifth-largest bank (PNC Financial), six of the top 300 law firms in the U.S. including K&L Gates and Reed Smith, Federated Investors and Highmark Insurance as well as the regional headquarters of BNY Mellon, descended from Mellon Financial and the Mellon family. Leading employers UPMC and WPAHS are globally recognized medical centers for both care and research. These core businesses have helped Pittsburgh add jobs in 2008 despite a significant national jobs recession[23]. The area's housing market has largely been undamaged by the American subprime mortgage crisis[22] with multi million dollar housing, shopping, and offices complexes such as SouthSide Works, Bakery Square, Washington's Landing, and the Cork Factory being redeveloped from former industrial "brownfield" sites.
Historically known for steel the region currently boasts more than 300 steel-related businesses[16] including the global headquarters of U.S. Steel. However leading innovations and industries in aluminum, chemicals, glass[18][19], shipbuilding, petroleum, foods, appliances and electronics helped Pittsburgh rise as the third largest center for "white collar" corporate headquarter jobs, with only New York and Chicago exceeding the city[25]. Current day catalysts such as companies Wabco and Wesco, academia Rockwell Hall and Mellon Institute and research infrastructure such as U-PARC and the Pittsburgh Technology Center are testaments to the multinationals that powered a once larger Pittsburgh to define 20th century America. Corporate raiders removed those long time global headquarters from the city with multi-million dollar deals for J&L Steel (1974), Gulf Oil (1984), Murphy's Mart (1985), Koppers Chemical and Rockwell Aerospace (both 1988), Sunbeam (1991), Westinghouse (1995) and Dravo Shipbuilding (1998) along with their "white collar" jobs and philanthropy. America's shift from heavy industry to a technology/service economy also saw Pittsburgh's sprawling steel mills and electronics/appliances factories close in rapid succession during the 1980's[18][19][20] adding millions more "blue collar" layoffs to the eventual Pittsburgh Diaspora. The Edgar Thomson Steel Works and Brackenridge Works are the only two steel mills remaining in the county[15][note 1], while none now operate within city limits. Top 10 city from 1910 until 1950 and as late as the 1970's was a top 10 media market.[20] and top 10 metro until 1980.[21]
I agree some cleanup of 2-5 is warranted and I appreciate your efforts here.
Regarding the current article lead, it seems to be heavy on the economy and light on other areas such as history. As you propose, it seems to me that paragraphs 3 & 4 need to be completely overhauled. There is an awkward transition from paragraph 2 closing with information about recent economic growth to paragraph 3 opening with the 1980s economic crisis. Paragraph 3 altogether is a mess, and devoting half of that paragraph to a list of corporations that have left the area is entirely unnecessary out out of scope for an article lead. In fact, in my opinion, the lead is substantially improved just by removing paragraph 3. In any case, the historical economic information needs to be grouped chronologically so that there is a more logically flow. Coincidentally, this would also result in the happy circumstance of ending the lead on a positive note.
As far as constructive criticism of your revision, I would suggest revisiting the chronology to make a better logically constructed story of the city, and that may include incorporating a revision of paragraph 2 as well. As mentioned above, that will naturally and fortuitously end the lead with the current upswing the city is experiencing. I also would lose the list of lost corporations as I mentioned above. I can help with revisions, but it will be several days before I can delve into it in a substantive way. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful commentary CrazyPaco. I have also been seriously considering further arrangement to end it on the happy and most current note as well as weighing the inclusion of Gulf Oil, Rockwell et. al. Although I could go either way on that my thinking on my proposal is most readers would want to know the current (and positives) right out of the gate and if they are more interested for "background" they would read further. The inclusion of the corporations (and I have also been searching for that citation that Pittsburgh was the #6 media market in the mid 20th century, and a leader in early 20th century immigration/among top 10 cities) is simply that the arts, cultural, educational and infrastructure currently enjoyed in the area is evidence of a much larger "world center" type city, and explain to any unfamiliar reader just a little of how that was possible to start 25-75 years ago. To me Gulf Oil, Westinghouse and the city's population and market status etc. goes hand in hand with revealing why U-PARC, the world's 1st Cultural District, UPMC, Carnegie Museums & Libraries, WQED, etc. achieved their national and international status.
