Talk:Steeler Nation

Comment

"A semi-humorous 2008 article for ESPN.com" how the shit is that semi-humorous. that should be removed. this seems like quite the anti-steelers page, nice job fans of other teams. steelers will always be #1.

There should be some discussion about the downturn of Pittsburgh in the 70s when the Steelers were at their best. Because the city was falling under hard economic times, people were forced to move out. But the Steelers continued to be amazing so they stayed fans, no matter where they live. That's why when the Steelers have an away game, there are always a large number of terrible towels in the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.98.159 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Towel was waved at the gold medal match for Women's beach volleyball at the 2008 Olympic Games[9], surprising even the Steelers themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.233.1 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

I am having trouble understand how "under criticism" they are allowing citation that is nothing but letters to the editor to be considered a reputable source or how they are allowing blatant attack articles to be used without clarification as to the intent or content of the article. It should be strongly noted that the articles have no scientific basis and are clearly written to incite their own fan base to action. The statement is written as if it is a fact that the Steelers Nation is unruly when all they are basing the statement on are opinion pieces without any validation that the statements are fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.213.96 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this article was hit by people who really don't like the Steelers. "A tongue-in-cheek article for ESPN.com ranked Steelers fans as the best in the NFL, citing their "unbelievable" sellout streak of 299 consecutive games." I read the articles that supposedly cite this, and there's no way it's tongue in cheek. This is pretty ridiculous, and I'll be putting some work into this article if I get the time. --66.206.186.102 (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Providing you give your reasons, and add your own references, edits that improve the article will be welcomed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that people are allowed to edit the article regardless of which team they root for, as long as they keep their edits NPOV and verifiable. The repeated complaints about editors who "don't like the Steelers" editing this article suggest to me a belief that an article about Steelers fans should exhibit a pro-Steelers bias, which is as misguided as saying you can't edit the Sarah Palin article unless you voted for her. NPOV articles regularly include criticism, and if you know anything about professional football, you know that such criticism can be over the top when it's about an NFL fan base.

As for the ESPN article, here are some examples of its tongue-in-cheekiness:

• "When all was said and done, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers ended up tied for first. But much like the International Gymnastics Federation, we came up with an elaborate tiebreaking process in which Hall of Fame writer John Clayton of ESPN was called upon to keep things above board. Clayton, who grew up in the East Braddock section of Pittsburgh, picked the Steelers, which seems totally fair."

• "A team of eight esteemed bloggers was asked to rank fans over the past five seasons using scientific criteria such as 'Tailgate factor' and 'How well do they travel?'"

• Here are some of the "scientific" criteria used by ESPN judges: "Stadium factor," "Live and die factor," "Fans take loss hard," "Traveling road show factor," "Big presence in other guys' stadium," "Loyalty when team sucks," "Hate factor," "Tailgate factor," "Home fans' creativity."

On top of all this, editors probably should keep in mind that if they have a problem with the tone of the content, Wikipedia is better served by adjusting the tone than deleting entire sections of an article. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits here over the past few days, so I will chime in. I'll concede your point on the ESPN article, but I maintain that the "Criticism" section reeks of bias and unfounded attacks. Using an editorial written in an Arizona publication on the eve of Superbowl would hardly be considered an accurate or appropriate source. I will endeavor to "adjust the tone" as you suggest, rather than remove this section outright. 71.60.106.168 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with your assessment of the New Times article. First, the fact that it was published just before the Super Bowl is irrelevant. I'm sure you wouldn't support deleting any content from the Steelers or Super Bowl XLIII pages that had citations from media outlets in the Pittsburgh market, and you'd be right not to. The whole point of requiring reliable sources is that even when there's an issue that has opposing viewpoints, these sources can be trusted to present the impartially.

And although the tone of the article is different from that of the Associated Press, it does present the perspective of someone who was being paid to make a professional assessment of Steeler Nation in relation to the fans of the Arizona Cardinals. Before your changes, the article discussed that a stereotype was being perpetuated nationwide, and that the assessments listed in the article were the opinions of these critics, not a scientific fact or the result of a survey conducted by professional pollsters. This is not outside the scope of Wikipedia: e.g., Stereotypes of African Americans, Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans, LGBT stereotypes, Stereotypes of Native Americans, Stereotypes of Jews, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.

I intend to replace the material you've removed, but I appreciate what appears to be a good faith effort to get this right, so I'm willing to wait a day to hear your thoughts.

—Bdb484 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A few things to note:

First, I'd say that the statistic about Pittsburgh fans not attending games is not entirely correct. While it is true that attendance at Heinz field is lower than the league median (though I personally would not use "well" below, as the fluctuation statistic presented in the study puts the number within the standard deviation of the mean), this is probably due to the fact that the stadium itself is one of the smallest in all of the NFL, as can be seen here. (Three Rivers Stadium was even smaller, which is important given that the study compiled attendance records from 1997-2006). Furthermore, if you look at the Percent of Capacity statistic reported in the study, Pittsburgh actually has a higher than median percentage (not statistically significant I'll grant you, but larger nonetheless). So to say that the reason for the low ranking is due to low attendance is a bit misleading, I think.

Ultimately too, trying to rank something like fan support is extremely difficult (and in many ways subjective), and can vary quite a bit depending on the parameters used. There are numerous sites out there that attempt to do this, with widely varying conclusions, so I believe it would be appropriate to either include more examples, or eliminate this altogether. (I've found at least one other study, and will attempt to find more).

Finally, I'd say that the current revision of the Criticism section strikes a nice compromise between leaving the original content as is and eliminating it completely. I would agree that all fan bases have their detractors, and acknowledging that in the article would be an appropriate thing to do. However, it seems inappropriate to specifically pick out a few key phrases from one or two articles, and then say that the opinions of these authors constitute some sort of widespread stereotype. (Additionally...I could be wrong, but it seems bad form to specifically cite individual words from the same articles over and over again.) Further, I'd agree that the fact that these articles were written close to important games does not, in of itself discount their ability to be cited...but I would counter that it does put them into some type of special context, and I'd guess that these same authors would have equally choice things to say, many of which would be the same, about other teams in this situation.

-AstroBjorn (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

It seems that some of the critisism section has been removed, but a few things I would like to see concerning the remaining info: One, which article used as a reference includes a reference to "Appalachia"? This seems to have no relation to the Steelers, and judging by the map on that article Pittsburgh is far from the "heart" of it. Two, I think that the critisims should be better attributed. An opinion article which has multiple untruths and is extremely POV should be attributed to having been written by a writer from Baltimore and not presented in the way it currently is which makes it seem, as was stated above, like a widely held opnion. Third, what is "less-than-commendable behavior" and who sets the standards for it? blackngold29 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AstroBjorn: I appreciate the feedback, and I'll be making some edits to reflect your input. If you want to pass along some of the links to the other rankings of fan bases, I'll try to get them included.

Blackngold29: The Appalachia portion is referenced in the New Times article. As far as your concerns with the Balitmore article, I don't know how the media market is relevant. If the publication is reliable, then it's legit to use. I'll concede that the current wording isn't ideal. My revisions used different phrasing, but were taken out by editors who considered them too mean. I think it would be helpful if you or any other interested editors would be willing to put your recommended phrasing up here so we can find something that works.

