Talk:Pittsburgh

Wow

This article is one of the most beautifully written promotional pieces I've ever seen about a city. It's a monument to positivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.159.226 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts ~~~~ and please consider registering at Wikipedia! I see that you do not edit much, but welcome all the same. When I first read your comment I took it as compliment even though I realized it may not have been meant that way. I hope you can gain more familiarity with the subject matter and can expound upon your concerns. Also, the most recent subject on the talk page should go at the bottom of the talk page, thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a problem, since Wikipedia is not a promotional service. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the most recent comment here goes at the bottom of the page, this is why no one cared to respond to this comment at the top. Second, it has been 10 days with both I and an administrator looking at and discussing this page yet no specific text nor alternative has been offered on an article that has reached consensus over many years and hundreds of editors hard working contributions and citations. Third, to assume good faith in editors (especially editors that are brand new to an article/subject matter) it would be wise to attempt consensus over at minimum a few days on the Talk page prior to any kind of edit that you are repeatedly making to the article header. The ideal would actually be to discuss all changes on the talk page over the course of weeks or months until a consensus is reached. That is why what you are doing here is being viewed increasingly as vandalism. If you hope for an intelligent, measured, patient, specific, reasonable and respectful response to your concern please introduce that concern in an intelligent, measured, patient, specific, reasonable and respectful manner. Anyone can claim anything is something its not. A lot of editors have worked a lot of hours providing specific reliable sources and syntax at this article, if there is something dozens of editors (including several administrators) are missing please put it in terms we may best understand and assist with. Give us ample time to discuss and reflect on those specific items. Short of that some may tend to think what you are attempting to label has no seriousness behind it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think this page, specifically the lead, has a lot of editorializing language. As an example, the second graf that calls Pittsburgh's industries "creative wealth," is a phrase pulled from a Carnegie Mellon press release (which is also not linked to properly and appears to be taken down anyway). Press releases are mostly a no-no for citing in Wikipedia, is it not? It is also probably more accurate to call it industry opposed to creative wealth, which is a pretty phrase but means nothing. Also: How livable a city is (top-level fact) and how many hotel rooms they have recently added (not a top-level fact) are not closely related and the latter should be removed completely. I am still quite new to editing and contributing but would be willing to work with someone to help minimize the bias in the page. Atjackiesnow (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Crime section: NOR synthesis, should be deleted?

Deletion consideration for the Crime section first paragraph remarks about "being high for a city of it's size" since no quote exists on the source material for this. It has been suggested that merely interpreting what a list of facts states is considered to be NOR and possibly synthesis. I am attempting to get clarification on this (been a number of days without response). I may be wrong discussing this prior to deletion of facts even though those facts may be synthesized since the consensus seems to be to delete facts first then "synthesize" a rationalization for it. You can join the discussion on the NOR and the apparent delete first policy here: Thank you for your time. [1] Thank you for your time.

grammar

"Both flagship hospitals annual rank as among the best overall in the United States, with UPMC being among U.S. News & World Reports' "Honor Roll"."

Correction: ...annually rank among the best.....

Suggestion of adding a historical name that once was given to Pittsburgh because of high level of air pollution

While going through the key historical moments of significance pertaining to Electric Power Transmission on internet, I came to this website where it is mentioned that, "Stanley had been working in Pittsburgh which was Andrew Carnegie's steel town and had the worst air quality in the US, it was also known as "Sooty City", and this contributed to William Stanley's poor health." Then I further checked to confirm the validity of the fact.

Here are some links which suggest the use of a non-colloquial name given to Pittsburgh

• Boston Evening Transcript - Sep 16, 1892
• "sooty city" pittsburgh

This very fact, of being a polluted city at that time, seems to have led to unimaginable, unquantifiable consequences as it led to poor health of people of a time when art, science and technology were still developing, which could possibly have led to the poor health of persons with talent of significance either to mankind or to universe or both, in general, who would otherwise have contributed by discovering new knowledge, previously undiscovered, and subsequently achieved acclaim for the same, if they wouldn't have fallen sick. So, I strongly believe that the fact that Pittsburgh was called by public, Sooty City, is a significant and, more importantly, a verified fact and thus deserves mention on Wikipedia. So, I suggest to add to the article, references pointing out that the city once was called "Sooty City". I'll add the final version of the text after reaching a consensus with the editors who would want to suggest another version. Rishidigital1055 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel the article does cover the status of the air 100-150-200 years ago and would not oppose some better primary sources that reference that in the history section of the article. However, I think you need to re-evaluate your logic if you are attempting anything greater then a sentence or two expansion or clarity in the history section. The first cite you reference is simply a google search of "sooty" with "city Pittsburgh", I come up with tens of thousands more results in google for "sexy", "smart", "best" etc. I would oppose using a google term search as evidence to call Pittsburgh the "sexy city" or the "best city". The other cite you list is an article about how Boston is becoming a "sooty city" with Pittsburgh and "sooty city" separated by 3 sentences let alone it not being capitalized as a proper nickname would have been. In a big way the news article you cite actually directly contradicts and neutralizes the original Edison Tech Center contemporary retelling where to escape "sooty city" he went to Boston. If there are verifiable, primary, and "proper" (capitalized) sources with this then I would love to see them, until that time it is interesting what I get combining really weird words with "Wikipedia" on Google, that though doesn't mean those terms are Wikipedia's nicknames. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede too long?