For the unfamiliar peruser leaving in some tidbits of Pittsburgh of yesteryear helps them understand that although Orlando, Portland, Oklahoma City, Columbus and Buffalo--all great cities with friendly people and places to visit now are the comparison to Pittsburgh in many measurements (population, market, fortune 500's) none have things like Heinz Hall, Kennywood, Technology Center, Allegheny General, National Aviary or KDKA (AM or TV). Giving a sentence or two in the lead to how those seeds were planted so to speak in the last century helps differentiate the article from both the Portland types and New York City types.
I don't disagree with your premise, just with the necessity of filling the lead with long lists of companies and assets. It can be stated without examples or a few prominent examples cited. The long lists lose the reader and the point, IMO. Leads are to be concise, those details should be in the text where the reader can go further deeper information. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Historically known for steel, Pittsburgh also lead innovations and full scale industries in aluminum, glass[1][2], shipbuilding, petroleum[3][4][5][6], foods[7], appliances, sports[8], transport, computing[9], retail and electronics. This industrial and creative wealth placed Pittsburgh third only to New York and Chicago in corporate headquarter jobs for much of the 20th century.[10]. America's 1980s shift from heavy industry to a service economy caused millions of layoffs from the area's sprawling steel mills and electronics/appliances factories.[11][12][13] These "blue collar" workers were joined by thousands of "white collar" corporate layoffs to form the Pittsburgh Diaspora when the multi billion dollarCorporate raids of Pittsburgh-based J&L Steel (1974), Gulf Oil (1984), Murphy's Mart (1985), Koppers Chemical and Rockwell Aerospace (both 1988), Sunbeam (1991), Westinghouse (1995) and Dravo Shipbuilding (1998) removed their headquarters from Downtown. However Pittsburgh's long historical status as a world center still thrives directly from these now departed Fortune 500 companies in current day catalysts U-PARC, the Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh Technology Center, Wabtec, Kennywood Amusement Park, Wesco, the Carnegie Museums, Carnegie Library, WQED, the Cultural District, KDKA AM & TV, all of which owe their world renown and many world firsts to Pittsburgh's longtime top 3 ranking as corporate center. Seven venerable city universities and 15 metro area universities, all providing graduate level and post graduate level resources, including America's #1 computer program, both tallest academic tower and American gothic church, worlds first jazz festival and jazz hall of fame and multi million dollar nationality rooms are also living testaments to the Pittsburgh's longtime status as a top 10 "melting pot" largest city from 1910 until 1950, a top 10 market until the 1970s[14] and a top 10 metro until 1980.[15].
These rich and largely unmatched legacies have recently ranked Pittsburgh as America's number one "most livable city" by 2007's Places Rated Almanac,[16] 2010's Forbes,[17] and 2011's The Economist[18], with 2012's National Geographic named Pittsburgh one of the best worldwide travel destinations.[19] and 2013's Today Show's [20]travel destinations. More tangibly the area has added 3,304 hotel rooms since 2004 and boasts occupancy higher than 11 comparable cities, including Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Baltimore and Charlotte.[21]
In addition to a wealth and diversty of education and cultural non-profits, Pittsburgh's strong modern economy[22] is lead by healthcare, technology, robotics[23], energy and financial services. With $10.8 billion in annual payroll--24 percent of the city's economy[24]-- Google, Intel, RAND, Apple[25], Disney Research and Guru.com have established major campuses in the city along with 1,600 smaller startups[26] with $10.8 billion in annual payroll[27]. Leading employers UPMC and WPAHS regularly rank among the best U.S. medical centers in both care and research[28][29]. Rankings also spotlight Pittsburgh's innovation in "green" building technology with several world firsts even as the region has become a center for the growing marcellas shale energy industry, with both Shell and Chevron recently investing billions in infrastructure. The world's 3rd largest and 2nd most advanced soundstage complex opened in the city in 2012 to capitalize on the areas 40 year draw to A-list stars for major film and television productions, an industry that dates to 1898 for Pittsburgh. Despite the late 20th century corporate raids, the Pittsburgh area remains the longtime global headquarters home of six of the top 300 U.S. law firms, the nation's fifth-largest bank in PNC financial and 9 fortune 500s and fortune 1000s. Regional headquarters of FedEx, Bayer, BNYMellon, Nova Chemicals, GSK, SkyChefs and US Airways also call the area home, all helping Pittsburgh to add jobs during the 2008 national recession[30]. The region's retail and housing markets have been one of the few areas of growth in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis,[31] with the multi million dollar SouthSide Works, Bakery Square, Washington's Landing, and Cork Factory being recently redeveloped from former industrial "brownfield" sites. While today's Pittsburgh has no steel mills remaining--with only 2 in the surrounding county[32][note 1]--the region still boasts more than 300 steel-related businesses[33] including U.S. Steel's longtime global headquarters downtown.
