Talk:Pittsburgh/Archive 1

The history section here is a summary

• 84.99.185.200 made some additions to the History of Pittsburgh section, but none to the History of Pittsburgh article. The section here is just a summary. We have to keep the overall Pittsburgh article at a manageable size. It would be more appropriate to expand the History of Pittsburgh article, or even the French and Indian War article first.
• In any case, there were some factual mistakes. GW didn't help build Fort Prince George. He actually met that party on the trail, as he was heading back to Williamsburg from his mission. The French didn't finish Fort Prince George. They dismantled it, and built Fort Duquesne, which subsequently they burnt, and Fort Pitt was built not on the exact same site, but farther from the Point.

Shows relative positions of the sites of Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt

• I think 84.99.185.200 has info and perspective to contribute, but he/she should get a logon, and edit the parent articles first (History of Pittsburgh, Fort Pitt, Fort Duquesne, Braddock expedition, French and Indian War and Seven Year's War). Later changes can be rolled up to this article.Tomcool 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Overhauled article for WP:SIZE and WP:NPOV

As noted in several comments below, the Pittsburgh article had grown too large. It was 46KB, where the recommendation under WP:SIZE is for 32 KB. Some of the discussions, while of interest to specialists, were just too wordy and potentially boring to the general reader.

The article also had passages with a boastful tone, which were in violation of WP:NPOV.

I overhauled the article today, spinning off new articles for sections that had grown too large, summarizing those sections in the main article, and toning down some of the POV statements. In particular, if a passage claimed that "Pittsburgh has more widgets than any other city in the world," but lacked a good reference to back up the claim, I toned it down to, "Pittsburgh is a city of widgets."

I didn't do the Media and Education sections. They're pretty good. They could probably use some edits for conciseness, but I'll leave that to others.

Those who live near or in the city, please help with the Neighborhood section.

I believe that the new version is more encyclopedic, and gives us room to grow, both for the general Pittsburgh article and the more specialized articles. I hope that this overhaul will be received with the positiveness with which it was done, and that all us Pittsburghers can continue to contribute to making this article, and its anciallary articles, better. Let's shoot for a featured article, yens! Tomcool 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work, though their seems to be something up with the sections at the bottom of the article and the edit button being pushed towards the center. Also the four see also sections in the media section, i woulder if it would not be a better idea to merge them into a article called Pittsburgh Media, or Media in Pittsburgh. Also when you start a new talk section best to start it at the bottom, helps with the flow, not a big problem though, but really nice work though. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul the History of Pittsburgh section and create a new article

I've "finished" writing the History of Pittsburgh article. Now I'll slim down the history section of this article, which will give us more room to add info about present-day Pittsburgh.Tomcool 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh has a long and fascinating history; it's been an important microcosm of the entire nation in its various stages of development. We're not doing it adequate service with the current write-up. There's no Native American section; we start instead with the French. The colonial period is OK, but the 19th century -- when the city grew into an industrial powerhouse -- is sketchy, and the period from 1900-1950 is missing entirely. Finally, I think the period 1950 to present could be expanded, with info about the implosion of the US steel industry (which should itself be an article), the city's various Renassainces, and movements toward postindustrializaiton. I'm going to take this on. I've started to gather sources (and of course, Historic Pittsburgh has a wealth of info. This weekend, I'll create a stub article, History of Pittsburgh with proposed sections. Please take a look at this plan and comment on it. Then we can begin the process of building it.Tomcool 17:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Other suggestions

Although there's a lot of good information in this article, it's broad and leaves out details about the city itself. Why does it mention Johnstown (a 2-hour drive away) several times but never mention the two cities annexed by Pittsburgh - Allegheny and Birmingham (essentially the north and south sides of Pittsburgh) in it's "History" section?. That's much more perinent than athletes who never visited Pittsburgh outside of Three Rivers Stadium. When I get the opportunity, I'll update the site. But it's in need or a complete rework.

Also, what about all the German roots (among other nationalities), the Heinz plant, and steel mills (only 1 reference to a city that thrived on steel production). If anyone has any concrete info on things such as the missles in West View (and other areas) to protect Pittsburgh from possible attacks in WWII (the steel industry was crucial in the wars) would be fabulous. I only know this info from word-of-mouth. What about info on the underground 4th river, the importance of it's location since it controlled the Ohio (and essentially the Mississippi) River, or how it (and western PA in general) is the microblast equivalent of Tornado Alley? When I get the opportunity, I'll add the knowledge I have. I'm hopeful others will do the same. To me, this is more important about the city than town 30-90 miles way. I love this city!

SPECIAL NOTE Call for WikiProjects:Pittsburgh

I would like to know how many of you would participate in a WikiProjects:Pittsburgh effort to regularly expand the scope and depth of the Pittsburgh region. This project could take many forms, including but not limited to: Pittsburgh area sports, culture, schools, media, climate, history, ecology, environment, aviation, business, economics, law, etc. Please leave a note below if you are in for it and what (if any) topics you excel in, if all just let me know you're looking to participate. Thanks. Hholt01 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

• Platform.For-Pgh.org has a good deal of content with issues, solutions and political insight. Go there and build out the Pittsburgh wiki, please. Rauterkus 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to work on something similar to this. I would, as noted below, like to create a portal for pittsburgh. Please let me know if you need any help ---Jimktrains 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Boasts!