—Bdb484 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it is relavent because of Baltiore's football team's rivalry with the Steelers, and obviously an article entitled "Why do we hate Steelers fans?..." would have bias in it. I have no problem with referencing bias information as long as the phrasing in the (WP) article is unbiased. Something like "Writer for the Baltimore Sun Tony Giro cited ..... as reasons Baltimore fans dislike Steelers fans" would work. The "Baltimore fans" should probably be included because that is the titular "we"... he isn't speaking for Bears, Broncos, or Browns fans. blackngold29 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ESPN article

I also agree with the original commenter that there is nothing about the ESPN article that is "tongue-in-cheek". The phrase was removed, but has now been re-added. I would like to see evidence of this or it should be removed. blackngold29 01:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's up above, but here it is again:

As for the ESPN article, here are some examples of its tongue-in-cheekiness:

• "When all was said and done, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers ended up tied for first. But much like the International Gymnastics Federation, we came up with an elaborate tiebreaking process in which Hall of Fame writer John Clayton of ESPN was called upon to keep things above board. Clayton, who grew up in the East Braddock section of Pittsburgh, picked the Steelers, which seems totally fair."

• "A team of eight esteemed bloggers was asked to rank fans over the past five seasons using scientific criteria such as 'Tailgate factor' and 'How well do they travel?'"

• Here are some of the "scientific" criteria used by ESPN judges: "Stadium factor," "Live and die factor," "Fans take loss hard," "Traveling road show factor," "Big presence in other guys' stadium," "Loyalty when team sucks," "Hate factor," "Tailgate factor," "Home fans' creativity."

—Bdb484 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The same article is mentioned in the fanbase section of the Packers article, and I think it is given a much more clear and balanced treatment there.

My main problem with the citation is that it's in the same paragraph as the other citation, which, when I first read it, make me think that the "tongue-in-cheekiness" was with the fan loyalty study in mind. --66.206.186.102 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I still see no "tounge in cheekiness" or "semi-humorous" (both of which are POV) aspects of the article. The Clayton aspect is at ESPN's disgression, they were well aware of his background and allowed him to judge regardless. Likewise the criteria were at ESPN's disgression, what they are and how we view them has nothing to do with who they named the best fanbase. Seriously, I'd love to see more "scientic" criteria when it comes to judging fanbases. I could understand the argument if the article was from Page 2, but it isn't. I think we should say "ESPN named SN the best citing the sellout streak" and allow each person to determine the legitimacy of the study on their own; the link is right there. Obviously there are multiple inturpretations among us and I don't think either one should be imposed on the public. blackngold29 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...that's a good point. Since the authors of that article do have a good background on various aspects of sports culture (at least they are equally qualified as compared to the business writers at Forbes and New Business Journals), I'd say it's fair to put them all on equal footing. You've convinced me, and I'd concede that "semi-humorous" is probably not necessary in this context.

-AstroBjorn (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC).

New Edits

Round 1

Hello again, I've added some updates (but I was on a public machine in my lab and forgot to log in...many apologies).

I've attempted to update the scientific studies fan ranking section of the article to reflect the fact that there is more than one published source of fan rankings (an interesting endeavor to be sure). I am somewhat uncomfortable touting business journal articles as truly scientific studies, but by explicitly naming the sources, and adding in an aside about peer review, I hope this will put the issue in the proper context. Additionally, given the time-varying nature of such studies, I felt dates were an important thing to include.

I did manage to come across some other articles online, e.g., herebut I thought adding more would only serve to clutter up the article. Additionally, I came across this piece which is tangentially related to fan rankings and might warrant inclusion elsewhere, but I thought I'd ask other people where it might go. On the whole though, I think this little gem probably sums up the whole issue of fan ranking quite succinctly!

Also note that, in the interest of fair play, I edited "tongue-in-cheek" to be "semi-humorous". Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word (or indeed, the WP article itself) the true spirit of tongue-in-cheek is meant, I think, to say that the piece of work in question is meant to be a subtle parody of other ranking schemes, which I do not believe is the case here. (I may be getting overly pendantic, but such is my nature...) It is definitely true that there are aspects of the article that are not meant to be taken seriously, as Bdb484 has pointed out. But...I would counter those points, slightly:

Immediately after the paragraph about John Clayton, the article says: "But even without John's gentle nudge, Steelers fans are deserving of the top honor. The decline of the steel industry in the 1970s coincided with the rise of the Steelers dynasty. At a time when the city's collective psyche was taking a major blow, the local football team offered a weekly respite.

A generation of young people left the city to find work elsewhere, but they remained passionate about their hometown team. And that's why your local stadiums are often invaded by a black-and-gold army."

I would take that to mean the author of this piece is at least attempting to offer a serious critique, and not simply being disingenuous.

The "esteemed bloggers" in question are actually paid ESPN sports writers who have been covering various aspects of the NFL for quite some time, so it isn't as if the article simply canvassed random bloggers who happened to be free for the story. Mr. Sando (the author of this article) happens to be one of them, so I believe he was just trying to be "cute".

Finally, some of the "scientific" criteria, which I agree are poorly defined (another case of the author being "cute") do have a basis in human interaction ("live-and-die factor", "hate-factor", "tailgate-factor", etc...) which is actually something humanities and social science researchers tackle quite often. Other criteria ("Stadium factor" and "Loyalty when team sucks" ...which is a terrible, terrible name for a criterion...) address the very issues that the other studies mentioned try to tackle.

While I wouldn't dream of calling Mr. Sando or his colleagues dedicated scientific researchers, I don't particularly see them as any worse that the authors of the other studies either, so again, I think inclusion of this article -- with the caveat -- is appropriate.

Also, one final point, on the issue of Appalachia, it is my understanding that while the people of Western Pennsylvania are technically part of the Appalachian region, they are identified in contemporary culture much more with the Rust Belt. Indeed, "Appalachian" is used more with people in the Blue Ridge and Valley&Ridge regions of The Appalachian mountains, and not as much with those people living northward of them. So I propose that the term used in Criticism be "Rust Belt", which is actually much more appropriate from a football standpoint as well, given that the Rust Belt also includes Cleveland, Cincinnati, and to a lesser extent Baltimore, which could help explain the similarities between these fan bases as well as the animosity between them (in addition to their status as division rivals).

Sorry to take up such a long discussion, but I think these additions and edits will really help the article achieve some sort of balance, and prevent sniping between non-neutral parties.

(Also...from an aesthetic standpoint, are there any good free pictures that can be used to supplement this article? I'll look around the commons...)

- AstroBjorn (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your work on this. I definitely don't want anyone to think that I'm arguing against including the ESPN.com article. I'm only saying that the Bizjournals article deserves equal or more prominent treatment.

As to the Appalachia business, the changes throughout the history of this article have nullified any need for its mention at this point; as the article used to say that the team had gained a reputation for "hillbilly" behavior. As it stands now, the point is moot.

I still strongly prefer previous wordings of the Criticism section. The current version is so watered down as to be essentially meaningless. After things cool off, I'd like to take another stab at it.

—Bdb484 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll throw the changes in here and let you guys tell me what you think:

Bonded by a sports team based in Appalachia, Steelers Nation has occasionally been tagged with a hillbilly stereotype. Professional critics have panned the city's taste in music and food, dubbing the Steelers "White Trash America's Team."

Other criticisms have included inappropriate behavior during games and a poor grasp of the team's history.

I restored the Appalachia reference because it is relevant to the hillbilly stereotype, which seems to be the common thread of anti-Steelers Nation criticism, and I restored the references to poor taste in music and food, because those were cited with references by professional critics of those fields. Meanwhile, the laundry list of complaints has been removed to avoid the appearance of piling on.

I also pulled the mention of other fans' reputations, which are probably better addressed at Raider Nation, Red Sox Nation, Cardinal Nation, Cheesehead, etc.

