Talk:University of Pittsburgh/Archive 1

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

Old talk

To the person who edited Vladimir Zworykin out of the alumni list: See "25 Ways..." in this pdf. The extent of his work at Pitt I don't know, but he's officially an alumnus. Also, check this external link from his personal entry: "He also enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh where he received the Ph.D. in 1926." -- Hesychast

Can someone cite a source for Pitt being a private university? To the best of my knowledge, it is public.

Actually, Pitt is a "state related" university. Not exactly public, but not exactly private, either. --Kurtbw.

If we take a look at the offical University of Pittsburgh fact book (http://www.ir.pitt.edu/factbook/) we can read... "The University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is a nonsectarian, coeducational, state-related, public research university." The research part is what makes it so expensive. This article does not give the place justice. Someone with more time that I should fix it. - bethlynn BSIS 12/2000


As an alumnus (BSChE/MSChE), I assure everyone that Pitt is not properly designated as a "private" university. In Pennsylvania, there are three basic types of "public" schools: state schools (e.g., Indiana University of Pennsylvania), state-related (Penn State only, I believe), and state-affiliated (Pittsburgh, Temple, and Lincoln). Unless the original author is using "private" in a nonstandard parlance (non-US, perhaps?), I'm confused. Flyers13 04:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, Temple, PSU, and Pitt are all state-related. According to the PA Dept of Ed, Pitt is public. Khanartist 05:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


Sitting in my dorm room on pitt's campaus right now.... Pitt is "state related", at least how we all understand it here. We get funding from the state, but we aren't a state school. Lyellin 22:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


In 1966 the Commonwealth designated Pitt a "State-related university". See http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/SC/HC/0/SC/SUPD.HTM . A fraction of its budget comes from the Commonwealth and thus it operates under many of the same constraints as public universities. [from a former faculty member, 8/19/05]


--Public vs. Private: As stated above, the PA Dept of Ed lists Pitt and the other three "state-related" schools as public. [1] The governor and both houses of the state legislature appoint a minority of members to Pitt's board of trustees. Also, the governor, state education secretary, Pittsburgh mayor and Allegheny County executive all sit on the board in an ex-officio capacity. The remaining trustee positions are filled by alumni and existing trustee election. Similarly, Pennsylvania State University trustees are appointed by the governor and elected by the alumni and various boards. This differs from the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education schools, which are governed by a totally governor-appointed board that includes alumni and state legislators.

Compare: Some state universities, such as University of California and University of Michigan, have governing boards that are chosen by statewide election. Singularly, New York State has so-called statutory colleges that are publicly-funded academic units within private universities, see Alfred University and Cornell University. Also, some state universities have private academic units. The Michigan State University College of Law, which was formerly a stand-alone private institution, is classified as a private school within the public university. Its board is independent from the university and it does not offer reduced tuition for in-state students. The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State was also a stand-alone private institution. It does not offer reduced tuition for in-state students, though the PA Dept of Ed lists it as a public school. I do not know how the school is currently governed, though I know there is an ongoing conflict over moving the school to Penn State's main campus, setting up a dual campus system or breaking ties with Penn State.

IMHO: Making the private/public distinction appears to be more important in states where most elite institutions are private, e.g., Northeastern states. This distinction appears less important in states containing both elite public and private institutions, e.g., California and North Carolina. This distinction may even drift in favor of public schools in states with just elite public institutions, e.g., Michigan and Virginia.--


-- I noticed that someone added the undergraduate US News ranking and the fact that it is 10 places below Penn State. This person also added, and subsequently removed, the word "average" to the first sentence of the Pitt description. This person is also a contributor on the Penn State page. I don't think there is much question as to where lies their allegiance. (Ah, NPOV right?) That being said, what do people think about adding Pitt's graduate/professional school rankings (which are mostly higher than Penn State's) v. removing the rankings listing altogether? I have not done either. I don't care for the rankings that much, though I freely admit that they are followed by many, myself included.

Personally, I would remove the rankings listing. I took a brief survey of Association of American Universities (research universities group including Pitt) in the Big East, Big Ten and Ivy League, plus CMU. Only Penn State, and to a lesser extent Purdue, bothers to list the bulk of their rankings. Perhaps a third of them make some mention of US News rankings, a la Princeton noting its many years of being first or others noting their being among the most selective schools. The rest don't bother. Unless there is a definitive top 10/top 5 program that someone wishes to list, I'd just skip it.

Comments? - Id-less. Jul 20 2005

In 1980, some minor polls listed Pitt as No. 1. At that time apparently, only AP and UPI were counted as "national championship" polls. Both AP and UPI voted us second that year. Earlier, other polls apparently counted as "national championship polls," see e.g. 1936 and 1931. http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

Most importantly, the Pitt athletic department claims only 9 national titles, not including 1980.

Pitt Philosophy Department rankings

Did anyone else notice the recent edit to the University of Pittsburgh page, (this one[2]), which references a Philosophical Gourmet Report? I'm wondering if we can get a citation for the PGR, or clarify whether it was added as a joke? At first I thought it might be a tongue-in-cheek nickname for the US News rankings... I posted a message on the talk page of User:Wikimaniac14, but s/he has only made 4 edits in one session, so I'm not sure if s/he will come back. Mamawrites 09:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a real thing, even if a stupid one. Any philosophy professor or grad student in the English-speaking world can probably tell you about it, but anyhow it is now linked to. Pitt is renowned for John McDowell, Robert Brandom, Nuel Belnap, Nicholas Rescher, Anil Gupta, Michael Thompson and no small number of now-dead people including Wilfrid Sellars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.209.26 (talk • contribs)

Other athletics

Someone (with better current knowlege than I) needs to add info about the so-called non-revenue (or Olympic) sports. Track and field has had numerous Olympians; swimming and diving have dominated the Big East (winning 20 Big East championships in their first 23 seasons); women's volleyball has been a consistent Top 25-type team for years; and baseball has its moments. This page just reads like there are only two teams at the university (though those two, admittedly, are by far the most newsworthy. Flyers13 03:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects/Pitt-Societies-2005

I'd like to invite all Wikipedians, especially thise connected with Pitt, to join this project. I am attempting to expand it from single subject to a template usable for various lectures/TAs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Football

The suggestion that Pittsburgh has won 9 NCAA national football championships is at odds with the wikipedia article on the NCAA title which gives them 5. [[3]]

  • The university has consistently claimed 9 national football championships (some people want a tenth in 1980, but, by then the AP and UPI were recognized as the only 2 big polls). The NCAA article isn't wrong, per se; to make the two articles match, the other polls that were done in the 20s and 30s need to be added; these other polls were just as "legit" as the ones being cited. The AP poll starting in 1936 subsumed some of these smaller polls and helped clean up the issue a little. Now we just have BCS nonsense to deal with (and the people claiming USC is going for a "three-pete", when LSU won the 2003 championship, alone; and no, finishing first in the AP poll, one of the three components of the BCS, is not the same as winning the National Championship). Flyers13 21:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The NCAA doesn't certify national champions, but they do list the organizations by year. In 1934 no organization listed them for champ. In 1980 4 did. The NCAA also doesn't count Davis, thought they list many others. We should specify who picked whom. Rkevins82 05:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that there are many different organizations that have picked champions over the years and the list could be very varied. I'm going with the Pitt Athletic Dept. because it is easy to cite without having to break down the way champions have been picked over the years (which is an article in itself). Also, I don't know about 1934, but I was around in 1980. And despite the fact that 4 organizations picked Pitt champion in 1980, only AP and UPI were the "polls of record" at that time. Sadly for the Pitt faithful, they went with Georgia.
Again from the above link, Parke Davis only awarded a championship in 1933 - and not to Pitt. Anyone know more about this? I am concerned that if we simply report how many championships a school claims, those that are reasonable in their statements would be underrepresented. Rkevins82 02:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Motto?

Please source the translation of this motto, as its meaning (confer Lewis and Short, Cassell's and Jenny) is "Truth and Strength" (or "Truth and Virtue," though virtus is something more akin to manliness), not "Goodness of the truth." I dare not actually make the page accurate, as this will trigger Wiki Police telling me I should not properly translate Latin.Amherst5282 22:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

History

This article is in need of a section addressing its history. Courier new 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Posvar

The final bit about Posvar nneds a lot of work. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie that this belongs in a history section -- it appears to hang off of the end of the article unnecessarily and appears to be a kludge. The article also needs a history section; perhaps I'll get around to one in a few months.... Most importantly, the whole bit about theft is completely unverified -- someone needs to either provide some references or delete the whole section. Besst 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your points are very germaine. i edited the section as you describe. However, naming the section "History" is woefully inadequate for an institution as old as Pitt. There should be a flag requesting that the section be expanded. Sandwich Eater 14:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The history section looks much better; I think the way it stated now is pretty fair and is in line with most things I've read about the Posvar controversey. Haven't other chancellors come under fire? O'Connor wasn't there long....Nordberg certainly has his share of detractors as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PT Marion

PTmarion.com was removed from the external links section and was recently added again and added in the student media section.