It seems that every other paragraph in this article starts with the phrase "Pittsburgh boasts ...." I'd like to remind us that we're writing an encyclopedia not a promotional brochure to attract tourists or investors. I suggest a little rewrite to tone it down a bit. At the very least, we can improve the writing style a bit. Crunch 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has listed History of Pittsburgh on the VfD list. Should it be moved back here? Why was it moved out in the first place? Martin 14:47 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Picture(s)

Could we change the picture to a night time one (maybe from light up night), the current one does not do the city justice.Monkeyduck 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Population

What is the source for the population figures? I think the source should be referenced in the article. Also, it is a little bit misleading to list the population loss of Pittsburgh itself, since the city of Pittsburgh is just a tiny portion of the urban area. Pittsburgh is surrounded by numerous townships which would have been incorporated into any other city. I think the population of the Pittsburgh metropolitian area should be listed next to the population of city itself. AdamRetchless 17:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's an article (ok, column) that addresses this question a bit: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/538678.stm

--EnakoNosaj 16:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should find the "metro population" figures for Pittsburgh, just my two cents, either metro since 1950 or just leave it blank since the data misleads an uninformed reader. Hholt01 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

I am new to this, but I have population figures for the City of Pittsburgh every 10 years from 1790 through 1990. I photocopied various population stats from a book in the 1990s. I don't know what the book was, but these are certainly Census Bureau figures since they match others I've seen. Does anyone believe this would be useful in the article? Where would be best to put it? RichardPgh

transportation

I removed the following from the mass-transit section

If you are traveling inbound on any bus, train, or incline, you pay as you board. If you are traveling outbound, you pay as you exit the vehicle. As of 2004, the fare is $1.75. Transfers, which are good on any Port Authority vehicle, cost $0.50, and are valid for 3 hours. Students at some universities in the Pittsburgh area can ride the mass transit for free with a student ID.

1. This information is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. If a person wants to know how to use this bus system, they should be directed to the PAT webpage.
2. This information is inaccurate: The rules for when you pay do not apply to all routes, and the routes that do use that system only use it during the workday. I also suspect that the statement about universities is incorrect, as this deal is arranged by each university, and there are several universities in the area.

AdamRetchless 02:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with AdamRetchless

I know they don't, but I think Allegheny County should be considered the City Of Pittsburgh. Thus making the population 1+ Million.

NPOV

While I didn't make the edits (I'd rather have the discussion first), we as a community need to be more aware of comments like "Pittsburgh is widely believed to be right behind San Francisco as the steepest city in the United States."- I am not sure that view is "widely held" or has any factual basis at all. It is more of an observation- one that I can certainly vouch for as I too live in Pittsburgh- but lacks any factual merit. Or "Pittsburgh has done remarkably well in the face of the Steel Industry collapse." 1st- I am not sure that is true at all- The city is currently bankrupt and is on a sort of probation under a special act of the Pennsylvania government. Pittsburgh has lost nearly half its population since the industry collapse. The property values in and around the city have decreased (relative to inflation) steadily over the past two decades. My point is we must be careful to abstain from this "colorful" type of writing when attempting to create encyclopedia articles. Let's stick to the facts. Comments, suggestions?

The first point I don't have a problem with, I'm sure we could get a few sources in support if it came to a debate. The second issue is clearly POV but seems to have been fixed already. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

As far as the most scenic hills etc. I would vote to definetly keep it in. There are several citiations on how Pittsburgh has more scenic outdoor stairways then Cincinnati and San Francisco combined, here is a good intro to how Pittsburgh is the "San Francisco of the east": http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05300/595569.stm

Hholt01 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

I don't see how the article you cite indicates anything at all with regard to Pittsburgh having more outdoor stairways, or more outdoor "scenic" stairways. It just says it has a lot of outdoor stairs, as do many cities. It does not even give a count. In any event, the term "scenic" is extrmely subjective. Who defines "scenic?" And while you're talking about steep cities, I believe the good citizens of Seattle might have something to say about their steep city's exclusion from this list. Would it not be sufficient to just say that Pittsburgh's terrain is steep and that it includes a number of outdoor stairways and trams? Why is it always necessary to state a supposed ranking and superlative? Crunch 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV: We're not the Chamber of Commerce or Convention and Visitor's Bureau

I made small, though not minor, edits to the first para's claims that Pittsburgh has one of the top medical schools and the best organ transplant units in the world. The quoted sources for this were the University of Pittsburgh's own website and PR. While the claims may be true, we need objective third-party sources, and preferably mutliple, non-commercial (ie., not US News) sources. Anyone can, and would, like to say that their hospital and medical school is the top and best in the world. Wikipedia seems not to be the place for cities to promote themselves in this way. If the claims are true, the sources should be available. Crunch 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

UM, UPMC was jsut ranking in the top 15 in the nation... Jimktrains 23:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

This article should be expanded to have information about the neighborhoods of Pittsburgh: Shadyside, Oakland, South Side, etc. Also, Pittsburghers, help me write Station Square. Andre (talk) 21:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actucally it would be best to have seperate article on the hoods, their is a List of Pittsburgh neighborhoods that is in need of some help. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not actually from Pittsburgh, I've just been there. However, I'll try my best to help. Andre (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Andre, thats great! Let me know if you need any "Pittsburgher" insight on your additions. I too am a strong believer in having the Pittsburgh pages take off!