—Bdb484 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 2

I'd say it's getting closer, but there are still a few things to work out. My guess as to what other posters are uncomfortable about is the fact that this passage, as written, gives the perception that these criticisms are being written by neutral or disinterested parties, when that isn't really the case. I think it's been mentioned, but never really addressed by supporters or detractors, is the fact that the articles cited in this section are two things:

1. Published very close to important football games
2. Written by journalists from the opposing team's city before those important games

Like the ESPN article, I'd say that that information in of itself does not disqualify these articles, but it does have a big impact on what the intent of the publication is. What we are reading here is not supposed to be taken as a genuine critique of the people or the region, but rather serves to ignite the passions of the fan bases close to a big game, similar to things you'd see in a Dallas newspaper the week before a Philadelphia game, or a Chicago newspaper the week before a Green Bay game.

(I'd also point out that one must be especially careful when referencing anything from a New Times Media publication, as it is a member of the Village Voice family, a newspaper that is historically known to address issues in a provocative, and often confrontational tone, solely to attract readership to sell advertisements, since it is a free publication).

Ultimately, I think this is a case where a little context goes a long, long way, and it allows non-experts of American football (like many of the people in my lab) to gain a more accurate perspective of the situation at hand.

And so, in the interest of full disclosure, I'd suggest the following change:

As is common for teams with large and vocal fan bases (see e.g. the Dawg Pound or Raider Nation), Steelers Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams.

The fans have occasionally been, somewhat erroneously, described in terms of a hillbilly stereotype[1][2], due predominantly to the fact that Pittsburgh itself is located on the fringes of Appalachia. During the 2008 NFL playoffs, journalists from Baltimore and Arizona panned the city's taste in music[3] and food[1][4], in the days leading up to important contests between the Steelers and those regions' teams (the Ravens and Cardinals, respectively).

Other generic criticisms have included inappropriate behavior during games[1] and a poor grasp of the team's history.[5] However, it is important to note that fans in other cities often fall victim to similar critiques.[6]

What this does, I think, is keep the unique attributes associated with Steelers fans in tact, but places them in a more complete light, which is ultimately what we are striving for here.

As for the comments about other teams, I actually think that it is appropriate to include a statement as such, as again this type of behavior is not unique to Steelers Nation alone, but is instead simply another instance of a common occurrence throughout the NFL. In fact, given the context of the section, I also thought it would be a good idea to link to similar fan bases with similar critics, and I chose the two teams that, to me, seemed to have fan bases with the most similar attributes. Cross-information is a good thing, and I think this really helps to paint a complete picture.

Finally, I thought the “White Trash America” part was too unique to a single critic, and adding all of the necessary background for it in the text of the article, as per the WP verifiable sources opinion piece section (printing the source, identifying the author,putting the comment in context, etc...) would simply be too much clutter, so I took it out.

If we are ready to go with this, I'd say we should add it to the main page, and hopefully that will quiet the issue.

-AstroBjorn (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

I'd say we're getting pretty close. How about this:

Like other teams with large and vocal fan bases, such as the Dawg Pound or Yankees, Steelers Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams.

As fans of the only NFL team based in Appalachia, they have occasionally been described in terms of a hillbilly stereotype. During the 2008 NFL playoffs, journalists from Baltimore and Arizona panned the city's taste in music and food, in the days leading up to important contests against the Ravens and Cardinals, and one writer dubbed them "White Trash America's Team.

They have also been criticized for inappropriate behavior during games, which is commonplace in the NFL, and a poor grasp of the team's history.

I think the first paragraph is pretty close to what we're looking for. I subbed the Yankees for the Raiders only because I didn't actually see any complaints about the Raiders on their page.

In the second, my main concern is adding "somewhat erroneously." You and I -- and clearly every IP vandal to visit in the last few days -- can probably agree that this is too broad a brush to paint with, but it also violates the NPOV and original research guidelines. I think the language in the first paragraph adds enough of a disclaimer to let the reader draw that conclusion on his own. Is adding "one writer dubbed them" enough to leave the "White Trash America" reference intact?

I'd also suggest using "in Appalachia" instead of either "the heart of Appalachia" or "the fringes of Appalachia." I think it strikes a balance that's much less likely to be disputed by Steelers fans or haters.

I'll try to get a citation for "commonplace in the NFL."

What do you think?

—Bdb484 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 3

Quite right on the Raiders article, a good substitutuion, as well.

In regards to Appalachia, I would suggest (to be very specific) Northern Appalachia, as is described here. Additionally, if you scroll to the bottom of that article, the "Outside perspectives and stereotypes", you'll see that, while there may be a perception of homogeneity, most academics disagree that the stereotype is being applied completely correctly in this case, hence the "somewhat erroneously", which is what I was trying to get at (albeit in a roundabout fashion). From an efficiency standpoint, perhaps hotlinking "somewhat-erroneously" to that subsection would serve that purpose, eliminating the non-NPOV bias.

I think the perfect citation for fan unruliness can be found | here

And as for the "White Trash" issue, I still believe the article is better served by removing it. I think a reasonable, unbiased reader can get a good sense of any true criticism without it, and I'd guess that many observers might get the impression that it is merely a "dig" that only serves an inflammatory purpose. (Indeed, that's what the author of the piece was intending, no doubt.) From a purely practical standpoint too, I'd say removing the term would help to allay the threat of vandalism, as its inclusion would only likely serve to throw additional fuel on the fire, so to speak.

Would that be acceptable?

-AstroBjorn (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

I think we're not going to get anywhere on the "White Trash America" bit right now, so let's set it aside and see what else we can get some consensus on for now.

The unruliness citation is exactly what we're looking for, so I think we're good there.

The last thing remaining, as far as I can tell, is the "stereotype" business. I'd note that I'm not arguing that the hillbilly stereotype is correct when applied to Appalachian peoples or to Steelers fans; I'm simply saying that the stereotype, as it exists, has been applied to Steelers fans. I agree that the stereotype is inaccurate, but I think the NPOV problem comes in when you say that the stereotype doesn't apply to a different group of people. Saying Steelers fans have been "stereotyped as hillbillies" instead of "classified as hillbillies" already connotes the error in the characterization, which "represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment." I don't see how qualifying the characterization does anything more than clutter the article. Is there room for movement on this on your side?

—Bdb484 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble understand how "under criticism" they are allowing citation that is nothing but letters to the editor to be considered a reputable source or how they are allowing blatant attack articles to be used without clarification as to the intent or content of the article. It should be strongly noted that the articles have no scientific basis and are clearly written to incite their own fan base to action. The statement is written as if it is a fact that the Steeler Nation is unruly when all they are basing the statement on are opinion pieces which make it seem as if they are a validation that the statements are fact. Such criticism coming from fans of other teams have no validation in this article whereas there are national articles about the unruly fans of other teams/sports. I think it only serves as 'smack talk' to allow this to remain on the page—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.213.96 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 130.101.213.96. This is nothing more from letters from random people, just because they are published in the paper doesn't make them reliable.

blackngold29 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section that is currently live is not the one that is likely to be there long. After some back-and-forth, I think this is the version we're currently planning on:

Like other teams with large and vocal fan bases, such as the Dawg Pound or Yankees, Steelers Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams.

As fans of the only NFL team based in Appalachia, they have occasionally been described in terms of a hillbilly stereotype. In the days leading up to 2008 playoff games against the Ravens and Cardinals, journalists from Baltimore and Arizona panned the city's taste in music and food.