This website is considered a party website. An updated calendar keeps track of where students may find parties for the weekend or where deals are for alcohol.

Does anyone think that this is a proper representation of any higher educational system? It mentions in the student media section that it is "underground" but perhaps the website should be kept off of the university's wiki page.

  • I agree the link is inappropriate (for one thing, it requires registration??) and probably added in self-promotion. It should be removed. — brighterorange (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, ptmarion is self defining as a free event promotion tool and college web community. There are many events posted on ptmarion that are not parties. Aside from this, their current membership is totaling over 7000 students from the university community. I think perhaps a link to them does not belong under student media, as they are not university sponsored, however the external link is more than okay.--Viridion 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with brighterorange, although the website is run by students from Pitt it doesn't have a strong connection to the university other than promoting parties. My suggestion would be to create a student social life section and put it there, but I'm not sure if one would be appropriate. Acidskater 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't have a login, but there's some pictures of the falcon and of the babcock room (not many people have been there!) here: http://dimitry.arthero.com/photo/photos/big41.jpg - falcon http://dimitry.arthero.com/photo/photos/big39.jpg - babcock room

i guess these should be credited to Dimitry Bentsionov @ http://dimitry.arthero.com/

Panthers

Why are there 11 lines discussing the mascot? This looks like fluff from the yearbook, not an encyclopedic entry.

  • Looks like it was just added the other day. I thought about deleting it, but maybe it would be better to move it to the Athletics page instead. Thoughts? Crazyale 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Student media

Where are the offices for UPTV, Collision, and Three Rivers Review?

I know The Pitt News and WPTS-FM are on the fourth floor of the William Pitt Union, Telefact's on the ninth, and Friday Nite Improvs is in the studio theatre; can someone help add the on-campus locations for these groups? Do they function out of the honors college? --Chris Griswold 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank 136.142.158.16 (talk · contribs) for confirming for me that Telefact is on the ninth floor of the William Pitt Union. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

alma maters

We should get some info on the alma maters: the current one, set to the German national anthem, and any previous ones. (I just found an extremely different one from the 1914 edition of the Owl student yearbook.[4] Yes, I'm doing research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Before it was the German national anthem it was a movement from a Haydn string quartet. 67.177.186.149 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek life

We could use more on this, both positive and negative. For instance, sharitable work, and frats/sororities that have been put on drastic probations, like Sigma Sigma Sigma. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like a gossip column than an encyclopedia. Contemporary Greek life is hardly important; I think other sections would reap greater benefits from users' attention. 68.162.156.118
I am sure others do not agree that Greek life has been an unimportant part of Pitt's history. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

1. Clean up the spelling, e.g., Latern Night, Sine 1996, HIgher Edcuation, siting, etc.

2. Is that the rear of the Fine Arts Building in the photo? If so, isn’t it odd that the beautiful front and fountain are not shown?

3. The new Biomedical Science Tower 3 would be a great photo to add to the collection.

4. Additional Alumni Award: Bill Strickland won the MacArthur Fellow Award. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Strickland, http://www.umc.pitt.edu/PITTMAG/mar97/stricklandt.html) .

5. Additional Student publication: The Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, a multidisciplinary journal showcasing the undergraduate research (http://136.142.181.181/~pur/).

6. JURIST (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu) is the world's only law school-based comprehensive legal news and research service powered by a mostly-volunteer team of over 30 part-time law student reporters, editors and Web developers led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Phillbirt 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a bunch of the spelling mistakes (which, this being a wiki, you could have done yourself instead of posting about them in the talk page); feel free to add any of the other stuff to the article. Geoffrey Spear 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is on the way to becoming an A-Class article but I have a few comments. First, there are far too many images of the Cathedral of Learning. Let's come to a consensus as to which image should serve as the main stand-in (I recommend one that also shows alumni hall or whatever it's called). There are, really, too many images in general. If the image isn't critically important to the text of the article, I recommend a gallery feature at the bottom of the page similar to the presidents portraits section. The intro is also a bit too long and makes it hard to find the table of contents (removing that first image which takes up so much space would be a HUGE help). Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The Cathedral is iconic of the university and that explains why so many people want to photograph it, and the article should certainly have a photo or two, but there are too many. I removed the huge one at the beginning because, although it was my favorite of the images, it is somewhat low resolution and more importantly, is non-free. With so many free replacements there's no excuse for that. — brighterorange (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality assessment, 18 June 2007

I have assessed this article as B-class, according to the standard grading scheme. I have to disagree, however that this article is on the way to A-class. Problems which might prevent this article from achieving GA status include:

  • Length: The History section could do with being forked and summarised, and cuts could be made elsewhere. The Introduction is too long and does not adequately summarise the article.
  • Referencing: there are two competing footnotes sections. The inline references which have not been footnoted refer mostly to the University's own web space: more neutral, third party sources are required.
  • Neutrality: Some of this article reads like an advert. Too much space is given over to impressive-sounding, but trivial factoids (e.g. "It is the oldest continuously chartered institution of learning in the United States west of the Allegheny Mountains").
  • Images: some are indiscriminately placed without considering whether they add value to the article. There are also some questionable fair use claims here.

Clearly, a lot of effort has gone into collecting material for this article: the copy does, however, need to be sifted and refined. — mholland (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is the oldest continuously chartered institution of learning in the United States west of the Allegheny Mountains" is not trivial, at least the the state of Pennsylvania's standards which thought it warranted the placement of a historic marker. This fact makes Pitt one of the 20 or so oldest institutions in the country, and really the first in the Western part of the original colonies, and thus its placement in the history section is more than appropriate. If this fact was stated about some school out West and it said "first West of the Mississippi", no one would challenge it as trivial.cp101p 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps trivial is the wrong word. Frankly, I'm much more interested in it the way you put it: "one of the 20 or so oldest institutions in the country, and really the first in the Western part of the original colonies". That sounds, to my ear, much better than picking an arbitrary geographical feature in order to claim that the University is the oldest, the biggest, the tallest whatever. — mholland (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Allegheny mountains are, in a historical context, that [[systems at the time), but I understand how people may not be aware of such things. Princeton Review or one the rankings out there once had a ranking of the oldest universities, but I can't find it to cite. The Allegheny Mountain reference would be well known, at least in Western and Central PA, and is easily referenced because much has gone into research the claim by historians of the Universities that fall into that category (Pitt, Washington & Jefferson, Transylvania University (KY)).

General Needed Univeristy of Pittsburgh stuff

Thanks for everyone's help on the Pitt articles. I think we've begun to clean up some of the article and the the basics structure down, though some of the longer sections may need moved to their own page and summarized as noted above(ie. history). As far as individual building pages, the I think the following free photos would be desirable the Pitt based photographers out there.
Cathedral of Learning page: a couple representative nationality rooms, Croghan-Schenley ballroom, Darlington Library, Braun Room, Honors College, maybe lecture room 324. Alumni Hall: interior shots of the first floor ball room and Mellon Institute lobby.
Stephen Foster Memorial interior shots of the museum and theater
Cheveron Scence Center, Forbes Hall, Crawford Hall, Langley Hall, Life Science Annex (maybe a shot of the entire CLC complex in order to show the layout from the Cathedral if you can get it, but there is also an aerial photo of it next to the Langley lecture hall that could be photographed).
Salk Hall (try to get Municipal hospital building (behind the modern front entrance) in the shot ...that is where Salk worked).
Panther Hall, Scaife Hall, Eberly Hall (old Alumni Hall), Falk Clinic, Falk School, Cost Center (interior shot), Fitzgeral Field House (inside shots too), example of a fraternity complex building, Lothrop Hall, BSTs, Victoria, Ruskin Hall, Info Science Building, Trees Hall (interior photos...pool, gymnastics training)
Some of the buildings need expanded information as well (especially mysterious to me is the University Place Office Building that is a contributing building in the Schenley Farms historic district). I also think football on the Pittsburgh Panthers should be moved to it own page.cp101p 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Dead Dog Research

The following passage was added to "History of the University" section under the subcategory "Into the 21st Century".