Hholt01 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

Also I completed the Neighborhood descriptions. Hholt01 23:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Hholt01

Infobox format

Over the past week or so, Boothy443 has been reverting the infobox back to an earlier format, leaving no discussion either in the comments for revision or on the talk page, other than, "the revision was ugly." Basically, this user does not like the city skyline image located inside of the infobox and would rather have the city skyline image detached, not to mention significantly wider than the width of the infobox as well. See example

The reasons that I changed the infobox to include is mainly for aesthetics. I believe that it looks better to include the city skyline image inside the infobox, which also maintains the width of the skyline image the same as the width of the infobox. This format is also ideally suited as it keeps the skyline image right at the top, as well as the infobox right there. Some pages that have these separated have the city skyline image, with some text from the first opening paragraph section between the skyline pic and the infobox, which places the infobox really low down the page, requiring scrolling - this is bad form. Keeping the skyline image within the infobox would prevent this. I also think that the heading of the city name (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) should be at the top of the page, which in Boothy443's version is not the case. Several other city pages are going to this format, and a recent discussion on the Los Angeles page favored placing the city skyline image inside the infobox by a 3:1 margin.

I'd like to get more input on this infobox format from others on this matter. Dr. Cash 03:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

First off lets fill in the parts that cashman left out, or misinformed on. Yes i did remove info box for aesthetic reasons, but as cash paint me out to be the bad person and put words into my mouth a simple look at the page history will display, on the subject of this article, that i said no such thing of the "the revision was ugly", something that can not be said about cashmans so called improvements on other articles, but what cash fails to say is that he stated "The other infobox looks worse", and their was no discussion on his part up until this time either. Also cash decided that a decision on a the content of another article is valid for this article, i am sorry but i do not accept the decisions of editors the LA article as applying to other articles, last i looked the title at the top says Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania not Los Angeles and being that so called consensus, which if like many other decisions made here not based on consensus but on a majority rule ideal, concerned that content of the LA article in no way should a decision made by that articles editors apply to every article.

Speaking of the talk page, cash went ahead and made numerous significant changes to the article, including moving content from the page, as he sees it, with out input form anyone who watches or edits this page. As for several other pages, i would not say that’s it's been a decision on a standard less then it's been cash and others just changing the format of other pages, once again on a LA based decision.

As for the template, no i don't believe that the picture belong in the box. First it restricts the size of the box, making the box size related to the image size, so an image which should be displayed larger, as in this article has to be either sized down, or it oversizes the box. Nor do I believe that the infobox template has to be at the absolute top of a page. Also dumping the code into the page just to the page size, does not make it easy edit or change information, epically for new users who might see an error. Also I think it’s a poorly designed and developed box that strays away from a better designed one that was used first proposed by the cities group, as well as being common to many other city, nation, and other boxes in use. But either way I seriously doubt that cashman will see pass his LA decision is best policy. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the fat

It grat that the article is growing, but their are some setions that need to be watched as getting to big, and could be in line to be pared down and split off, Sports and Museums, arts, and entertainment, they should be fine for now, but just in case, also if anyone out their knows any Pittsburgh history ro such be nice to see an expansion, I would but i am a bit rusty on the subject. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with it is similar to what Boothy suggests: create side articles for most of the major topics (such as History of Pittsburgh, Transportation in Pittsburgh, and leave very short descriptions (one or two sentences) on the main page, along, obviously, with a link to the side article. New York City does something similar, but (in my opinion) leaves too much text still on the main page. Mareino 15:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

Changed "Capital Limited" to "Capitol Limited", thus pointing to Wikipedia's existing article about the train.

Pronunciation

Edinburgh = /ˈɛdɪnˌbrə/ ...

Pittsburgh = ???

How is the burgh pronounced? --Abdull 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Originally it probably would have been like Edinburgh, but today the the burgh is just pronounced berg. Ddye 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh vs Western PA

Why are there so many references to people from western PA (not Pittsburgh) as though it were Pittsburgh? Athletes are a big one. Slapshot is another. Is this article about western PA??? "Nearby" Johnstown is as close as Cleveland.

That does poses a question, should considlate the method for inclusion, consideing i have seen people in the cat that are from as far away as Morgantown. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The following should not be considered from Pittsburgh since they are more than 30 miles outside the city limits: Moorer, Lujack, Frerotte, and Ham. The following are far enough outside the city, I (as a Pittsburgh native) would never consider them to be from The 'Burgh: Namath, Montana, Musial, Thrower, and the Griffeys.

happening:::There is a problem with the logic of "outside the city limits" or "outside Allegheny County", when the miner was rescued in W.V. he came to Pittsburgh, he's a Steelers fan, Morgantown is in Pittsburgh's Neilsen ratings territory, Steubenville, Wheeling, E. Liverpool, Weirton are dependent on Pittsburgh for 2 of their major network coverages, use the Pittsburgh International Airport as thier primary gateway to the world and the PG Pavillion as their primary concert venue. The owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates (Nutting) bought his "hometown" team while running Wheeling's main daily.