Steelers fans have also been criticized for inappropriate behavior during games — a common problem in the NFL — and a poor grasp of their team's history.

I think that addresses the concerns you guys expressed about "attack pieces" by clarifying that they are were published in opposing media markets in the run-up to big games. I can also add additional citations by national publications as well for some balance. As for the Dispatch piece, it is a collection of letters to the editor, but the part that is being used for the citation is actually from the editor himself: "Tim: I'm not a hater, but I do think part of the animosity toward the Steelers is based in the fact that many fans act as if the team got its start right around Super Bowl IX, conveniently forgetting 40-plus years of abject ineptitude. That is to say, they haven't always gotten it right."

I'm hoping that this version is something people can agree on. Your thoughts?

AstroBjorn: As the article currently features a criticism section that is still causing problems, I hope you won't mind if I go live with the current draft. I'm taking out "White Trash America" to keep you happy and leaving the "stereotype" section as is to keep me happy. I'd still like to get your response to my earlier posts, if you're interested.

—Bdb484 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 4

The new draft is live. With any luck, that will quell the controversy until we get everything ironed out.

—Bdb484 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the criticism portion is still a hatchet job....the portion that says the Steelers fans have a poor understanding of their history is from letters to the editor by readers of the Columbus Dispatch and hardly rises to the level of review that makes it a credible source. The same goes with the one or two unattributed sources among the many quotes in the NFL fan review a vast majority of the quotes in the article are positive towards the Steelers and their fans and yet they are absent from any mention. The criticisms leveled against the Browns fans was based on a several factual events that occured at Browns Stadium and the same goes with the events surrounding the criticism of the Yankees fans. There are no specific instances by Steelers fans that can be cited in credible sources. If the goal is to slam the Steelers fans and attack them, then this section serves its purpose. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate and intelligent information then it is best that this entire section be eliminated. There is also the implied slam of even bringing up Appalachia. It is best that this section be deleted all together.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.213.195 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The concern about the Dispatch article has already been addressed for you, but I'll say it again. The portion of the article that says Steelers fans have a poor grasp of their team's history is not not not not not not not a letter to the editor. It's written by the sports editor of the Columbus Dispatch. Specifically, the quote being cited is: "Many fans act as if the team got its start right around Super Bowl IX, conveniently forgetting 40-plus years of abject ineptitude. That is to say, they haven't always gotten it right." If you read carefully, you'll see that the article is a back-and-forth between readers and the editor, and that quote was written by the editor.

It sounds like you want to take out the criticism because you think it isn't true, but we aren't here to say whether the criticism is true or not. We're here to say whether the criticism exists in reliable sources. It does, and that's why it has been included.

For every argument you have about the Criticism section, I'd be happy to turn around and make the same argument about the balance of the article, which generally takes a fawning, uncritical look at Pittsburgh, the Steelers and their fans. Furthermore, there's hardly a reference to speak of in the remainder of the article, so I find it especially hypocritical when Steelers fans complain that the criticism section is too biased or that its sources aren't up to standard.

While I appreciate you taking part in the discussion, I think it would be helpful if instead of asking that the section be deleted -- which amounts to asking Wikipedia to pretend no one has ever criticized Steelers Nation -- you instead offer up an alternative for what should go under that heading, including citations.

For the record, I don't think it's appropriate to say that tying something to Appalachia is a slam. I have plenty of friends who were born and raised there, and they're a lot classier than plenty of Pittsburgh fans, such as those who've been vandalising this article.

—Bdb484 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into a Steelers fans vs. others argument here so I'll point out a few issues that should be cited or removed. Likewise if there is anything that is too "uncritical" please feel free to bring it up here or remove it. The following are in reference to this version of the article.

1. "...behind all three of its division rivals in the AFC North." is WP:OR.
2. "semi-humorous" is unsourced and POV concerning the ESPN article and it is NOT a direct quote.
3. "It should be noted however, that none of these studies have been subject to peer review." Unsourced, Why should this be noted, and how do we know that they haven't been?
4. "Like other teams with large and vocal fan bases, such as the Dawg Pound or Yankees, Steeler Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams." Unsourced, why specifically reference those two fanbases?
5. "occasionally been described" The word "occasionally" is POV.

blackngold29 02:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid personal attacks and failing to assume bad faith, but I'm honestly having trouble telling whether you're being serious. On one hand, I'd agree with you about points 2 and 3, and point 4 is a reasonable question, but 1 and 5 don't seem like they can be real.

• Point 1: The Browns were first in the survey. The Ravens were ninth. The Bengals were 20th. The Steelers were 21st. The page is linked; the chart is there for everyone to look at. I have no idea what you're talking about.
• Point 5: The word "occasionally" is pretty straightforward. They aren't always cast as hillbillies, but they have been more than once. Adverbs aren't per se POV.
• Point 4: The sentence itself is unsourced, but the following sentences go into the specifics and provide the citations. I don't think that every clause of every sentence requires a citation. The teams that were cited were chosen because they had linkable articles that could provide greater context and demonstrate that these criticisms are not unique to Steelers.

If points 1 and 5 aren't just attempts to bog this discussion down, I think that one of us has a serious misunderstanding of the NPOV and OR policies.

—Bdb484 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Hi everyone,

I've really been thinking over this article a lot in the past few days (much more than I should be, probably) and I'm honestly starting to feel somewhat uncomfortable about it. I admit when I first passed by this page, I didn't take a good look at the articles being cited, and tried to incorporate the in-article text in a way that would be acceptable to both sides. But I have now taken a closer look, and I think there are several things that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, and I know I've mentioned this before, I'm not really of the mind that a New Times article is a proper reference to cite. Previously, this has been more of a gut reaction that anything else, but now I think there may be more of a precedent set for exclusion. One of the common themes for keeping these sources in the article has been that they are reliable sources because they have been published by third parties. In many cases this is true, but Wikipedia is very clear as to when it is not. In particular, I note the policy on Questionable Sources. Specifically, it says that websites and sources that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions are considered questionable, and subject to different rules. The Phoenix New Times is classified as an Alternative Newspaper. This type of paper “eschews comprehensive coverage of general news in favor of opinionated reviews and columns, investigations into edgy topics and magazine-style feature stories highlighting local people and culture”. I think we can all agree that that would describe the types of articles that exist in the New Times, which must then place this publication into the questionable column.

The policy continues to say that this type of article may only be used as a source on itself. If we were writing an article on the content of the New Times , or even the works of the author (Martin Cizmar), these would be allowable sources. As it stands however, we are not, and I strongly feel that they should be eschewed for others.

Additionally, I feel it is important to point out that Mr. Cizmar is a fan of the Cleveland Browns [1], a division rival of Pittsburgh. This now attributes all of the critical articles (save one, which I also must address) as coming from sources that have some tie to a division rival (both the Browns and Ravens). As written, I would contend that our article implies that criticism leveled against Steelers Nation can come from a wide variety of sources, and here are some examples.......In reality however, all of the evidence points to this type of critique originating from a scant few highly motivated locations. Indeed, I've attempted to find evidence of similar “bashing” as it was put, from other cities, but could find none (the team, yes...the Pittsburgh area, possibly...but the fans specifically...no.) Since this now seems to be more a case of spillover from a Sports Rivalry, rather than a wide-spread critique, I feel that the scope of the section has changed, and it would be more appropriate to title it as “Rivalries with other Fan Bases” or something to that effect.