In 2005, the University of Pittsburgh successfully revived some dead dogs that were killed several hours prior.[1]

This passage was first added and then removed, then re-dded. I agree with user PittPanther on the first removal that it "doesn't fit" and removed it for the following reasoning below. While interesting, I believe we need a discussion on its inclusion not only in the History of the University Section but also its appropriateness for the main "University of Pittsburgh" page. My reasoning is as follows:

While this passage is interesting, it does not fit into a section highlighting the University's history. The notability of this achievement for Wikipedia at all, other than its controversial nature, is dubious. Although it received coverage in some national press due to the macabre nature of the results and disapproval of animal rights groups, there are plenty of examples of Pitt research that has been deemed more significant in recent years. Any publication originating out of Pitt in the scientific journals Science or Nature, or perhaps even the Cell family of journals, would qualify here as being deemed more significant (and there are 100s of those to chose from). The "dead dog" story would be better suited for a new section on significant research accomplished at Pitt, but by itself it does not warrant the creation of such a section. Further, the style of writing is far too ambiguous to remain as is (e.g. "some dead dogs" is not an appropriate encyclopedic style). A note on Pitt's leadership in the field of resuscitation research with a link to this Fox News article as a supporting reference could be added elsewhere in general sections listing Pitt's research strengths, but it is at best premature to call this a notable milestone in the University's history (as the only other research mentioned in the history section was Salk's polio vaccine (undoubtedly one of the greatest achievements in the history of medicine and science) and a brief mention of Starzl's organ transplantation pioneering (Starzl has been named to a list of the most important people of the millennium for his work)..(there also brief mentions of Langley but no real discussion of his aviation work). Probably the best place for this information is on a wiki page about the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research itself. Please add additional comments.cp101p 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think that the "dead dog" experiment should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. Bringing the deceased back to life is a major achievement in today's standards. --Ixfd64 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would love to better know how this was perceived in the field of resuscitation, but it didn't create much of a buzz, at least that I was aware of, in general biological circles. But that could be my lack of awareness. It also did not receive much push from Pitt's own publicity departments (ie. in Pitt Magazine, etc)...perhaps due to its controversial nature. I'll try to look into it more when I get time, but my skepticism comes from known main stream media's tendency to over-inflate scientific stories and the lack of buzz this created in general science literature (but I have not completely researched the topic). I do not disagree that there is a probably a place for this on wikipedia, but I do not think it should go in the University History section (maybe 10 years down the line I'll be proven horribly wrong). On the surface it is very interesting and even cool, but I'm think its not fair to say it is "historic". Thanks for your replycp101p 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tag on Parran Hall page and other Pitt buildings

Parran Hall (School of Health Sciences building), let your thoughts be known.

Cleanup

I have already begun to do some cleanup on this article, but there is a whole lot that needs to cleaned up. A big one is the references, which are put in as external links. A guide on how to do this can be found at WP:CITE. Another big problem is the red links. A minor problem are the photos in the History section, which make the section feel cluttered. Acidskater 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping with the page and cleaning it up. I would recommend leaving some of the pics in the history section, though. Some of them are hard to find, and interesting from the standpoint that there really isn't another good resource to see historical pictures of Pitt on the web easily (as some of these are burried in the depths of student yearbooks, etc). But, some of them are repetitive and the numbers can be cut down, especially when they tend to sandwich the text. Actually, it might be worth while making a separate history page where they could be spread out more.cp101p 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I deleted a few photos which didn't seem important. If you feel one of the photos should be put back because it is absolutely essential to the article, use WP:IUP as a guideline. I also created a history page for Pitt, as well as added a link for it to the Pitt template. Acidskater 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to switch some of the photos, because frankly, Katz shouldn't be directly besides the historical building section...things like that. That photo doesn't convey Pitt well at all. Really, there has to be a shot of the more important Pitt buildings on that page...i.e. Cathedral & Heinz....those are really the true identity of Pitt. I have some that I'll upload next week. Let me know what you think of them when they go up. For now, I've added back some more appropriate pics. I like the University of Chicago's model as a page, its featured on the University Projects page. The chancellors table could probably go on a separate page as well. Do you think?130.91.35.34 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Athletics section could be greatly compressed, alot of it is repetitive with the actual Pitt Athletics page. As I mentioned, the chancellors could be moved, perhaps to the history section or their own page. Also, perhaps a new "Pitt Campus" page is warranted because that section is a bit long, but its long space permits the display of the campus photos and I sort of like having the pictures right in the article. I think the University of Chicago's page is a good model to go by. A campus photo gallery could be added if a campus page is created.cp101p 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Polio

I think that the fact that the University of Michigan collaborated with the University of Pittsburgh on this effort should be mentioned in this section. Does anyone else have an oppinion? http://www.polio.umich.edu/dingell/ Red and Guilty 16:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, absolutely not, that creation of the Polio vaccine was undertaken entirely at Salk's laboratory at Pitt. I guess the field trials were overseen by someone at Michigan. The Polio vaccine is a Pitt vaccine. For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk and http://www.polio.pitt.edu/

cp101p 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe it was Appalachian State that collaborated on that. Or was it South Florida? Douglas Barber 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That was low, but funny. The vaccine was definitely Salk's, but he was a student of Francis, who was at the U of M at the time, and set up the epidemiologic evaluation. Do not give the U of Michigan credit for the vaccine, they just evaluated it. While you are mentioning medical research, do not forget Klaus Hofman, who developed the first synthetic form of ACTH. Pustelnik (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Pitt building pages

People active in projects involving Pitt may be interested in the discussion here started over Sutherland Hall being tagged for deletion[5]. Any comments about what this should mean for the direction of the Pitt campus section?cp101p 02:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Langleys buried in Allegheny Observatory? What is the office with the floor that is hung from the ceiling with chains? It may have been in the physics department, and originally part of a long tall room built to hold a Van de Graaf Generator (or maybe a Tesla coil?). Pustelnik (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on some merges for buildings

Anyone have any thoughts on merging single school use buildings with their school (the way Falk School is merged)? Merging considerations would be to merge Benedum Hall with Swanson School of Engineering, merge Parran Hall with University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, merge Mervis Hall with Joseph M. Katz School of Business, and merge Barco Law Building with University of Pittsburgh School of Law?cp101p (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

Please leave your opinion on wether or not you believe the Oakland Zoo is notable:

An editor has nominated Oakland Zoo (cheering section), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Public vs independent, state-related