To agree with the opinion so far, I can see how Donora is very much NOT Pittsburgh, neither Morgantown or Johnstown or Wheeling to us locals. Problem though is that when someone from India or Brazil reads E. Liverpool, Ohio they don't realize it's just a commute from downtown Pittsburgh and minutes away from the Pittsburgh International Airport. Wikipedia serves the world, not just us Pennsylvanians, if someone lives 100 miles outside Cairo or Lima or Rome to us they are in that region, they use that cities airport are dependent on that cities transportation hub, tv and radio stations, are fans of that cities sports teams, and head to that city for a major trial or medical procedure. When I look up a small town in South America and I don't know if this is close to Rio or Bogota or Lima that is a disservice, how can I get to this town, what news links on line would cover this town, what sports forums on line would have this towns inhabitants online? The Pittsburgh page should be a lot more then solely ONE organizations definition of Pittsburgh (the city) but should define Pittsburgh as the Federal census does (7 counties), as the media's benchmark of Nielsen does (15 county including some in W.V.) as the FAA and the Federal Reserve do, as the Army Corps of Engineers do (almost all of W. Pennsylvania, E. Ohio and N. WV). As the territorial rights in MLB, NFL and NHL do. I have to vote to keep the definitions of "Pittsburgh" from those 2 dozen major organizations relevant to this page. I would be persuaded otherwise the day Donora stops rooting for the Steelers, Wheeling stops watching Pittsburgh's NBC station for its network feed and the day Slippery Rock students stop using Pittsburgh International Airport. "Pittsburgh" is more then an invisible line last redrawn in a world that existed for 1903.Hholt01 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of rural areas in this great nation of ours that use the resources of a major city that is hours away. For instance, I have relatives in Boone, North Carolina. They receive Charlotte, North Carolina TV stations and use the Charlotte airport. They even cheer for the Carolina Panthers. However, each of these is 100 miles away on the other side of the state. To include Boone as a part of Charlotte, merely because they have the same tv stations, airport, and pro football team is ridiculous because when it comes down to it, they are nothing alike. I'm sure many other places are in similar situations.

How does this relate to Pittsburgh? Pittsburgh is what it is. People from Pittsburgh will generally self-identify themselves. That is, I live in Mt. Lebanon. If I meet someone on the other side of the country, I will tell them I'm from Pittsburgh because the five mile distance to the city is close enough to warrant it. I highly doubt that someone from Steubenville, Wheeling, or Johnstown will say that they live in Pittsburgh. If some big news story happens in Steubenville, you know that CNN is going to say "Reporting live from Steubenville" and not "Reporting live from Pittsburgh" like they would likely do if the story was in Sewickley.

Given this, I would argue that we need to keep the topic of Pittsburgh rather tightly specific. I would suggest an area no larger than the 7 county Federal census area, and only for topics which have a vital impact on what Pittsburgh is. In fact, probably limiting to within Allegheny County would ensure that the topics weren't going to far afield from what Pittsburgh really is. ClarkBHM 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, though i would even condense it further. Would move refrence to Western PA to the artile on Western PA, and consdier creating one for the metro Pitt. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have some great points, however, Morgantown is Pittsburgh according to everything media, Wheeling and Steubenville is Pittsburgh according to several federal agencies (you might consider that abstract but realize how much that affects Joe and Jane Publics daily life) as well as those areas depending on Pittsburgh for major network and news items. Wheeling's native son was "overjoyed" he could play on his "hometown" team Pirates single handily winning them the World Series in 1960. The Ohio/WV panhandle's leading news man is the leading financer behind his "hometown" Pirates. Proud Ohioans, Marylanders and West Virginians would never use BWI or Hopkins to make their flight, but always orginiate their travels from their hometown airport PIT. Although a Western Pennsylvania topic would be great to describe Latrobe and Slippery Rock, it still won't help the world student in India or China or England from learning that Morgantown isn't near Richmond or that Steubenville doesn't root for the Indians, or that Wheeling is more a suburb then it is some remote wilderness town in a mostly rural state. "Pittsburgh" means something other then 55.5 sq. miles, or even 780 sq. miles of AC. If it doesn't then should really be a reassesment of contemporary notions of place and metropolitans. Wikipedia is in the unique position to help outsiders understand something in all relevant and legitimate terms, "Pittsburgh" is Morgantown, Steubenville, Johnstown, and Wheeling as much as it is Point State Park. To fail in that description is misleading at best. Hholt01 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but their stiil needs to be a line drawn in regards to an article about the city and an article about the region. Yes usually a major city defines a region, but that city is only part of the region, though it may have the greatest effect on the region. Otherwise what is the use in having the articles on the other towns and cities in the region, if we are going to equate them as nothing less then suburbs of Pittsburgh, and make out Pittsburgh as nothing more then a algimation of other cities and towns. Pittsburgh is Pittsburgh, "Metropolitian Pittsburgh" is Pittsburgh and Morgantown, Steubenville, and Wheeling, and i would not include Johnstown, becuse even in the idea of media market Johnstown is a different market. And IF were are going by sports teams, then i guess pittsburgh is alo Harrisburgh, State College, Youngstown, Erie, Willamsport, and so on. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Boothy, and others, you speak the truth, but to me it's only a part of it, I feel both our perspectives are very legitimate, what would the proposed solution be then? Chicago has "Chicagoland", LA has the "Southland", Boston has "New England" etc. etc. I would be very much opposed to a "SW Pennsylvania" or "Western Pennsylvania" since it would include Altoona (I think JTown is fair game in some ways) but exclude media and federal inclusions of Morgantown, Wheeling, Steubenville and E. Liverpool.