Moving on, I noticed that two of the citations, Mr. Cizmar's article on music and Mr. Harter's article on food, were not linkable from our Wikipedia page. I managed to track them down through a Google search, and discovered that they were, in fact, blogs. This is another point where Wikipedia is very clear. In Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, blogs are only considered reliable if written by well-known professional researchers or journalists, which I do not believe either of these gentlemen are. They may very well be known in their local communities, but not to the general populace as a whole, which disqualifies them as reliable sources.

Next, in regards to the back-and-forth on the subject of the letter to the editor page, why not simply put in the whole quote on the page? That would give readers the chance to see the critique directly, and make it easier to understand what exactly is being referenced on the page. Also, to be absolutely correct, I would call this an “uneven” grasp of history, rather than a “poor” one.

As for the article from Baltimore, this too needs some additional context. At the beginning of the article, the author writes “Sure, I have a ton of respect for a town with a rich sports history and die-hard fans, but this is Ravens-Steelers week and The Examiner doesn't pay me a penny a word to make nice.”, and ends on a discussion about beer with “Settle down, Pittsburghers! Natty Boh is brewed the same way.” From this, one can see that yes, criticisms are being leveled, but the author himself admits that he's not being entirely genuine, and writing more so to simply get a reaction from opposing fan bases, rather than to make a constructive critique. If ever there were a place for the tongue-in-cheek characterization to apply, this may very well be it. If nothing else, it at least it lends credence to the idea of retitling this section “Rivalries with Other Fan Bases”.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it was not my intention for the article on Fan Value Experience to be used solely in a negative light. As another poster commented, there are many points of reference, good and bad, in that article and I'd like to see it included in other ways, as well.

Whew...well, that's quite a lot to process no doubt, but again I think these are all serious points that we need to consider. I'm of the mind that this article is coming together, but for the sake of Wikipedia standards it should be done right. I'd appreciate comments from all interested parties, and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

-AstroBjorn (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

Well said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.213.90 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It turns out I never posted my comments on this. Sorry.

I don't agree with your assessment of the included sources. The New Times is, of course, an alt-weekly, but I think that lumping it in with the materials referred to in Questionable sources is a mistake. The definition of a questionable source is one "with a poor reputation for fact-checking." I don't think the Phoenix New Times meets that criteria.

Blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources because they are self-published. This is not the case in our situation, as the blogs are published by the papers employing the reporters, not by the writers themselves. This exception is addressed here.

As for the sports loyalties of the writers, I'm not really sure they're that pertinent. You're more likely to have thoughts about an NFL fan base if you're a fan of a rival team. The fact that you have competing loyalties does not discount the fact that you're a professional journalist. The whole point of requiring reliable sources is that sometimes, the content of articles is going to be in dispute, and so we leave it to someone other than Wikipedia editors to decide what goes in and what doesn't. I think a fair analogy would be arguing that you need disclaimers on citations from Jewish reporters who cover the Israel-Palestine conflict.

—Bdb484 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the latest addition to the 'criticism' portion, a person has added a assertion that it is because of 'behavior of Steelers fans' that owners of other franchises have sought to exclude Steelers fans from attending the games. They are trying to draw an inference between the paragraph that alleges misconduct of Steelers fans to the desire by owners to have Steelers fans buy extra game tickets. There is no indication in the article or any other source that it is bad actions of Steelers fans that has caused the owners to implement these policies. Logic would say that if the 'behaviour' of the fans is a concern, then the owners wouldnt seek to have the Steelers fan purchase EXTRA tickets..rather they would seek to bar the fans from attending at all. This portion is vague and very misleading. The behavior that Mr. Rooney speaks of in the actual article is the fact that owners of other teams are upset because of the large number of Steelers fans who attend road games....not any misconduct that is posted in the earlier portion of the 'criticisms". I have been following the editing process and it appears that this section is increasingly becoming a source of misleading smack talk by fans of other teams. This is a strong concern for the overall credibility of the piece. No where in the article used as a source does it say anything about the 'behavior' of Steelers fans. Since there is no link established for that footnote...here is one for review [2] As well as the link to another article which explains in better detail why teams do this [3] Note that the reason cited is "to see their favorite team"...saying the reason also was to "take advantage of them (steelers fans) by making them purchase additional tickets"

Thanks for the links. I'll add them and try to make the article reflect their content more closely. —Bdb484 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read your edits...I am not sure it is "anti-steelers nation" more as an effort by owners to take advantage of the fact that Steelers fans do travel by making them purchase additional tickets and their desire to not have the games appear to be Steelers home games. note that it is referred to by Ed Bouchette in his article. Akronelvis (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bouchette article doesn't say whether the other teams were trying to keep Steelers fans out or just trying to take advantage of them. It lists both as possibilities. The Tribune-Review article, however, asserts that the problem is with discrimination against Steelers fans. P.S.: Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). —Bdb484 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References

bizjournals.com Study

Something felt wrong about this study, and I finally put a finger on it. When Steelers Nation gets attention from the media, it's not because of the ability of the Steelers to pack their own stadium. It's because of the multitude of Steelers bars in every major city, because of the Terrible Towel in ridiculous locations, because of the thousands of fans that turn up in other peoples' stadia, and because of the fact that people kept their affiliation with the Steelers after leaving Pittsburgh in the 80s.

I'm okay with the study being on the site. Really, I'm okay with an objective approach here. But before the article was just edited, a study marginalized the obvious prevalence of Steelers Nation, did so using criteria that had nothing to do with the reasons why Steelers Nation is so prominent, and the study was cited right at the top of the article, as though it somehow disproved that prominence. Does that make sense?

These are more gut reactions than cited sources, which is why I'm in the talk page and not editing the article. But I just want to start the conversation! --66.206.186.102 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of POTUS

Isn't he a bigger Bears fan anyways? --Tom (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he said his second-favorite team is the Steelers. I could go either way on the picture, but he is holding a Steelers jersey. It will need a source if re-added. blackngold29 13:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it really make if Obama's not the most rabid member of "Steelers Nation". It's a great, free image of the POTUS holding up a Steelers jersey. And I believe that he's stated that the Steelers are his second favorite team after his hometown Bears (and what politician is ever going to go away from his hometown team), but that's really secondary for me. Do you really feel this article is improved by the removal of this image?

Also, what type of source would be needed for a photo such as this? The caption made no claim beyond simply describing the photo. This article seems to be begging for SOME image, what with the big white space in the upper right. If not the Obama photo, can't we at least add a photo of some Steelers fans? -- Deejayk (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The caption did make a claim, it said 'Obama is a Steelers fan'. Describing the picture would be 'This is Obama holding a Steelers jersey', there's a difference. I'm sure there are a ton of articles out there that could be used. blackngold29 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, that another inage would be better and that a citation would need to be included that Obama is part of the Steelers Nation if it is going to be used, especially since I heard he really isn't a fan of the team. --Tom (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite and there are plenty of pictures in of fans at the Commons. blackngold29 13:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Change the name please

For the love of the Big Chief, the Rooney family, Chuck Noll and all that is black and gold can someone please change the title of this article to the grammatically correct Steelers Nation? There is an S at the end of Steelers. It is plural. Please fix it!

Cruzer85 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)cruzer85Cruzer85 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22steeler+nation%22 speaks for itself. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Many people get "your" and "you're" wrong too. Doesn't mean that's what we should go with. And in the NFL Film John Facenda himself says, "Steelers Nation" and that's where it came from. This needs to be fixed. Cruzer85 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Cruzer85Cruzer85 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TITLE and WP:OR, which together basically say "Wikipedia calls things what other people call them, and we report things the way other sources report them. We don't ever try to 'set the record straight'." "Steeler Nation" is clearly the best name for the article per real-world usage. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cruzer85 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC) In your opinion it is the "best" name for the article. But in *fact* it is the wrong name for the article.