Regarding recent edits to the introduction that describing the institutional nature of the University of Pittsburgh, it is not accurate to simply describe Pitt as a public university. This is especially true due to how wikipedia articles such as public universities and public schools define "public" since Pitt has private governance (is not run or owned by the Commonwealth)[6] and does not receive the majority of its funding form the state (currently ~10% of its budget, which is far less than schools traditionally described as public). The most accurate definition is "state-related" and this is in fact how the University describes itself...i.e. as "state-related".[7] There are very few schools in the country that fall into this hybrid category (PSU, Temple & Lincoln in PA and Cornell in NY could be considered other examples). Simply because Pitt is generally placed in the "public school" categories of rankings or other lists does not mean that it an accurate description, as opposed to a matter of practicality for those ranking or listing services. Fortunately for encyclopedic entries, there is no demand for "one or the other" types of categorization and accuracy of description is highly valued (made even better in wikipedia by the ability to wikify descriptions such as state-related). In fact, "state-supported" or "private with some state support" is also how other various encyclopedia entries describe Pitt.[8][9] The description as written much more accurately reflects the true nature of the institution without confusing it's status...e.g. "an independent, state-related, doctoral/research university" is a much more accurate way to describe the school and is the way Pitt seems to prefer to refer to itself. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We ought not use wikipedia articles as the basis for how we define terms, but rather, you know, commonly used definitions from reliable sources. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which is generally the most comprehensive classifier of American institutions of higher learning, calls Pitt a public university. Temple, whose situation is identical, explicitly describes itself as a public school. The precise nature of Pitt's charter and relationship to the state is of course important, but not sufficiently so as to require the creation of an entirely separate category called "State-related" which is apparently used only for four schools in Pennsylvania and which has absolutely no intuitive meaning for anybody - it's pure jargon, and should be reserved for technical discussion, not the intro. "State-supported" would be more acceptable, since it at least makes sense, but still, in basic discourse, universities are considered either "public" or "private," and Pitt is considered public. john k (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia articles should be based on accuracy, not on how its articles define a particular term (which in this case makes it even worse). That is exactly why it is wholly more accurate to use the term "state-related" as opposed to "public". This is a term that is used by Pitt. [10][11], Penn State[12][13] , Lincoln [14], and Temple [15] to describe themselves. It is also used by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to describe those schools. [16][17][18] [19] [20]. If you want, I can start listing 100s of references to the schools and the state of Pennsylvania using this term. The Carnegie classification uses the term "public" because it is impractical to list a separate category for 4 schools. However, this does not make the description used by the Carnegie more accurate. There is NO such limitation on classification in wikipedia, especially when introducing the nature of an institution in a encyclopedia entry (again, see the references above). By insisting on such, you are holding the standards of accuracy for wikipedia to levels that are below that of other encyclopedias (such as Britanica[21] and Columbia [22]). There is no need here, in the main article description of a school, to pigeon hole the characterization of an institution with an all-or none category at the expense of accuracy. It does not adhere to the spirit of WIkipeida: article is precise and explicit or reflects expert knowledge and this is not an article written for the Simple English Wikipedia. I did not, nor did the editors that originally inserted it, create the "state-related" term or category, it already exists and is used by those universities and the state (as noted above), and it is accurately wikified to clarify the meaning to those who might be confused. Again, it is much more misleading to simply use the term "public" which likely lends itself to reader assumptions that would likely parallel the wikipedia articles for public university or public schools. Your suggestions (i.e. opinion) that "state-related" has "no intuitive meaning" would actually benefit the reader in this case since clearly the consensus intuitive meaning of "public", according to wikipedia consensus, is wrong. The dismissal of it as "pure jargon" is contradicted by the fact all of these institutions use it in describing themselves, that it is a term employed by the state of Pennsylvania itself, and its use by the independent press[23][24]. The term has meaning to those within the Commonwealth, among those familiar with higher education in Pennsylvania, and to national experts in higher education [25][26][27]. It is quite telling that before you arbitrarily went through and edited out the term "state-related" in the wikipedia articles for Temple (first used on Sept 10 2005), PSU (since December 2004) and Pitt's (since March 2004) that different independent editors for all of those articles have used the term to describe those institutions. In my opinion, this borders on treading on Wikipedia:Consensus. Despite all of this, the over riding criteria should be that it is MORE factually correct to indicate Pitt as "state-related" even if Pitt was the ONLY school in that categorization in order to most accurately reflect the unique relationship between the institution and the Commonwealth of PA. Being very familiar with the relationship between Pitt and the state, I feel very strongly that wikipedia articles should be as accurate as possible and that the University of Pittsburgh should be introduced accurately, as it is in other encyclopedia entries, and in doing so it is best to use the phrase "an independent, state-related, doctoral/research university". CrazyPaco (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Carnegie Foundation (and US News and World Report, although they seem to base their designations on Carnegie) describes all these schools as public. Temple describes itself as a "comprehensive public research university." Penn State's student newspaper refers to it as a public university. It would seem that Penn State's president considers it a public university, as well. So, it seems, do official Pitt press releases. Lincoln also will apparently refer to itself as a public university in the minutes to board of trustees meetings. Basically, all these schools apparently consider themselves to be public institutions. It seems ridiculously clear that "state-related" universities are a particular kind of public university. I do not at all object to the use of the term "state-related," which is obviously a technical term used by the state (er, Commonwealth, if you must) to refer to the status of these institutions, and which is also used by the press when they wish to refer to this status, or to these four schools specifically. But there is no reason to avoid using the well-known term "public," which clearly applies to these schools and is pretty clearly universally understood to apply to these schools by everyone but a few pedants on wikipedia. The term "state-related" is obscure, and its meaning is not intuitively obvious. The introduction to these articles, which should strive to lay out the basic information about these schools, should provide the basic information that they are public universities. The details should go elsewhere in the article. Again, the issue isn't that I hate the term "state-related" or want to purge it from wikipedia. The issue is that you (and perhaps others) seem to want to deny, in spite of numerous evidence to the contrary, that these are public universities. The basic fact is that a "state-related" institution is, in fact, a kind of public school peculiar to Pennsylvania, and the more basic information (that these are public universities) is more important to the intro and infoboxes than the more esoteric (that the type of public university they are is "state-related" - a term which requires explanation to be meaningful.) john k (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with User:Crazypaco. Pitt is neither public nor private. It is properly designated "state-related." I totally agree with linknig those words to [Commonwealth System of Higher Education]], which should clarify any questions people have about what that word means. The term is uniquely Pennsylvanian, as the conditions that led to the state funding of these schools was uniquely Pennsylvanian. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. Nobody is debating that the proper specific term is "state-related." But state-related is clearly a kind of public school (indeed, a uniquely Pennsylvanian kind of public school). Specifically, as I noted above, all of these schools will casually describe themselves as public, in a way that suggests this is not even vaguely controversial. Did you even bother to read my post above? These schools are designated as "public" by independent entities like Carnegie. They call themselves public. They are generally understood to be public by the public at large. The fact that the specific technical term used is "state-related" is irrelevant. Lots of public schools use different specific terms to describe their precise status. None of this changes the fact that they, nonetheless, fall into the general category of "public". john k (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Further, since nobody's responded yet: can anyone present any evidence that anyone outside Wikipedia considers the "state-related" schools to be non-public, or considers it inaccurate to refer to them as "public"? That's the key issue here, not whether they are more specifically referred to as "state-related," which is obviously the case. john k (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue is what is most accurate and I have provided dozens of citations where "people outside Wikipedia" consider them to be different than "public" hence the use of the term "state-related". In fact again, the Columbia Encyclopedia refers to Pitt as "private with some state support"[28], but maybe you missed that one. The Daily Collegian article and Pitt press releases you cite are both referring to third party rankings that require the use of an all-or-none categorization because it is impractical to create addition categorizations for only 4 schools when creating national lists or rankings. Perhaps, as you accused others, you did not read my response above or the articles themselves because the Daily Collegian article you cite also refers to the proper terminology of "state-related" in the very same article you cited:

But Sean Duffy, Pennsylvania Department of Education press secretary, said Gov. Tom Ridge's budget contributes substantially to higher education, providing $567 million to the four state-related universities -- the University of Pittsburgh, Penn State, Temple University and Lincoln University.