Maybe a "Pittsburghland" or "Pittsburghia" section however no such term really exists and for an encylopedia it is not our place to invent but to compile. I agree there is a need to tell the world that there is some difference between the 55.5 sq. miles of the city and the region, but to confine it to SW Pennsylvania or to exclude the term "Pittsburgh" from the description shouldn't happen for reasons stated above. KDCountry is a good boundary in my mind however that is way too partial to a certain business enterprise. Suggestions welcomed, something that makes a distinction between the tri-state region and the 55.5 sq. miles, that might be it "Pittsburgh Tri-State" though again we are inventing to a degree--term has been used before but not very widely.Hholt01 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point Hholt, especially if we could have a regional article that would be appropriate. My best suggestion would simply be Pittsburgh Region. It's simple and tells the story. A Google Search for "Pittsburgh Region" shows 200,000 hits so it may be a winner. If we're able to move some of the obviously non-Pittsburgh stuff out to a regional article, do we have a consensus to remove it from the main Pittsburgh article? ClarkBHM 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am good on the regional, will we segregate regional with sports teams, people from, companies HQ, etc. etc.? Some are a bit much like people from, technically speaking Spadafora, Cuban, Aguilera, etc. are NOT from Pittsburgh, but should not be excluded from a list of people from Pittsburgh. I guess the question is where should the boundary be between "Pittsburgh" and "Pittsburgh Region" and what catagories should be divided with them. There is bound to be many--especially in WV and Ohio--who will cite much to claim exclusion from "Pittsburgh Region" as well, the current set up leaves some slack in that, to quantify an entry of "Pittsburgh Region" will leave much debate over which boundary to accept (Census, Nielsen, Corps of Engineers, SPC, etc.) by some independent folks on the outskirts.

One other note, if there is a seperation between "Pittsburgh" and "Pittsburgh Region" I would think a very seamless connectivity between the two is vital, for every group it affects. See my note on a Pittsburgh Portal, thanks.Hholt01 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Education

Wait a minute. Since when are California University of Pennsylvania, Penn State University, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, and Washington & Jefferson College considered to be in Pittsburgh??? Western PA, yes. Pittsburgh, no.

I want to update to this article but I would love some help. What's a better way to organize it?

The first part would be to remove all non-Pittsburgh related items. That way, we can rebuild this site from a solid foundation. Let me be clear: I would NOT remove anything that I wasn't for sure was an incorrect fact on Pittsburgh. I don't want to piss anyone off cause there's obviously people who are putting a lot of time into this. I just think the key topic (Pittsburgh) is getting lost. Anyone with me?

I think you have brought up so valad points, and i dont see any one, so far, objectiing to your changes, at least you have the worth of running it by and seeking the opinion of other editors, before making such a major change as you are proposing. Personaly i would say give it a go, though i would not out ever refrence to WPA items that are outside of the city limits of the burgh, but instead put the focous more on the burgh and mention the others that play a role in the metro area. But you right about PSU, which is in Central PA and is closer to capital, and some of the others. So all i have to say is register an account, it's better that way, and give it s shot. If your sill unsure, post how you want to change it here , and see what kinda of a responce you get. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the PSU reference came from (PSU New Kensington, PSU McKeesport, PSU Beaver and PSU Fayette yes but if someone put the University Park campus that needs to be left off) you all are missing something according to the Federal Govt. Pittsburgh is a 7 county metro, that would include Washington & Jefferson, Cal, Slippery Rock, St. Vincent et. al. Neilsen defines Pittsburgh in media terms as even larger (11 county I believe and into W.V.) and the local govt. organizations have an even larger. Another quick question, we should really STOP THOSE W&J, CAL and SLIPPERY ROCK kids from using the Pittsburgh International Airport, watching KDKA, and being counted in the census and nielsens, I mean they aren't in Pittsburgh . . . says us, says the feds, media, and others with PhDs those students would be in Pittsburgh. Hholt01 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh is not a 7 county metro. If it were then cencus data on Washington and Canonsburgh and any other cities in the 7 counties would not be avaliable. 7 counties may be the Pittsburgh REGION, but not the city. The City of Pittsburgh is only Downtown, Oakland, North Side, South Side, Shady side, and a couple other neighborhoods. City proper is only downtown, but city limits include many other neighborhoods, but is NOT 7 counties. No city spans multiple counties. I would like the link to this page where you found the "7 counties" definition. Even if, for some reason, they were defiening the city as 7 counties, I think it shoudl be disregarded because that is misleading to readers. A college 30 minutes from the city should not be listed as being in the city. I think, however, that the cencus is defining a region and not the city. If this were true, then wouldn't that make Pittsburgh larger than Philly?--Jimktrains 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Poor Man's San Francisco" v "East Coast's San Francisco"