Hillbilly and Appalachia references.

I have been reading these discussions over, first other than the cited free publication out of Phoenix that syndicates Dan Savage et. al., I've never really heard Steelers Nation=Appalachia, logically Pittsburgh is the largest city and only NFL city in the region, but unfortunately we can not legitimately claim suburbs of Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Buffalo let alone their League assigned rights area as majority Steelers fans, or even Steelers Country or Steelers Nation though I am sure some fans are there. Currently for instance the Harrisburg area (part in Appalachia) is assigned Ravens territory, according to the NFL drawn map and the Phoenix article Ravens fans are "Hillbilly"? Not even going into Deliverance Falcons and Panther fans. Also despite the publication type any citation that involves racial or regional bias that is not associated with the topic (in this case sports or football) should really not be included. The relevance is completely defeated if the citation is using terms that could get a Wikipedian banned from editing, citing a source like this on the h.b. or w.t. page when it is dealing with a greater understanding of those issues is one thing, applying an obvious insult and poor attempt (as in they give away the publication for free "poor") at humor to a fanbase that proves it to be false is testing the limits of good faith. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 00:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

New York Jets, New York Giants and Phildelphia Eagles are also fanbased into Appalachia "h.b.", although I for one would love to see those counties be drawn into the Steelers territory. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 00:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you may feel about the subject, the reliable sources support what is written in the article, and the wording used was carefully crafted to achieve consensus. You'll need to bring reliable sources of your own to support your arguments. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources were that important why are the references of President Obama and the Eire and Harrisburg markets continually deleted (I could add January Jones)? I see only one source for the h.b. and w.t. and that is not reliable for the reasons I stated above. Consensus is also not enough to overule that both factual definitions of NFL team territories, borders of Appalachia into Jets, Eagles, Browns, Bills and Falcons territories, the "southern" definitions of w.t. and h.b. Finally, please do not misunderstand this will be the second time that racist, regionalist and other biases have been raised with the h.b. and w.t. (as well as Appalachia) quote, this entire comment is a Warning to remove this factually inaccurate, poorly researched and inflammatory information. Consensus also built these definitions on Wikipedia:

• h.b.: "Owing to its strongly stereotypical connotations, the term is frequently considered derogatory, and so is usually offensive to those Americans of Appalachian heritage." and "According to Anthony Harkins in Hillbilly: A Cultural History of an American Icon, the term first appeared in print in a 1900 New York Journal article, with the definition: "a Hill-Billie is a free and untrammeled white citizen of Alabama, who lives in the hills, has no means to speak of, dresses as he can, talks as he pleases, drinks whiskey when he gets it, and fires off his revolver as the fancy takes him."" (Emphasis added) and "The "classic" hillbilly stereotype – the poor, ignorant, feuding family with a huge brood of children tending the family moonshine still – reached its current characterization during the years of the Great Depression" and "Slang use: The term hillbilly is commonly used outside of Appalachia, the South and the Ozarks as a reference in describing socially backward people that fit certain "hillbilly" characteristics. In this context, it is often (though not always) derogatory. Although the described person may reside on completely flat terrain, hillbilly is substituted in place of more disparaging terms, such as white trash. In urban usage, hillbilly is sometimes used interchangeably for terms like hick."
• w.t.: "The term suggests outcasts from respectable society living on the fringes of the social order who are seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral. The term is usually a slur" and "It is used among blacks as an attack against whites. Use of "white trash" epithets has been extensively reported in the African American culture." and "Scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century explored the generations of families the authors considered disreputable" and "I grew up a mixed-race, white-trash girl in a country that considered me dangerous, corrupt, fascinating, exotic. I responded to the challenge by becoming that alarming, hazardous, sexually disruptive woman."
• Please restore the USAToday, Post-Gazette, PennLive and other reliably sourced encyclopedic data and remove the racial, regionalist and biased information from an unreliable source that prints articles they know no one will pay for. Thank you for your renewed commitment to "good faith". MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I see what you're getting at. If you're upset about the removal of the information regarding the location of fans or the famous fans, I think those just got yanked when I reverted to restore the other material you found offensive. I don't think anyone would object to those items being included again.

As for the "white trash" and "hillbilly" references, I'm still not sure what you're saying. Are you arguing that this information should be taken out because you find it offensive? — Bdb484 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for valuing the work of cited additions. It was my intent to be overly clear above but I thank you for asking for clarity. Simply it is that the PNT article (other than appearing as not-to-be-taken-seriously and tongue-in-cheek) was poorly sourced (and thus inaccurate and false) by both the definitions of w.t and h.b. (mainly southern) and the League territory and Government Appalachia definitions. At least 11 other NFL teams have league territory (fanbases) extending well into "Appalachia" , couple that with the fact that the fanbase is not "wt" any more then it can be wholly described by any other racial classification. The poor attempt at humor coupled with the racial and regional hyperbole (I'm putting that politely) along with the poor (non existent?) research that ignores that Jets territory (among many others) claims "Appalachia" would be shocking if the reference was a "reliable source" however given the business model of the PNT the more I read the citation the more I am realizing this was just meant as a joke and stir-the-pot extremism. Given the nature of the publication I can see it being used as "reliable" in certain narrow contexts on Wikipedia but much like the MarksFriggin is used as a Wikipedia source on Howard Stern articles it may not be appropriate for a Steeler Nation article. Finally I appreciate your continued edits and efforts on consensus and I can see you have added greatly to this and other pages however any perceived "consensus" to me is not enough to overturn factual inaccuracies on regional fanbases nor racially or regionally insensitive sources that I am increasingly convinced were meant for insult humor targeted at a regional audience by a free publication. My proposal mirrors by previous edit, a complete removal of the non-relevant PNT article and quotes with the other criticisms remaining. I thank all for their time on this matter. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're rejecting verifiability and consensus in favor of your personal interpretation of the facts, we're probably going to be stuck for a while. I'd recommend reviewing those policies before pushing your POV on this article any further. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I made the language more NPOV by clarifying that it is the newspapers that that believe that the fans are hillbillies.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bdb484 "personal interpretation of the facts"? I have given multiple examples of how the PNT citation rejects NFL rules, Federal definitions and other factual encyclopedic data. Aside from being false in multiple ways (to be fair I really wouldn't research facts at all if I wrote part time for a free weekly that was solely supported on "sin" ads), you seem to be rationalizing PNT's obvious regional and racial bias with WP:CON. The PNT citation is non-encyclopedic in multiple ways, and racially and regionally offensive. All of these require its removal, real racism supported by actual facts is bad enough, we don't need racism based on "false" statements taken out of context by an article that claims no knowledge of the region, area or football. We have the opportunity to clairfy whether Wikipedia is the place for citations that use racial and regional bias in place of and contrary to actual facts. Not certain how much more obvious (and irrelevant to the topic) PNT's racism and regionalism can be with that quote. Thank you. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 00:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• GrapedApe, appreciate your taking these concerns seriously, despite attempts to put those phrases in context it is past time we recognize them in their true context, inappropriate for any encyclopedia. An article that blatantly uses terms that Wikipedia states are offensive really excludes itself from being cited encyclopedically, beyond the simple several facts that are false. Also, the only citation that states W.T. and H.B. I have read is the PNT, what is with all this plural tense? Thank you. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 00:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're focused on the fact that you find this material offensive. Unfortunately, we can't rewrite every article that someone finds offensive. As I'm sure you know by now, Wikipedia is not censored. It seems that your proposal conflicts with that policy. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear multiple bias (including racism), multiple inaccuracy, multiple irrelevance and (although more subjective) multiple reliability are the 4 ways PNT's quote violates the purpose of Wikipedia. I appreciate the time and resources all are contributing to this however no specific point has been refuted, instead different WP policies (which of themselves are also "uncensored" and subject to future "consensus") are linked to instead of answering directly any charges of PNT's bias, lies, irrelevance and reliability. In the collective wisdom of Wikipedia all V, CON and CENSOR make exceptions for their use with such material like PNT's quotes. It's why the illogic of saying these things about the Jets area (applying the standards of "wt" according to PNT) are also reflected at Wikipedia. It's not solely (or even half) about feelings, but since that is the point that is being responded to it becomes more troubling what Wikipedia defines as:

Hillbilly: frequently considered derogatory, and so is usually offensive to those Americans of Appalachian heritage. . . untrammeled white citizen of Alabama . . . the poor, ignorant, feuding family. . . socially backward people . . . In this context, it is often (though not always) derogatory . . . hillbilly is substituted in place of more disparaging terms, such as white trash.
Whitetrash: outcasts from respectable society living on the fringes . . . who are seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral. The term is usually a slur

would have any amount of relevance, reliability, or even factual foundations on a football fanbase article irrespective of the publication (though I should point out MarksFriggin seems to have more relevance, reliability and factual foundations than PNT's article and yet was deleted almost immediately). The racial and other biases are part of and are not to diminish the countless ways PNT is poor and contradicting with an encyclopedia, but to allow for ample and generous warning. I'm being misread if you take this as "you find this offensive", finding factually inaccurate and painfully irrelevant information offensive is what great editors are. Finding quotes of race issues inserted into a football fanbase article will offend. Any one with pathos about this article that wished to edit based solely on their feelings would be on Browns articles. What this is about isn't who is offended but a poorly researched, poorly written, no-cost publication with no expertise on either the sport or region making several obvious factual errors and inserting racially charged and other biases into the piece. It is my sincere hope that misapplying V & CENSOR to rationalize its encyclopedic value (or any kind of value) will stop. Thank you.Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, what you think is factually accurate (even if based on extensive reading) is not relevant. Please review WP:V. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offensive material, which only further displays it as irrelevant, non-notable and factually false. Marketdiamond (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I found about your dispute discussion[4] after I had made edits to the article. I commented in that discussion. There was no notice on the article page. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of material from Phoenix New Times

The following discussion 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.

---

This content dispute has posed a few different questions:

• Are the Phoenix New Times generally and PNT editor Martin Cizmar specifically considered reliable sources?
• Are the terms "hillbilly" and "white trash" (cited to a newspaper) so vulgar or obscene that they violate WP's policy onoffensive material?
• Is material that criticizes an NFL fanbase using those terms worthy of inclusion on a page about that fanbase?

(For additional background, see earlier talk page discussions, as well as the closed requests at DRN and ARBCOM. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include the derogatory content. The first two questions, regarding whether the source is reliable or if the content is offensive or even true, are irrelevant. This is because they are overridden by the answer to the third question, which is whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The answer is no, it's clearly not worthy of inclusion. Regarding truth, it's about verifiability, not truth. Read WP:VNT. And even if content is reliably sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an article. Read WP:WEIGHT, which says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Only one determination needs to be made here: Is the content worthy of inclusion? Period. So, are all the indisputably biased and derogatory descriptions used in a newspaper writer's editorial in the hometown of the Steelers' Super Bowl opponent worthy of inclusion? As I said, the content under debate here is definitely not worthy of inclusion, which renders all other issues moot. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• The source reads like a blog. It's an "Op-ed". Along with WP:WEIGHT, you may want to also read the essay WP:COATRACK. You may want to check in at WP:RS/N if you haven't already done so. Now - that's not to say we should ignore criticism. (see: WP:NOTCENSORED) Any sports franchise that's been as successful as the Steelers is going to have it's detractors. But as an encyclopedic endeavor we should be looking at multiple sources and developing an overview of that. And I say that as a long-standing and proud member of said "Steeler Nation". — ChedZILLA 10:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll also note that Cizmar shows himself to be quite the <WP:PA withdrawn prior to posting> .. proves himself to be quite uneducated with a complete lack of understanding of the term Hillbilly. Pittsburgh is a lot of things .. but sorry - "rural" is NOT one of them. — ChedZILLA 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include (Appreciation to Bdb484 for his/her time and opportunity) my views are known (here) but to summarize its against WP:COMMONSENSE (a pillar above policies) to tag something as broad & diverse as a fanbase with these 2 terms (inject race), the few justifications (balance and non-censored etc.) don't overcome the WP OFFENSIVE and WP:FRINGE THEORY (in a sociology/demographic sense). To me it's the combination of the "alternative/weekly/free/"SinAds" business model" source, Cizmar's (a native of the teams chief rival) bias and his "music editor" status, the language (slurs etc.) and clumsy spastic pseudo connection of "youtube", "trailerpark" & Wikinon-reliable "Examiner" anecdotes that even if individually true don't support his Dihydro monoxide hoaxesque conclusions (the slurs). Finally PNT as a source I'm willing to accept in limited circumstances when no ad hominems make points and they don't use "music editors" to write a sports (lifestyle?) column. Thankyou. Marketdiamond (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Also this is instructive on Cizmar's WikiReliablity on sport topics. Marketdiamond (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Do not include - I, myself, have learned from past experience that a criticisms section could lend very heavy undue weight, and if there's too much criticism added, the page is gonna be quite a WP:COATRACK. ZappaOMati 21:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Do not include Not everything is substantial enough to warrant inclusion, and citing these comments, in this article, by this weekly, on this topic, do not meet the threshold of inclusion. I don't agree that derogatory comments, per se, shouldn't included here, just that these ones should not.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Facepalm There's been so much trouble figuring this one out that we need an RfC? First, as a person who grew up in Appalachia, I must say that terms like "hillbilly" and especially "white trash" are pretty damn offensive. That being said, if you want to include offensive content, it should have a good reason to be in the article. Let's see what we've got. Oh, yes. The source is a single op-ed in an opposing team's hometown newspaper. That is a bit undue weight, yes? Especially considering the highly derogatory nature of the remarks? I'm not going to waste my time figuring out who is championing this bigotry, but I hope at some point they figure out how childish this is. --JaGa^talk 01:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also support removing the Criticism section per Coatrack. --JaGa^talk 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Do not include Per ZappaOMati's comment regarding undue weight and criticisms section. Bms4880 (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Do not include This is a no brainier. Cizmar's derogatory comments were directed at the Pittsburgh Steelers, not its fanbase. Therefore, it has no place in a article about the fanbase. On a related note, the entire criticizing section needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. Having it as a separate section only serves to encourage people with coats to hang. —Farix (t | c) 16:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree that the Criticism section needs to be removed. --76.189.120.119 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The comments are actually pretty explicitly critical of the fans, rather than the team. I'm not sure you actually read the source, or even the headline. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include - Yeah - this is an obvious call. Adding these comments doesn't move the discussion of the subject matter on in the slightest. SteveBaker (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• If it isn't even newsworthy enough for google news, I mean.. Ssscienccce (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include: As noted above, the material may be considered offensive to those who are lumped into this group, but they come from an award-winning culture critic who's been employed by multiple Pulitzer-winning publications. I understand why the criticism makes Steelers fans sad, but I don't think that entitles them to whitewash their Wikipedia page. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• You've asked three questions so I don't have an include/not include vote. It's unnecessary to include the hillbilly text. The references are probably reliable. "Is material that criticizes an NFL fanbase using those terms worthy of inclusion on a page about that fanbase" is purely dependent on the number and quality of the sources. There is not enough information in the RfC.IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to vote because I'm a fan of a rival team (look at my user page and it'll be clear which one) and must abstain, but I would in all friendliness suggest that people who are voting do disclose whether they are fans of the Steelers, as some have already done. This way, the consensus won't be tainted by the perception that Steelers fans are attempting to form a biased consensus to remove criticisms of the team. I personally think the "hillbilly" language isn't necessary, but that's neither here nor there given my own lack of neutrality. --Batard0 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The RfC's goal is to allow participation (I think what you mean by "vote" while not purely a vote)--sorry if anything (and I searched for anything) gave you an opposite impression, you make interesting points but if you abstain they potentially may be (not by I) dismissed as theory. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I didn't mean vote, merely opinion based on policy. And I'm happy to have what I'm saying dismissed as theory, but I think it would be a wise thing to disclose in the circumstances. That's all. --Batard0 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Batard0, I should not vote due to my personal disliking of the Steelers, and agree that all involved need to disclose if they are Steelers fans, Steelers haters, or neutral. Despite disliking the Steelers, I am urging for the inclusion of this if it is found to be relevant but material criticizing a fanbase in general should be acceptable if from a reliable source; however, I don't want this to be seen as a vote due to my allegiance against the Steelers. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot Removal Comment: Seeing how there has been no comment on this in over 2 weeks and per WP:RFC I'll apply the consensus on the 31st day (about 14 days of the vast majority of editors participating in this showing remarkable restraint to allow the process to run its course) to allow for maximum WP:AGF. Thanks to every participant, and I personally wouldn't oppose any future RfC given RedSoxFan2434 and Batard0's (IRWolfie too) suggestion though for obvious reasons that may disincentive participation and thus be impractical. Marketdiamond (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (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.