While it is more proper to categorize all 4 schools as public when there is only a choice between public and private, again, Wikipedia articles describing this do NOT require such a choice, and to use your phrase, it is absurd to do so. These hybrid universities are public in that tuition for Pennsylvania residents is subsidized by the Commonwealth and private in that they are independently run and privately operated. They are both a "kind of public school" and a kind of private school whereas the term "state-related" most accurately describes their character. You are therefore incorrect by using the word "public" in a definitive description of an institution for an encyclopedic article and I have documented in numerous examples above where the term "state-related" is used or defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica[29], Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania[30] as well as its legislature[31] [32], The Council for Higher Education Accreditation[33], Language of Education Dictionary[34], International Student Guide to the USA[35], Black Issues in Higher Education[36], all four Universities themselves[37] [38] [39] [40], each of their student newspapers [41] [42] [43],the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[44] [45] and Philadelphia Inquirer[46] [47] as well as scholarly work of "pedants" such as in The Journal of Higher Education[48]. You are in effect lowering the quality of an encyclopedic article to use "casual" descriptions and this is not only unnecessary but also violates the spirt of WIkipeida: article is precise and explicit or reflects expert knowledge. You have presented little more than your own opinion that the use of "state-related" represents any more than jargon used by "pedants" which is clearly demonstrated as not the case based on the above examples. "Obscure jargon" is not used by major metropolitan newspapers. You clearly don't have WP:Consensus which is also demonstrated by "state-related" passing through at least 4-5 years of editorial review of each of the wikipedia articles in question.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
They are not a "kind of private school." They are never described as private schools, and never describe themselves as private schools. Their basic classification is that they are public schools. This is all that is necessary for the introduction, which should provide basic information. The "state-related" material is, of course, important, and should be mentioned in the article, but there is no reason to use it initially, and there is certainly no reason to avoid using the term "public" - and the idea that there's a Wikipedia consensus to not call them public is ridiculous - my change to the Temple article stood for weeks, and there's been a template for some time of "Public schools in Pennsylvania" which includes the state-related schools. And, again, "state-related" is not a term with an intuitive meaning. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. Everybody knows what a "public school" is. Outside Pennsylvania (and to some extent inside Pennsylvania), the term "state-related school" is obscure, and has no obvious meaning. It should be presented in a context where it can be explained, not without explanation at the beginning of the article (even if there is a link). The issue is not that we should avoid using "state-related" where appropriate. It's just that the issue is of insufficient importance to need to be mentioned in the introduction. It's also that we should not avoid calling these schools public, when, again they call themselves public schools. I am, once again, not denying that the term "state-related" is used as a categorical term for these four schools, nor that we should describe these four schools as "state-related" in the article. But we should not imply that "state-related" is some kind of halfway status, neither public nor private - they are a type of public school with more than normal independence from state control, but they are considered, and consider themselves to be, public schools. Let me try something, and see if it's acceptable. 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I basically changed it. I've left the infobox alone. I've changed the first paragraph to describe Pitt as public. Then in the second paragraph I added a sentence mentioning its state-related status, and what that means. I think this ought to be a reasonable compromise. (And, again, these schools explicitly and repeatedly describe themselves as public schools, as well as being so classified by independent entities). By the way, here is Penn State calling itself public right in the front of its missoin state, in addition to previous instances of Temple doing pretty much the same, and some somewhat more distant instances of Pitt and Lincoln. Once again, it absolutely should not be controversial to call Pitt (and the other state-related schools) a public school. john k (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In the link above, by the way, Penn State describes what "state-related" status means: Today Penn State is one of four “state-related” universities (along with the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University), institutions that are not state-owned and -operated but that have the character of public universities and receive substantial state appropriations. They "have the character of public universities." All I want here is some kind of explicit acknowledgement that these schools are public. I really have no animus against "state-related," which I am perfectly willing to accept in the later portions of the introduction, just so long as the first sentence mentions that they are public schools. john k (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "state-related" is misleading anyone. However, they are definitely "kind of private" in the same manner they are "kind of public", words you used. Again, we are not talking about basic classifications. Again, I am interested in accuracy, not hyperbole WIkipeida: article is precise and explicit or reflects expert knowledge. Whether it is intuitive or not is besides the point because defining them as "public" is inaccurate in the context of an encyclopedic entry, and, prone to lead a reader to improper conclusions. Pitt continually describes to itself as "state-related" when the context lends itself to that appropriate description absent of "either-or" categorized rankings.[[49] Again, we are talking about accurately describing an institution, not dumbing it down for "casual" information that other encyclopedias seem to avoid. 100%, absolutely, "state-related" is a hybrid "status", neither fully public nor private. "I don't know why I have to keep explaining this". I am going to make a change to suggest a compromise, that will hopefully clarify the status in the introduction. Let me know what you think CrazyPaco (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope my suggestion satisfies your concerns. It remains technically accurate, while is upfront about the general categorization of the school as a public, all within the first two lines for immediate impact and conciseness (as opposed to the digging down through into subsequent second paragraphs).CrazyPaco (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, use of United States is appropriate, as this is an internationally referenced encyclopedia, and has precedence on many Featured Article status university articles. Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for more information or examples.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, "state-related" schools are more independent from state control than most public universities. Nonetheless, they consider themselves to have the "character of public universities," and are so considered by the state, and as such, are not equal hybrids between public and private universities. They are a kind of public universities which has some of the characteristics normally associated with private universities. I do not like your compromise, because it suggests that they are not really public universities, and implies that this is a designation which is not used by the schools themselves, when, in fact, they all describe themselves as public universities. As I understand it, they are also considered public universities for various legal purposes. For instance, on a subject I'm a bit familiar with, Temple has recognized faculty and graduate student unions. Private universities are not allowed to have faculty unions, as I understand it (because faculty are considered supervisors according to some court decision), and Temple's grad student unionization went through the state labor relations process (i.e., the one reserved for public universities) rather than the NLRB. Basically, these universities are not merely "considered" to be public universities - they are public universities, just of a peculiar type which bears some resemblance to a private university in some ways. Let's try a different version. john k (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You either fail or are unwilling to understand the argument for accurate precise definitions of the universities. Again, you have not addressed the issue of WIkipeida: article is precise and explicit or reflects expert knowledge and are instead relying on the either-or classifications for the universities. I do not agree to your compromise as it results in less precision and suggests less sophisticated readers than entries in other encyclopedias. This will have to be settled with WP:Consensus or go to arbitration of a third party. I am going to concentrate solely on the University of Pittsburgh article, which I will revert to my original compromised edit because it is the most accurate representation of the school and is technically correct. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the wording "maintains its own independent charter" is not really correct. The Commonwealth of PA grants charters for all universities: public, private, or state-related.
This is in danger of becoming a sad addition to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Allow this to come to conclusion from third parties below in order to establish WP: Consensus. In the mean time, since at this time you are outnumbered 2 to 1 in your opinion here, the article should either stay as is or revert to its original edit. Building WP:Consensus below may take time.CrazyPaco (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not "relying on either-or classifications." I am relying on the fact that these schools describe themselves as public universities. If they describe themselves as such, why can we not say so? And, by the way, the three types of schools in Pennsylvania appear to be state, state-related, and private, not public, state-related, and private - the state and state-related schools are both considered public. Once again - why do you insist that these are not public schools when they clearly describe themselves as such? If anyone is insisting on either/or formulations, it is you, by saying that state-related schools are not public, even though they themselves say that they are. john k (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you list this at Requests for comment? john k (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Added RFC tag. RFCsoc seemed the most appropriate category, though that is sort of iffy. I've said this before and provided many citations and explanations, the University of Pittsburgh describes itself as "state-related" when it can introduce itself with the appropriate precision to describe its true nature [50][51][52] (same as other encyclopedia entries for Pitt). It only uses "public" when referring to categorizations or rankings given to it by third parties because it is impractical for those third party organizations to list a separate categories for only four schools in the United States. I can only post this so many dozen times but your own words work best here: "If they describe themselves as such, why can we not say so?" Again, one last time, Pitt (and the others) are provided with subsidized tuition for residents of the Commonwealth of PA, however, they are independently and privately governed and operated. This is a hybrid of characteristics between the common understandings (by wikipedia consensus and other definitions) of public and private universities. It is unique. It is more accurate and precise to say "state-related" than to say either "public" or "private". "State-related" isn't fooling anyone into thinking they are anything other than what they really are...private governance with state financial support above what other private institutions get...and private institutions do get state support, but not subsidized tuition. This is completely different than the state's "public" schools that are owned, operated, and highly subsidized. It is different from most other schools in the nation, perhaps all other schools (Cornell may be the closest example, but their support from NY only goes to particular schools within the university). Pitt is a hybrid most accurately described by a term used (as noted above) by the press, the state of PA, the schools themselves, and various national publications...that term is "state-related". They are typically categorized as "public" by organizations that require "one-or-the-other" categorization because they provide subsidized tuition for "in-state students". However, if the primary concern of an organization is the type of governance, in so much as issues of financial, administrative and academic freedom, then they would be placed into a private category as Pitt is referred to in the Columbia Encyclopedia.[53] No one disputes that Pitt will, if generality is required, refer to itself as public because this is how they are classified in popular culture, notably US News, and also by the Carnegie, both of which are more concerned with whether there is a differential status in tuition charges between in-state and out-of-state students. However, in my opinion, this is or should be about being as accurate and precise in the description of the schools as possible, and "public" falls short of that goal. I believe Version number one below is most accurate in describing the institution (because it is not a public university) while still providing the popular characterization of it (a public university) which was added at your suggestion...and really, not a bad idea. However, you have still have not showed how your version benefits WIkipeida: article is precise and explicit or reflects expert knowledge. Really, I'm just repeating myself over and over know so I'm going to take a break and let others comment.CrazyPaco (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not particularly convinced that the "owned and operated" state universities actually, in practice are all that different from the state-related universities in Pennsylvania. Many public universities have charters which grant them a fair amount of independence from direct state control over most issues, as far as I am aware. (A question: our wikipedia article on my alma mater, the University of Virginia, states that in 2004 it became the first public university to receive only a minority of its funding from the state. Does this include the state-related universities in PA or not?) The "indendendent" governance you discuss of the PA state-related schools includes the governor getting to automatically be on the board of trustees. You are also mischaracterizing the ways these schools refer to themselves as public universities. Specifically, Temple and Penn State both specifically call themselves public schools in the main pages on their website that describe the university. So, it seems, does Pitt. "The University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is a nonsectarian, coeducational, state-related, public research university," says Pitt. Would it be acceptable for the first sentence to say something along those lines: "state-related public research university"? john k (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote from the Columbia Encyclopedia, by the way, is ridiculous - the article is tiny, and the articles on Temple and Penn State don't use the same terminology at all. Clearly the Columbia people were not paying very close attention. john k (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
1) Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education universities are much different in many aspects from Commonwealth System of Higher Education, from size, scope, governance, tuition pricing and structure, legal status, on and on.(a little more on that below) As far as UVA is concerned, I have no idea what "minority of funding" refers to, but if it means less than 50% of its overall budget, this is a misstatement by UVA if it considers Pitt, PSU, and Temple publics as you do. 2) Despite being a "tiny" article, Columbia Encyclopedia is maintaining factual accuracy, as do the rest of the on-line encyclopedic articles. Pitt is, in fact, a private corporation (see here and here)

The University remained legally a private entity and, in practice, retained the freedom and individuality of a private institution, both administratively and academically. It set its own standards for student admission and retention, faculty, and teaching. Its assets remained in the hands of the corporation, its employees were employed by the corporation, and its affairs continued to be governed by an independent Board of Trustees. - from Pitt: the story of the University of Pittsburgh 1787-1987, R.C. Alberts, 1986, pg. 343