I'm wondering if the last three sections of the lede should be moved out of there (or at least condensed) and merged into their respective subsections (economy, culture, etc). That would make this article more in line with similarly sized cities (Cleveland, Cincinatti, Baltimore, Charlotte, North Carolina, Portland,_Oregon, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What would your suggested condensed version be? You may wish to research the discussion on how the lede was put together months (or perhaps over a year) ago on this talk page. I'm all for streamlining and the lede is not a place to get into super detail, however comparing the lede to such cities as Cleveland, Charlotte, Portland OR etc. is faulty for many reasons. If population range was the determining factor in detail within a Wikipedia lede, China and India should be three times more detailed then the USA should be. Just a generation or so ago cities such as Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington and Boston were beneath many metrics (some all metrics) when it came to Pittsburgh, some of those cities far below. To be encyclopedic the lede needs to be accurate with the economic, cultural, jurist, demographic, artistic, educational, medical status of the city from circa 1754 to circa 1992, as well as presently. I look forward to any suggestions and would love to improve the article if warranted. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a direct correlation between population size and lede size; the other city articles I note all make mention of notable (mostly positive) things about their subjects, but in a more succinct fashion. Furthermore, it's apples and oranges to compare North American/European city articles to other articles given the difference in availability of English language reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for suggestions. The "Furthermore . . ." made me do a doubletake. But I agree with your point (my point before), population is 'apples to oranges' in all aspects. As long as we aren't attempting to fit a round Pittsburgh into a square Portland OR, Cleveland lede size template because in the last 20 years they match population tables I think we can come up with some really good ideas. Hopefully we can get a few more editors involved with the process here too. I am not aware of what your expertise is in, although it is kind of rough (still being stylized in parts) I would recommend the Pittsburgh Portal on this Day list, as well as some of the Pittsburgh related articles for any editor wishing to make the lede encyclopedic yet compact for the main city article. There are some cities in the population range of Charlotte, Cleveland, Portland OR etc. that really don't have much to offer for the most creative of lede editors, the hesitation by some editors very familiar with the Pittsburgh articles is that the current lede is not encyclopedic enough in that it leaves out too much of Pittsburgh history and contemporary facts. For a quick instance such a thing as Pittsburgh being the founding site of John Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and thus Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, Mobile etc. should really be put into the lede, perhaps hosting the first wired and then first wireless campus should as well. I state these just to make all here aware that Portland, Oregon and Charlotte may not be the best way to introduce a serious suggestion of shortening the lede. It has been said that thinking Paris or New York would be a better starting point. I can offer several reliable sources on that mental approach to this task if that might better the input. To me if there is a written lede suggested from an editor that is aware of the history, and present status of the city, that might be the best place to start a process like this. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I looked over at some other cities ledes, and yes Pittsburgh is one of the longest, only Detroit and New York City are longer from what I've seen. Tho I don't feel any factual information should be removed I will toy around with keeping all the ideas but using tighter language, at least get it down to a St. Louis-Buffalo-Philadelphia-Dallas range. As I said earlier if an editor wants to tackle it that's cool too, but please have the understanding that much of the current lede material is representative of tons more encyclopedic facts. Pittsburgh should never be mistaken as a substitute for New York or Paris but I am sometimes shocked with how much people don't understand the city, I'll see if I can submit a shorter version in the next day or two. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the city myself (other than the weather and the traffic). I haven't had a chance to take a stab at making it more succinct, but a good place to start might be the last paragraph about "green" architecture. Sure, that deserves to be covered in the article, but in the lede? Probably not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did some improvements, will continue to parse and possibly relocate sections, I agree that the last paragraph is not perfect in some ways, will see what I can do micro & macro, suggestions welcomed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice job! I doubt that it's necessary to condense it further than that. Hopefully that will allay some of the concerns expressed by a few editors that the lede was excessive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Pittsburgh

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)