Your latest version is a big improvement. Here is my version based on yours.
The point of confluence at Pittsburgh's three rivers was the site of both French and British forts which sought to control the flow of trade along the Ohio River west to the Mississippi River. Due to this strategic location, it became a major theater of the French and Indian War. Following American independence, the city developed as a commercial gateway to the western American frontier and, with convenient river transportation and discoveries of rich coal deposits, by the end of the 19th century it had become the nation's industrial epicenter, particularly in regards to iron and steel production, which served as a magnet for industrial labor emigration from Europe and elsewhere.
Historically known for steel, Pittsburgh also led innovations and the development of full scale industries in aluminum, glass,[34][35] shipbuilding, petroleum,[36][37][38][39] foods,[40] appliances, sports,[41] transport, computing,[42] retail, and electronics. This industrial and creative wealth placed Pittsburgh third only to New York and Chicago in the number of corporate headquarters that called the city home for much of the 20th century.[43] The collapse of the nation's steel industry in the 1970s and America's 1980s shift from heavy industry to a service economy caused millions of layoffs from the area's sprawling steel mills and electronics/appliances factories.[44][45][46] The Pittsburgh Diaspora of "blue collar" workers was joined by thousands of "white collar" employees when multi-billion dollar corporate raids and mergers led several previously Pittsburgh-based corporations, such as Gulf Oil, Chevron, and Westinghouse, to move their headquarters from the city. However, Pittsburgh's historical status as one of the world's major industrial and banking centers, its "melting pot" of industrial immigrant workers, and its status as one of the top 10 largest cities in the U.S. between 1910 until 1950 (and a top 10 metro until 1980[47][48]) has left the region with a plethora of internationally-regarded industrial, business, and cultural assets such as the museums, parks, and a myriad of resident professional performing arts companies located in the city's cultural district.
These cultural legacies have helped Pittsburgh garner recent rankings as America's "most livable city" by Places Rated Almanac,[16]Forbes,[17] and The Economist[18] while inspiring National Geographic and Today to name the city one of the best worldwide travel destinations in 2012 and 2013, respectively.[19][49]. More tangibly the area has added 3,304 hotel rooms since 2004 and boasts occupancy higher than 11 comparable cities such as Philadelphia and Baltimore.[50]
In addition to a wealth and diversty of education and cultural non-profits that include seven venerable city universities, Pittsburgh's modern economy[51] is led by healthcare, technology, robotics[23], energy, and financial services. The University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University are among the nation's leaders in academic research and development expenditures[52] with both institutions spinning off multiple new technology startup companies each year.[53] As a result of this activity, 1,600 startups as well as noted technical companies such as Google, Intel, and Apple[54] have an established presence in the city.[26][55] Leading employers UPMC and West Penn Allegheny Health System regularly rank among the best U.S. medical centers.[56][57] Rankings have also spotlighted Pittsburgh's innovation in "green" building technology with several world firsts, such as the first LEED certified convention center and greenhouse, even as the region is experiencing a renaissance as an energy center due to the growing marcellas shale industry with both Shell and Chevron recently investing billions in infrastructure. Entertainment technology has led companies such as Disney to establish a presence in the city, as well as to the opening of the world's third largest soundstage complex that follows a recent influx of film and television productions, an industry that dates to 1898 in Pittsburgh. Despite the late 20th century corporate raids, the Pittsburgh area remains the longtime global headquarters home of six of the top 300 U.S. law firms, the nation's fifth-largest bank in PNC, and 9 Fortune 500s and fortune 1000s such as PPG Industries, H.J. Heinz, WESCO International, and Dick's Sporting Goods. Regional headquarters of such companies as BNYMellon, Nova Chemicals, and GSK also call the area home and helped Pittsburgh to add jobs during the 2008 national recession.[58] The region's retail and housing markets have been one of the few areas of growth in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis,[59] with the several multi-million dollar developments, such as the SouthSide Works, Bakery Square, and Washington's Landing, occurring on former industrial brownfield sites. While today's Pittsburgh has no steel mills remaining within the city and only two in the surrounding counties,[60][note 2] the region still boasts more than 300 steel-related businesses[61] including U.S. Steel's longtime global headquarters.