3) The Governor of PA is an ex-officio non-voting member of the board. Other non-voting ex-officio members include the PA Secretary of the Commonwealth, Chief Executive of Allegheny County, and the Mayor of Pittsburgh. There are 14 other special non-voting trustees and 28 non-voting emeritus trustees selected by the board. I can tell you the governor does not attend trustee meetings, but state non-voting members represent 2 of 46 non-voting trustee members. There are, however, twelve appointed members to Pitt's board appointed from the governor, the house and the senate, generally appointed from pools of Pittsburgh natives or Pitt alumni. This represents 12 of the 36 (1/3) of the total votes. There are also exemptions from disclosure policies that apply to the other public universities even within Pennsylvania as well as other differences because these schools retain independent control of their institutions. For comparison, the Univ of California system board of trustees is composed of 24 voting members, 4 are state officers (Governor, Lt Gov, Speaker of Assembly, State Superintendent of Public Instruction), 16 other trustees appointed from the gov at his discretion, a faculty rep appointed by the gov from a nominee, a student rep appointed by the gov from a nominee, an alumni trustee elected by the alumni council, and the chancellor (hired by the state). That means that the state has direct control over 20 of the 24 votes, influence on selection of three others (including the Chancellor) and no control over only 1 vote (alumni). Another example, the University of Texas system board of reagents is composed of 9 members that are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate and one student member appointed by the governor for a one year term. Another, University of Wisconsin's 18-member board of reagents is entirely composed of 7-year appointees of the governor with 2 two-year student appointees. A final example, the trustee board of the "public" schools in PA, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, have all of their 20 members appointed by the governor. 4)The wording in the fact book you are referring to appears through 2005, though not after, and I do find that acceptable, as it is how the university described itself up until that point and remains consistent with the accurate description of state-related, though public does not accurately reflect its nature and is why it probably was removed from its description subsequently as it is somewhat confusing to have both terms (for those knowing their definitions) or probably seems redundant (for those who don't know their destinctions). I maintain the better description is how it currently refers to itself[54], but I find this may be an adequate compromise if WP:Consensus is achieved for this version. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Penn State and Temple, whose status you admit is identical to Pitt's, do still describe themselves as public, and there are many pages on Pitt's website, including the Provost's website and the page on the Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences which refer to Pitt as a "public research university." At any rate - it is obviously the case that these schools retain more independence than most (if not all) public schools, in that only a portion of their boards are appointed by the governor, whereas more or less the entire board of most public universities is appointed by the governor. This status does, indeed, seem to be close to unique. That being said, these schools nonetheless refer to themselves as public schools, and are so designated by many other bodies. Furthermore, if the best description is "how the school refers to itself," this would lead to us calling both Penn State and Temple "public research universities," whatever we do with Pitt. Given that the status of all these schools is identical, it makes sense to come up with a common description. john k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree they would benefit from a common description, which they all shared prior to your edits, all using the term "state-related" which was applied by a separate editor in the case of each article and lasting through review for at least 3 years for Temple and 4 years for the Pitt and PSU articles which speaks to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus especially since this phrasing was in the most visible parts of each article. Do any of their current regular editors of these pages share the same delight in minutia and precision? I don't know. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania State University seems rather dormant at the moment. The Temple article does not have very active editing. However, it is no secret that Pitt is my primary editing interest in wikipedia and I'm extremely concerned in the accuracy of articles relating to Pitt and do not feel it benefits wikipedia to compromise that accuracy because of the content of other articles. However, WP:Consensus is central dogma of wikipedia and the Pitt article should reflect that. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I will admit that I blundered into this all pretty sloppily, and I apologize for that. As to a common description, I was merely pointing out that your own criterion would lead to different descriptions for schools with nearly identical objective circumstances, which seems problematic. Perhaps Pitt, with its long history as a private university, is less willing to take the status of "public university" than Penn State, which has always had a public function as a land grant school, and Temple, which has a much shorter history. At any rate, all of the schools call themselves public, including Pitt, and my main point is that we should not avoid the term, or imply that "state-related" is not a subset of "public" (something which I still hold to, in spite of the fairly unique independence of the state-related schools.) Anyway, I hope this can be a workable compromise. john k (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It certainly has helped me procrastinate today. :-) CrazyPaco (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Versions of the intro under debate



These versions relate to the previous discussion. In an effort to achieve WP:Consensus, please add your comments as to the appropriateness of the three compromise versions below, or suggest your own version.CrazyPaco (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Original:
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is an independent, state-related, doctoral/research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Chartered in 1787, Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

Version 1 (state-related status discussed in opening line):
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is an independent, state-related[2], doctoral/research university chartered in 1787 and located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Often categorized as a public university[3], Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

Version 2 (state-related status discussed in second paragraph):
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a public doctoral/research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Chartered in 1787, Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

Founded as Pittsburgh Academy in 1787 on what was then the American frontier, Pitt is one of the oldest continuously chartered institutions of higher education in the United States. Pitt evolved into the Western University of Pennsylvania with an alteration to its charter in 1819, and upon relocating to its current campus in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh in 1908, the school received its current moniker, the University of Pittsburgh. For most of its history, Pitt was a private institution until it became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education in 1966. Pitt is now one of Pennsylvania's four state-related universities, meaning that it is supported by the state but maintains its own independent charter.[4]

I'll just note that I am committed to no particular wording, and if my description of what "state-related" means in Version 2 is not quite right, I am certainly happy to have that be changed to be more accurate. My only concern is that the first sentence of the article describe Pitt (and the other state-related schools in Pennsylvania) as a public school. I'd also prefer that the term "state-related" is provided with some context in any article in which it appears, and not simply by a link to another article. john k (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)



Version 3 (state-related and public in the same line):
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a non-sectarian, coeducational, state-related[5], public research university chartered in 1787 and located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.


I support Version #1. Pitt is not a public school, despite rampant incorrect characterizations in the media and other organizations.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What about the characterizations of itself as a public school by itself? And similar characterizations made by Temple, Penn State, and Lincoln? john k (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You are repeating arguments that have been made and addressed ad nauseam in the debate above. I would suggest either rereading those arguments and discussion and commenting there. It is probably best to reserve this space for third party/alternative opinions and suggestions to avoid cluttering this section with a repetition of the above discussion. This probably best applies to you and I as we are the most guilty of textual diarrhea. ;-)CrazyPaco (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this argument has ever been addressed directly. Certainly ZME has not addressed it, and shows no signs of being aware that these schools refer to themselves as public universities. But I will agree to not get into it any further in this section. john k (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to put your concerns to rest: I have read and have understood the entirety of the arguments regarding this question. I read them yesterday, and I read them again today. Yet, somehow, in spite that, I still say that the lead should refer to Pitt as "state-related." Why? Because it is the most accurate expression of the university's legal status. The fact press releases and the other at times, list it as "public" does not make it so. When in doubt, go with the correct terminology (unless that term is obtuse jargon, which "state-related" is not).--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Singin Rain.jpg

The image Image:Singin Rain.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

What does:

The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a non-sectarian, coeducational, independent, state-related, "public" research university

mean?

How is it state-related, public, and independent at once? Aren't all public universities necessarily non-sectarian and coeducation? Can we clean this up? I would suggest:

The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a state-related research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United State.

Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I get where you're coming from, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and in many countries public universities can be sectarian. Also, Pitt is a unique case, because it is under the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, which basically makes it half public/half private (they get public money but are privately controlled).--HoboJones (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Absolutely that first sentence is a disaster because it is a result of a compromise of the debate above. The original was much better and close to what Madcoverboy suggests. Below are two versions of the intro which I prefer.

Original:
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is an independent, state-related, doctoral/research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Chartered in 1787, Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

Version 1 (state-related status discussed in opening line):
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is an independent, state-related[6], doctoral/research university chartered in 1787 and located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Often categorized as a public university[7], Pitt is a renowned leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for pioneering work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

I prefer either the original or alternate labeled version 1. Version 1 intro also addresses the questions raised in the debate as to the school's status. Madcoverboy, I would be happy if you'd edit the opening line to either of those two versions, because if HoboJones agrees, then that would be at least 3 editors to 1 preferring, what is in my opinion, a better worded and more acurate option. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I understand the controversy and ambiguity of whether it is state-related or public or however we would like to classify it. Cornell University is in a similar bind, for example. However, it is not clear why the debate needs to be hashed out in the first few sentences rather than addressing the issue more comprehensively in the "Organization and administration" section. Simply assert that it is state-related which I believe conveys that it is neither entirely public (not independent and state-funded) or private (independent but not state-funded). I believe the sentence that says, "For most of its history, Pitt was a private institution until it became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education in 1966." succinctly sums up the instability of any classification. There is no need to assert the founding date more than once in the lead, the existing historical paragraph does that well enough. Additionally, research university and doctoral university imply the same, so I would recommend simply asserting research university (as Carnegie classifies). Also, the "renowned leader", "pioneering work", and several other phrases in the lead comes across as boosterism and peacockery more at home in a glossy admissions pamphlet than a neutral encyclopedia article and should be toned down. I would recommend
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a state-related[8] research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with these thoughts. The first lines could read:

The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a state-related[9] research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Chartered in 1787, Pitt is a leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements.