I searched the above terms on Google, in quotation marks, and came up with the following results: "poor man's San Francisco" = 577 hits counted (54 actual), "East Cast's San Francisco" = 67 hits counted (13 actual). Further, the search of "East Coast's San Francisco" turns up references to Provincetown, MA, Norfolk and Asbury Park, NJ as well. Most of the Pittsburgh references in the search are just mirrors of the wikipedia listing.

Having lived in both Pittsburgh and San Francisco, I've heard the term "poor man's San Francisco" used in both places. I've never heard Pittsburgh described as the "East Coast's San Francisco." I don't prefer "poor man's" to "East Coast's" for any derogatory reason. I simply think it is a much more common reference. Also, while it is in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh isn't anywhere near the east coast.

Both phrases have been placed and reverted in the "Geography and climate" section. I don't want to start a revision war. Does anyone have any comments?

My comment is, really, who cares? I think it should be stricken altogether. We're talking about Pittsburgh, not San Francisco. I recognize that some people may refer to Pittsburgh in that manner, but I've lived in Pittsburgh for six years and have never heard anyone use either term to describe the city. Let's identify Pittsburgh for what it is, not what we hope it to be. ClarkBHM 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. (First commenter)

Famous Pittsburghers

This list is getting rather long. How famous are some of these people anyway? I propose that we make a list of "People from Pittsburgh" or something like it, send the list over there, and retain the top ten or so most famous Pittsburghers. Comments? ClarkBHM 12:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is quite long but from what I have seen other regional lists like this are also quite long, you might be opening up a pandora's box by listing only the "most famous", opinions could differ wildly on that. I vote to just let it grow as long as possible while only clipping off some of the local very-not-famous self promoters.

To answer the "I just wanted a quick reference" folks I started a long time ago a catagorical listing of some of the more globally famous ones as a link . . . I think that is the fairest answer, one alphabetical one catagorical that is a bit more exclusive. My views on the regional inclusions are well documented above so I don't think we should exclude ones outside the 55.5 or Allegheny County, many from Westmoreland and Beaver and even Wheeling have given back big to downtown Pittsburgh. Interested on hearing views on this.Hholt01 02:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I decided to be bold and remove the list from the article. There is now a redirect to List of famous people from Pittsburgh. ClarkBHM 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Portal or Wikiproject

Since the Pittsburgh article is maturing rapidly and many different views on what "Pittsburgh" means are taking hold (ex: "Pittsburgh" vs. "Pittsburgh Region") why not create a Pittsburgh Portal similar to the NYC Portal or a wikiproject Pittsburgh. Interested in hearing opinions on this. Hholt01 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say go for it, though i would start with the project before the portal. On the other name, i ran a couple of other ideas threw google, and here is what i have:

• Pittsburgh Region - 222,000
• Greater Pittsburgh - 777,000
• Metro Pittsburgh - 23,000
• Metropolitian Pittsburgh - 32,700
• Southwestern Pennsylvania - 855,000

Either way it needs to be defined what the region is comprised of. FYI the officaly defention if the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area (per the Office of Budget Managment) is the counties of Beaver, Butler, Armstrong, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, and Alleghany. Morgantown, Wheeling, Youngstown, Johnstown, and Altoona, are all considered seperate Metro areas. The Pittsburgh DMA (media market) is (PA)Beaver, Butler, Armstrong, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, Alleghany, Lawrence, Venango, Clarion, Indiana, Greene, (WV)Preston, Monongalia, (MD) Garrett. The upper panhandle of WV including Wheeling are in the Wheeling-Steubenvill DMA, Youngstown is in the Youngstown DMA, and Johnstown and Altoona, are in the Johnstown-Altoona DMA. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a wikiproject would be useful, but I'd recommend one for the entire state of Pennsylvania instead of just Pittsburgh. We can then coordinate our efforts with others who are interested in the state.