Obama

There are many hundreds of news hits on Google that say Obama is a lifelong fan of the Chicago Bears, and not a member of "Steeler Nation" as this article seems to claim. I'm aware Obama himself claimed he is a Steelers fan, but it was a pretty clear pander because of the Superbowl victory. He said similar things about the Packers. Even the source that is currently being used notes he is really a Bears fan. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He has multiple teams that he is a fan of. So what? --GrapedApe (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is about "Steeler Nation" - the fan base of the Steelers. There's no way Barack Obama can be considered part of that fan base, particularly because he's a lifelong Bears fan who would obviously root for the Bears in a Bears/Steelers matchup. To be honest, the "famous fans" section does not do this article much credit at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the page history I see another editor has made the point that it is Famous fans not lifelong or even exclusive fans. I think that point is instructive on what is appropriate for this list. I can appreciate Scjessey's point but its not that relevant to a listing of "fans", we need to appreciate what deleting cited, reliably sourced, direct quotes from a person who knows exactly what power and effect those quotes can take on (the President of the United States) would mean for the future of Wikipedia. Now if there is a retraction or even a later article or quote from the President walking these statements back or letting it be known they were taken out of context (or even denying them) then I would love seeing that and we can adjust the article accordingly. Short of that (even though he makes clear later he is a fan of other teams too) the quote "longtime Steelers fan" is pretty clear.

• If there is consensus adding a (among other teams) or [note] I may be open to it, but would want to hear from others on this before we adjust the section any further.
• Finally any concern that a "Famous Fans" section does not do credit to the article I would strongly disagree with, the purpose of the article is to encyclopedically describe the fanbase, including famous ones. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And what of the incredibly obvious fact that Obama is a Bears fan per thousands of reliable sources? There will never be a source claiming Obama walked back on the comment, but the preponderance of reliable sources stating his allegiance to the Bears surely supersedes his transient, one-game support of the Steelers, does it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see where your coming from but its still a reliably sourced quote from a career politician that knew he was "on the record" and a Columbia-Harvard alumnus would by definition know the nuance of "longtime". No reliable source states that any fan needs to be exclusive 100%, neither does the article's section. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I commend you on your ability to justify the unjustifiable, but it really is quite ridiculous that Obama should be on this list. The source makes a point of saying that he was supporting the Steelers over the Cardinals for that particular game, but is otherwise a Bears fan. Anyway, I've said my piece and I'm removing this article from my watchlist. Go Eagles! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If the vast majority of the reliable sources claim one thing, and only a few equally reliable sources claim another thing, we weigh them up and go with the many. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We welcomed, read, responded for OP, I even offered a few CON compromises to which OP replied with Incivil allegations bordering on ad hominem and then finished with a phrase removing ability to AGF despite the still uncited (despite multiple invitations) Obama's "lifelong" (not starting till he was 26ish), & against applying COMMON (would had ended talk/RfC ~28 days ago). After having my AGF questioned then denied it may be better to DNR. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue of Obama being a Bears fan is totally irrelevant. The section in this article is Famous fans, not Lifelong fans. Also, many people are fans of more than one team. It is well known and reliably sourced that Obama is indeed a Steelers fan. When Scjessey removed Obama's name from the list, his edit comment was "supporting a team in one instance does not make them lifelong fans." The big problem with that comment is that Obama's support of the Steelers was not just in one instance. The included source (USA Today) even quotes Obama: "I am a long-time Steelers fan". So, is Obama a famous fan of the Steelers? Yes, of course he is. And for the record, I am not a fan or foe of the Steelers or Bears. --76.189.120.119 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Article name change to Steelers Nation ?

It still irks me that the grammatically incorrect "Steeler Nation" is used as the headline for this article & is un-editable. Cruzer85 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)cruzer85

This could be fixed by a simple move. It makes sense to me to change the name of the article to Steelers Nation. If anyone objects to this name change, please explain your concerns here, otherwise I'm supportive of undertaking the renaming process. — DeeJayK (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926231710/http://www.steelers.com/article/40517/ to http://www.steelers.com/article/40517

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Steeler Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014095423/http://www.seattlepi.com/football/257293_steelers27.html to http://www.seattlepi.com/football/257293_steelers27.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080229093601/http://www.bizjournals.com:80/specials/pages/35.html? to http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/35.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090919013119/http://www.bizjournals.com:80/specials/slideshow/13.html?page=21 to http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/slideshow/13.html?page=21
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110220035434/http://kurt-angle.net:80/wp/2011/02/06/lets-go-steelers/ to http://kurt-angle.net/wp/2011/02/06/lets-go-steelers/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120415065010/http://kdka.com/steelers/General.Michael.Hayden.2.911566.html to http://kdka.com/steelers/General.Michael.Hayden.2.911566.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.whptv.com/mostpopular/story/Ravens-to-air-this-Sunday-on-CBS-21/kkMyT9mXE0CIlmXw_Mwl8A.cspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601205933/http://news.steelers.com:80/article/99004/ to http://news.steelers.com/article/99004/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209154421/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_441131.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_441131.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114221809/http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/11/steelers-fan-bret-michaels-ready-to-party-at-playoffs/ to http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/11/steelers-fan-bret-michaels-ready-to-party-at-playoffs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601194317/http://blog.steelers.com/tag/reggie-jackson/ to http://blog.steelers.com/tag/reggie-jackson/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)