Not to muddy the waters, but anyone want to change "and is well known for work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements" to "and is well-known for its work in medical research, including the development of the first Polio vaccine and organ transplant." I think that avoids the peacocky phrase "among other achievements"; and we should include Thomas Starzl's transplant work as well as Jonas Salk's polio work. --HoboJones (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would second that. I would also recommend stripping out "Pitt is a leader in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine" as it is also unverifiable and peacockish. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You have to be careful when you want to start including other examples of things (like Starzl's work). There are many profound achievements by the university and it is impossible to list them all. Although Starzl's work is up there, the best known is probably the polio vaccine and I think that is fairly obvious. In addition, intentionally or not, it implies greater notability of some work over, say, Langley, Brashear, Safar, etc, etc. So what to include in an opening description of the school must be chosen very carefully, or it could quickly become a mess. I favor leaving the Polio vaccine in there because it is probably the #1 most popularly known achievement performed at Pitt, and the university received a huge amount of publicity and fame for it at the time. However, you also want to avoid pigeonholing the school as just a medical research center, although that is one if its best known attributes, the actual highest ranking department is Philosophy, which generally ranks in the top 2 or 3 nationally depending on the year. Personally, I like how it tries to paint a quick portrait of the university by hitting on its most prestigious department (according to rankings, Philosophy) and most popularly recognized (medicine). IMO, I would say something to the effect that "Pitt is highly regarded in academic fields as diverse as philosophy and medicine, and is well known for work in the development of the first Polio vaccine, among other achievements." This removes the unverifiable term "leader", and leaves a verifiable and factual statement (as "highly regarded" can be backed up by rankings). I would disagree that the remaining wording would be peacockish. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


As I was thinking about the Polio thing a little more, and the reason I favor leaving it in there over Starzl's work, is because its development at Pitt became almost synonymous with the University. If you go back and read the press at the time (e.g. Time magazine, etc), it was also often referred to as the "Pitt Shot". It is sort of unique in that, at least I can't think of an example, where the development of something had such a huge impact in the popular press/culture and was so intricately tied to one institution. You can think of a ton of great discoveries that are synonymous with their "discoverer" like the structure of DNA with Watson and Crick, but they are seldom linked to the university in a popular sort of way like the Polio vaccine was linked to Pitt, and it really defined Pitt for the second half of the 20th century.
Anyway, the other thing I was thinking about the opening lines is how do you convey what a university is about, past and present, in two sentences. I would say if I were to come up with a handful of words to convey a good overall impression of Pitt they might be: "state-related", urban, research, 1787, Philosophy, Medical/health-sciences, Cathedral of Learning, and football. I don't think you can squeeze in urban when there are actually multiple campuses that make up PItt, nor do I think you can throw in things about athletics in the opening line. But, how about this version: The University of Pittsburgh, commonly referred to as Pitt, is a state-related research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Pitt is highly regarded in academic fields ranging from philosophy to medicine, and is well known for the development of the first Polio vaccine as well as its landmark centerpiece building, the Cathedral of Learning. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that phrasing.Good to see the reasoning behind your word choice, too. --HoboJones (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can likewise stomach this a bit more than the previous version. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pitt Shot v. A Vaccine for Polio

I changed the heading title back to "The Pitt Shot." On the contrary, I do think it is descriptive--this achievement was a uniquely Pitt breakthrough, so "A Vaccine for Polio" is kinda ambiguous. It's not that a vaccine for polio was developed, rather that Pitt researchers developed THE moist important vaccine of the 20th century (and probably one of the top 20 science developments in human history--for the first time a human illness was eradicated). Also, "The Pitt Shot" is what lots of folks called it at the time.

As for the edit summary calling this heading "kinda dirty"--I laughed, but not in mean way. I haven't the foggiest idea what kinda of sexual acts "The Pitt Shot" might entail, (but I would like to know what you think it evokes). If other people feel strongly about this change, go ahead and revert me if you like. --Protocop (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The header needs to be descriptive enough that you should know what the section is without having to read it. "The Pitt Shot" does not achieve this. Grsz11 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"Development of the Polio Vaccine" then?--Protocop (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Grsz11 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't have anything specific in mind when I said it sounded dirty, haha.... :)
I like Protocop's idea for the heading, because it implies a relationship between the shot and the university while saying what the section is about without the reader having to do too much in-depth reading. I think something about it being called "The Pitt Shot" would be nice to include in the summary, if you can find a good source. Infamousjre (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Jonas Salk himself called it the "Pitt Vaccine".[55] I would prefer "The Pitt Vaccine" as a subheading. It is more concise, to the point, reinforces the Pitt-centric nature of including this topic in the history of the school (as noted by Protocop), and is a historically accurate term of Jonas Salk's own choosing. It also keeps with the flow of the other relatively short subheading titles in the history section. In any case, use of the term should be added into the section. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
I edited the section in the main article with the proposed subheading for you to see how it would look and read with the term also added with reference in the text. We can certainly change and discuss it further. Let me know what you think. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Pitt Vacine? Sounds like something Joe Paterno got after his Eastern Conference failed (sounds like something that keeps Pitt away). Infamousjre (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. No one knows what the "Pitt Vaccine" is nor am I particularly impressed with the assertion that the inventor named it ___. Even if the vaccine was widely known by that name back in the day (a fact for which we have yet to see proof), it's clearly not known by that name anymore. The section title is confusing for readers and self-serving for supporters of this institution and it needs to be changed. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll completely disagree with your suggestion that no one knows what the "Pitt Vaccine" is, as it certainly is widely recognized in Western Pennsylvania as such (although the Salk's vaccine certainly has more commonly been referred to as the "Salk Vaccine" since its beginning). As the included neutral third party reference stipulated, it was referred to as the "Pitt Vaccine" by Salk himself, which was an attempt to take the singular beam of the spotlight off of himself. This is not an assertion as you suggest, but a historical fact. You can go further into the off-line literature for further documentation of that if you wish. However, I do think the information I placed in the text may place too much emphasis on this less familiar name for the vaccine, which in retrospect, was an unnecessary justification for the subheading title of "The Pitt Vaccine" since the pervasion of that term's use was should have no bearing on the appropriateness or quality of a section subheading title. You assertion that its use is "self-serving for supporters of the university", quite frankly, is insulting. This is a history section about the University of Pittsburgh, for which a historical name of the vaccine would seem to be very relevant and adequate for a subheading. In fact, without realizing it, I have duplicated the title of Chapter 15 of Robert Albert's definitive history of the University of Pittsburgh.[56] Alberts, by the way, was not some sort of Pitt-lackey, but a noted historian.[57] I also completely disagree that the subheading is confusing at all. How could it be confusing? The Salk Vaccine is, as a historical fact, a wholly Pitt developed vaccine, and previously called by at least some, including its creator, the Pitt Vaccine. Is it confusing that it is a vaccine or that it was developed at Pitt? Should the subtitle heading be instead, "The Pitt polio vaccine"? Another reason that "The Pitt vaccine" is better than the "Development of the polio vaccine", is, in my opinion, because it singularly focuses (as it should in the UPitt article) on the development of Salk's killed-virus vaccine by the University of Pittsburgh Virus Research Institute, and not on the subsequent live virus vaccine developed by Albert Sabin. I am going to reverse the edits to the text emphasizing the name used by Salk to refer to his vaccine because it is a more minor factoid, but the subheading seems more than adequate and an improvement over the unnecessarily long and somewhat ambiguous "Development of the polio vaccine", which suggests it may include topics outside of the scope of an article that should be restricted to things of major import to the University of Pittsburgh. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Pitt polio vaccine" would be an acceptable compromise. --ElKevbo (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ok with me, I would even like the "The Salk vaccine" or "Salk's vaccine" better as a heading, although there is some historical discomfort because of the reported slight of Salk not sharing credit with his Pitt collaborators.[58] My preference is actually is more a stylistic thing for me in that I prefer short, catchy subheading titles, but I wanted to be it known that I disagreed with it being confusing or being some sort of inappropriate boosterism and give my reasons why. The editing changes weren't meant to offend, but with the text I added into the section I wanted to see how it read and felt within the context of the article in order to get feedback, and obviously after getting your feedback and thinking about it, I changed my mind on the text changes because the detail about the alternate name seemed too much of a footnote for the brief historical sketch. I'm fine with changing the subheading title to whatever people end up agreeing to, including the original Protocop's "Development of the Polio vaccine". Actually, although I prefer the shorter versions like the original "The Pitt shot", "The Pitt vaccine", or "Salk's vaccine", I think I prefer "Development of the Polio vaccine" over "The Pitt polio vaccine". I just think former is a little better, but this is just stylistic preference. Whatever people decide is fine with me. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pitt law rankings