As far as the different ideas for the name, I liked Pittsburgh Region because I felt that it adequately defined the area. Neither Metro nor Metropolitan Pittsburgh conotates the broadness of the area that we are trying to describe; in fact, I think that they both would best describe what we're trying to achieve for the main Pittsburgh article. Greater Pittsburgh is also somewhat ambiguous. Is there a lesser Pittsburgh? I think Southwestern Pennsylvania would also be appropriate although there has already been some discussion against it and I feel that it would not necessarily be as understandable to those outside of the region (especially if you are considering Morgantown and Steubenville as they are, by definition, not included in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

Thus, here is my vote:

1. Pittsburgh Region
2. Greater Pittsburgh
3. Southwestern Pennsylvania
4. Metro and/or Metropolitan Pittsburgh

ClarkBHM 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Boothy, very good data, as you might know I am very aware of it, the DMA is somewhat misleading since though seperate Wheeling/Stuebenville/ELiverpool are dependent on Pittsburgh for 2 National Network feeds and 1 of JTowns is a Pittsburgh simulcast if my memory serves. DMA and Census (OMB) are very legit bounds for a regional article, though not the only ones, ArmyCorp (for a region dominated commercially and recreationally by rivers, locks and dams), FAA, Fed, et. al. should also go into the formula, I do agree that best case we have an iron clad definition of a Pittsburgh region though I doubt we will ever get a consensus on personal views as well as wether the Fed, ArmyCorps, DMA, Census or local SPC are more legit then the other. A loose definition that combines all might be the solution.Hholt01 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clark and Boothy, Southwestern Pennsylvania would NOT be an acceptable term to replace the "regional" slant of the city article. I have no problem with a Pennsylvania section that celebrates everything that makes the commonwealth a great place, however Wheeling and Fairmont, E. Liverpool and Youngstown have much much more to do with Pittsburgh International Airport, network feeds, federal court proceedings, regional business, sports media networks from downtown etc. etc. then do Harrisburg or Scranton. Berks county for instance identifies more with Metro New York City then it ever would the Pirates, Steelers or KDKA. St. Mary's gets medevacd to Buffalo, not Allegheny General. Even thou those cities would share a Pennsylvania group with the Pittsburgh article it does not truly represent real life in that many from WV and Ohio do get taken to Pittsburgh hospitals, do identify more with Pittsburgh and fly out of PIT. Something some Pennsylvanias would never really consider. I would have to come down on a Pittsburgh Tri-State type of description which Google says there is 500 or so hits (or was it 400). Pittsburgh Region or the like would be fair as well, as long as the city article referenced any catagorical overlap for each section. Interested in hearing opinions on this. Hholt01 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to see if we had a consensus that we should have something to describe the Pittsburgh area. The name of whatever it is can always be changed later. Shall we proceed?ClarkBHM 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I seem to be the only voice representing the alternate view I'll say go for it with the condition that there is a ease to transitioning from the city page topics to the regional page topics AND it is a tri-state region in rough terms. Clark I do have to ask again though will the regional page be vaugely defined (you could be 100% right to say Wheeling is every bit a part of "Pittsburgh" but at the same time say it has nothing to do with "Pittsburgh", many will disagree with where that line is, I'd suggest roughly a 2 hour (by car) radius around the city give or take and leave the exact line undefined (one standard also won't fit, DMA, Census, ArmyCorps, etc. etc. all define "Pittsburgh" much differently and all are correct). Hholt01 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh one other thing some catagories off the page I would think should be kept on a regional basis, Jeff Goldblum and Michael Keaton are NOT Pittsburghers, but they grew up with the skyline in their backyards practically, so to divide them into a group with people like George Brett, and Don Knotts is a bit counterproductive. To say everyone from AC is a "Pittsburgher" is almost as silly, Jenna Morasca is as much in AC as Christina Augliera is, but technically they aren't. Some groups might be better left as is off the main Pittsburgh page. :) Hholt01 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to create a portal on the city. I read some of your comments on the region, I think the portal should be on all of the city, but towns like Bridgeville,_Pennsylvania and Canonsburg would not be inlcuded. Communities like Oakland, Shadyside, uptown, and Downtown should. I would be more than willing work on the portal. I don't know what the procedure is for community consent on the creation of a portal. I guess I'll start working on it in a day or so (to see if there is anyone who doens't like the idea).

Wild Thing

Should the wild things be listed as a Pittsburgh sports team. They are headquartered in Washington,_Pennsylvania. Should college teams be listed?--Jimktrains 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimktrains, I think we are into the same catch 22 as with the "Pittsburgh" schools outside of Pittsburgh. Falconi Field is the home to the Pittsburgh soccer team but the Washington baseball team, if you are going to include the Hounds you must include the Wildthings, also Rubenstien stadium (sp) is in Beaver County, yet a "Pittsburgh" team plays there. I would have to say there is no logical reason to EXCLUDE the Wildthings given this data.

As far as the university Division I teams, I'd love to include them as well but no other city I have seen has done so, it is strictly paid professional teams that are included. Though I think that the college teams have as much if not more impact in Pittsburgh during their seasons.Hholt01 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Education

PLEASE keep the list of colleges in Pittsburgh a list of colleges IN Pittsburgh. If you are not familar with the area, don't edit this list. Greensburg, Washington, McCandless, and California are NOT in Pittsburgh. Please don't be offended when I enforce this. Also, a Pittsburgh mailing address does not mean that the school is in Pittsburgh. The address extends far (in some place a 20 minute ride away).

Thanks,
Jimktrains 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the endless debate Jimktrains, Pittsburgh being only 55.3 sq. miles (among the most squished cities in the world) yet having one of the worst cases of metro sprawl per person in the last few decades, means that the definitions of "Pittsburgh" vary very very widely. Pittsburgh is very simple to define, "Pittsburgh" is not.