I should add, with the existing opening paragraph, this would version would be way to big for the lead. Substantial trimming would probably be necessary. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks CrazyPaco, seeing how this is taking much longer than I ever thought I wanted to give you a big thanks for your efforts and contributions to this, indeed not anywhere near the simple wiki edits here. Also huge appreciation for your added citations and additions on the universities. I can see your points on mentioning a few above the rest on both unis and companies, and agree we should without removing any substance pare down and compact the opening as much as possible. Your also right that some of the origins of the area need to be mentioned prior to getting into the 20th century, my only caution with that is although its important to mention the founding period for the intro, as the intro its helpful to keep it in terms people of 2013 can relate to, much as contempories can relate to Sunbeam and Westinghouse. I'd never rationalize the history section or article like this but seeing how we have to leave out a ton of great stuff in the intro the standard to me then shifts to a "how do they relate to this elevator speech" type thing. Because of your excellent observation that the founding era needs to be given due mention I have edited the entire introduction, since some information was in the 1st paragraph as well.
I posted a tweeked version to your latest revision, note I can't find the Fortune 1000 number (behind a paywall) so I removed that, also removed a few lesser known Fortune 500s by name, added Sunbeam and added the CERT-CC and NCFTA and shorted things up some. I think this is close to where it should be and I'll be putting it on the main page soon but as with everything on Wikipedia some minor edits will always be welcomed, though I think it would be helpful that for the near future we all can form a consensus on the rough structure and framework of the intro.
I think it is probably still too long for a lead (it is longer than many bigger cities), and heavy on economy at the expense of history (in terms that a lead should summarize the article), but it is a vast improvement over what was there previously and I'm content to have it as is for now. Good job on your work. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
CrazyPaco, appreciate all the insight and help, and by all means if you have specific suggestions please bring them up or if you simply wish to rephrase something have at it, I took your advice and checked out other city articles and subsequently deleted about 2,000 of whatever unit of measure shows on the edit history page. Aside from more efficient phrasing or a deletion of 1 of the many listed items in the opening I think the core ideas are all there and important to maintain. You are correct that the "forest from trees" view seems a bit heavy on corporate history but as far as being relatable to 2013 readers (thus the cramming of pre 1900 info) and just the simple fact that Pittsburgh is in the end more a product of corporations (I read one source that described it as a "company town" where the Mellons were the company) than most other comparable cities. I did add some further adjectives to culture and other attributes for balance though and would welcome a bit more but as you said before length is a serious concern. Thanks for your huge assist on the university data and your pensive wording contributions! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A panoramic view of Pittsburgh from nearby Mount Washington at dawn. Pittsburgh, with a population of 307,484 and an area of 58.3 square miles (151 km2), is the second-largest city in the US commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Photo: Matthew Field
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
![[2]](http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pics/kottek_et_al_2006.gif){kind=link}