If we are to enforce this right, Robert Morris and the Pittsburgh Air academies (actual names escape me) have got to be removed as well. Alas our dilemma, for RMU and "Pittsburgh" Aeronautical Institute are as much in "Pittsburgh" as the Lincoln Place, East Carnegie, Regent Square or New Homestead neighborhoods are. In fact many would be of the opinion that the Pittsburgh Steelers training site of St. Vincent College is as much Pittsburgh as Duquesne University. The Census believes that (who would I be to argue with them lol). Nielsen for TV and Radio actually lumps West Virginia University in with University of Pittsburgh and Point Park University as all being in "Pittsburgh".

To make a long story short I used the most compacted definition of "Pittsburgh" (the census one) and split the list, if you notice you never changed the title back it still reads ". . . and Pittsburgh area Universities/Colleges". I agree there must be a distinction made between the city limit line and ones in "Pittsburgh" but both should be mentioned to some degree, RMU and the "Pittsburgh Aeronautical" students might be upset to learn they are being changed to the West Mifflin Aero Institute etc. Interested in finding some common ground on this matter, but if you read the history above much debate has passed on this already.Hholt01 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Jimktrains that some of the colleges locations were pushing it a bit (Slippery Rock and California), I trend to agree with Hholt01 that it probably makes more sense to go by MSA definitions given the relatively small size of the city limits and the fact that most residents of surrounding suburbs consider themselves to be "Pittsburghers" (at least from my experience). Perhaps a compromise would be to have subheadings for schools based in the city limits followed by schools based in the metro area. [Here's an article about the growth of the Metro area definition http://www.spcregion.org/about_press_grow.shtml] OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Greater Pittsburgh is a better term. That includes all the annexed land that is Pittsburgh. We could possibly use the Pittsburgh City School limits to define Pittsburgh? The MSA definition is too large (7 counties) to accuratly represent Pittsburgh. There are so many places in 7 Counties that do not call themselfves Pittsburghers. I am not a Pittsburgher, I am from Canonsburg, in Washington County (my page referes to living there bc I go to school there). Pittsburgh should be defined as city proper and all annexed neighborhoods. Isn't there a definition used by the IRS? Who pays Pittsburgh taxes? Who is represented on the City council? I think the last is the most relevant to how to deine Pittsburgh. (btw, RMU has a school in Downtown:-p)--Jimktrains 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cloudiest

As far as the 3rd or 7th or top 10 cloudy cities, I could see describing this in a weather subsection (off the main page) but I don't see the relevance of it as a climate topic. Most weather stats only list, avg. high, avg. low, avg. precipitation, Pittsburgh though for sure in the top 10 on cloudy days per year is not as rainy as many other cities (last I checked we were in the top 25 or so). A precipitation rank might be more relevant. I just don't see the point it letting people know that we have lots of clouds, true we can't devolve into an advertisement for the city but we shouldn't be helping any would-be detractors either. That is why I removed the whole sentence. It would be similar to stating that the Steelers were the 7th best team in 1989! And this matters because? Just my two cents interested in the other opinion, I would vote to take it off, we aren't a contender for #1 (not top 3) and it is a very ambiguous, non-major, weather stat (Pittsburgh is #9 for days with snow/rain mix etc.) To include it in a climate sub page would be more then appropriate but it doesn't strike me as a summary stat for the climate.Hholt01 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburg

Should there be a mention of the late 19th century name change to 'Pittsburg' somewhere in here or in the 'History of...' section? I really don't have a good idea where to plug it in (even as an almost throwaway comment) but thought it should be mentioned in some context.Exoterrick 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thats kind incorrect, i think. I have allways been told that pittsuburgh had allways used the spelling with the H, and the the goverment, wanted to changed it to without or something. Depending on how it was used, if the non H was used by the city officaly then in the article, if not, then in the hisroty, but it needs to be sourced out, to get the reason correct. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Exoterrick is right. There was a period w/o an H. Pennsylvainia station was build in that period, and has a stone enscribed "Pittsburg." I'll look up some stuff and try to work it into the history section.--Jimktrains 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, This page claims the period with no "H" ran from 1890-1911. It may not suffice as proof alone, but it may help? -- --Dsteckelberg 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Dsteckelberg

It was a bit of both, the Feds normalized all 'burgs in the country to drop any h or ough in the 1880s or 1890s. The official federal spelling was "Pittsburg" another source of this is the 1909 Pirates World Series posters, banners, pennants with "Pittsburg" on them. Many, many, many in the city shunned this and continued spelling things "Pittsburgh". In the early 1900's Senator Oliver (whom Oliver Avenue and the Oliver Building downtown are named for) got a waiver from the Feds to allow Pittsburg to add back the H in every official way. Strangely enough, it is those that complied with the feds and didn't fight back by keeping the "h" that lend historians the most help in dating undated documents and archives since any complied document without the h narrows the dates that it could have been done. Some institutions though never ever changed the way they spelled their hometown, feds be damned. Hholt01 05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)