The showing of the current and past rankings of Pitt Law is important to demonstrate the current opinion of the school through the last few years. Perhaps a detailed description is warranted. The inclusion of additional irrelevant publications or Web sites involving rankings in an attempt to bury the current rank by the U.S. News & World Report is a serious POV issue, as it hides the actual ranking used by potential applicants and employers. Unless this page is sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press Department, all information should be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.197 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiment that a historical view of the school is worthwhile, and your current wording is much more acceptable than the previous versions which seemed to violate WP:POV, WP:SYN, and WP:WEASEL. However, as you said, all information should be accepted. USN&WR is only one of many opinions (rankings) on the school. The section is about rankings of the University of Pittsburgh, and components therefore within, are not specifically limited to USN&WR rankings which is consistent with other such university articles. A sampling of rankings is therefore warranted. It is also a POV that The Princeton Review rankings or Law School 100, which has provided statistical analysis in on the field of law for nine years and is linked from the main Law school article, are irrelevant, and as such, there is no reason they should not be included since they are verifiably referenced. In fact, the Law School 100 ranking matched the 2004 ranking of USN&WR, and the 2009 ranking was still included, so it didn't bury anything, and as such actually provided a sample of opinion that similarly matched your current wording of the section while providing up-to-date information to which Wikipedia strives. Offering the reader more information where opinion is concerned is generally better than less. However, detailed historical descriptions of rankings are most likely more appropriate in the article specifically about the Law School, not the general UofPitt overview article. Such inclusion of historical rankings could be seen to either put undue emphasis on the change in the rankings or diminish the importance of current rankings, especially since the 2004 USNews rankings appears to be cherrypicked from the school's peak, and inclusions of such changes are not included elsewhere on the page (see:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal consistency). Regardless for the sake of WP:CON, I have reworded the section to be inclusive of the information provided in previous edits. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Pittsburgh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some awkward passages ("Buildings not belonging to Pitt, but historic structures within, near, or adjacent to Pitt's campus..."), un-needed assertions of notability ("which is consistently ranked in U.S. News & World Report's "Honor Roll" of America's top hospitals"), unclear what the "Community" section contributes that shouldn't already exist in an Administration & Organization, Student Life, or other existing sections; 7 citations in a row is excessive.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Student life needs to be prosified, no discussion of organization or administration (board of trustees, relationship with state of PA, president & provost, endowment and fundraising, etc.); unclear why location of Panther statues warrants a whole section under campus; no US university rankings template under rankings; over-sectioning in history section + "History of University" is redundant section title, undue weight/context on Polio in history section
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Huge passages of Athletics are uncited, on-going problems with unverifiable peacock and booster terms,
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    History section neglects major topics like racial integration, campus protests and activism in the 1960s and 70s, declining gov't sponsorship, town-gown tensions; academics section neglects any mention of accreditation, academic calendar, honors, enrollment distributions throughout schools, core undergraduate curriculum, popular undergraduate majors & graduate programs, tuition & financial aid, etc.; Alumni sections makes no mention of any notable alumni; no discussion of makeup/diversity/background of student body; research section omits important data on expenditures, major research centers & grants, research space, staffing, budget, etc. in favor of (more) rankings
    B. Focused:
    Undue weight on student government and some non-notable student groups (telefact, blue & gold, probably every student theater and music group, several traditions, for example);
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Preponderance of weasel, peacock, booster, and other non-neutral words (highly regarded, current stature, strong reputation, well-rounded curriculum, commitment to liberal education, leading producers, one of the top universities in the world by multiple studies, a long history of success, etc.) needs to be scrubbed out. This is an encyclopedia article, not an admissions brochure.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Passes my random sampling
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Seem to be too many pictures (especially of nationality rooms and CoL), CoL image in lead creates a lot of white space
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article is generally very high quality, but also clearly bears the fingerprints of editors who clearly hold the school in high esteem and wish to impart this POV on its readers. I cannot recommend promotion until something is done to replace the peacockery and boosterism with basic descriptive information like Carnegie classifications, accreditation information, etc.; I wouldn't go so far as to recommend checking every adverb, but there are a lot of either unnecessary or promotional opinioned ones embedded throughout that should be replaced with neutrally asserted facts. Basically, pretend you're reading the Penn State article and simply assert facts and substantiate claims instead of offering POV or unverifiable opinions cloaked in a stream of cites. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. ]].

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)

Editors interested in this article may find the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 of interest. This workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

An anonymous IP, in obvious vandalistic editing, is resorting to an edit war to insert a picture of James Traficant into the four picture gallery of notable university alumni. Obviously beyond the scope and fame of the four current alumni listed, it also disrupts the existing layout. Does anyone object to introducing temporary semi-protection status? CrazyPaco (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy/paste

—Bill Price (nyb) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright to be highlighted as notable alumni?

There have has been a recent edit highlighting philosopher Nancy Cartwright, a MacArthur Fellow, as one of the most notable alumni of the University of Pittsburgh.

Currently, there are 4 highlight alumni that have photos, consistent with other Wikipedia articles on Universities. The four alumni, form one row. Cartwright had been added twice forming a second row and introducing copious white space, which itself might be an issue of aesthetics.

The four previously highlighted alumni are:

  • Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner
  • Gene Kelly, Academy Award Winner and arguably one of the all-time famous movie stars
  • Michael Chabon, 2001 Pulitzer Prize Winner
  • Orrin Hatch, Unite State Senator from 1977 to present and former Chairman of the Judicatory and Labor and Human Resources committees.

All of the above individuals are arguably well known outside of their primary field of endeavor.

What are the reasons for including Nancy Cartwright at the expense of one of these other individuals or over other Pitt alumni that have won the MacArthur Fellowship? Other Pitt MacArthur fellows, such Bill Strickland and Patricia Churchland are not included. Also not included are such noted scientists as the "Father of Television", Vladimir Zworykin; the Nobel Prize winning "Father of the MRI", Paul Lauterbur; one of the world's first genetic engineers, National Medal of Science winner and founder of the first major biotech company, Herbert Boyer; Nobel Prize winner Philip Showalter Hench, etc, etc, These individuals, even as accomplished as they are, are not even individually mentioned by name in the article, although some are referred to indirectly.

The standard for inclusion with a photo, both in this article and the articles on other universities, seems to be fame or accomplishment that transcends one's field. Any additional thoughts on that and whether or not Nancy Cartwright meets that criteria? CrazyPaco (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion she does not. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, such lists of people are almost always fraught with problems. I'd suggest falling back to reliable sources: are there any lists of famous/notable Pitt alumni? Btw, looking at the list above, I am not convinced a US senator is as notable as the three other winners of world-famous awards (US senators, despite what they might think, are NOT world famous). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Two neutral third party publication lists noted alumni here and here. Hatch is listed in both, Cartwright is not. Further, how the university itself orders its alumni by fame or notability could be summed up in the ones that it highlights in its Legacy Gallery inside Alumni Hall. A list is seen here, which is also used as a reference in the article text. In Pitt's Legacy Gallery, Hatch, Chabon, Kelly and Maathai are all highlighted. Again, Cartwright is not. In fact, all four of the included individuals are often highlighted in other university materials and reports, including the recent website created for Pitt's 225th anniversary. Any of these should satisfy reliable sources.
To touch on Orrin Hatch, he can certainly be replaced, but he is one of the more notable Senators due to seniority and his chairmanship of several of the most power Senate committees which has given him considerable face time. He is certainly much better known than Nancy Cartwright. Just to compare to Hatch, a quick Google search for "Nancy Cartwright philosophy" generates 118K hits, while "Orrin Hatch" generates 2.31 million. This particular philosopher isn't even the most "famous" Nancy Cartwright, as the actor is more popularly known, although certainly not more accomplished. I would suggest that outside of athletes like Mike Ditka and Dan Marino (athletics has its own section in this article), and a movie stars like Gene Kelly, Orrin Hatch is arguably the most popularly known Pitt alumni. Whether Hatch should be included in this list of four individuals might be worthy of discussion, but that loses focus of the primary issue of whether Cartwright should also be included, which I can say with considerable certainty, is no. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the selection of those four is justified by sources indeed; I'd suggest making it clear in text by saying plainly that only those four are mentioned/highlighted. Everybody else should be satisfied with the Category:University of Pittsburgh alumni. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

March 8, 2012 shooting

There probably should be some coverage of this University shooting in this article. [59] SaltyBoatr get wet 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That will probably get added to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center article. In fact, there probably should be a article on Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic anyway, and that would be its most logical location for detailed information. There is still a lot unknown about the incident though.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Community impact" section

Is there a way to integrate the Community impact information into the Campus section? Having a stand-alone section for it seems a bit odd. —Eustress talk 06:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it would. It is not about the campus after all. I don't understand why a stand alone section for it seems strange to you. Admittedly this section needs to be cleaned up and rewritten, but community relations, economic impact, and town-gown political relationships is not an unimportant aspect of any university, particularly urban ones. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflist streamline

Hi all, I have been going through some of the rather huge Pittsburgh related articles and applying:

<div style="height:200px; overflow:auto; padding:3px; border:1px solid #aaa;"> {{Reflist|30em}} </div>


to them all however I see the main article for Pitt has some kind of individual listing with the merged notes etc. If it's possible I see more and more of the "important" articles using this setup on wikipedia, any way we can apply this to Pitt? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

At one point, I believe putting references in a scrolling box like that was discouraged on Wikipedia. Where is this becoming standard? I don't see it on most articles, nor on most featured articles. I don't think it should be done unless there has been a Wikipedia community decision on it. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
See MOS:SCROLL, scrolling lists should not be used for references. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikipolicy link CP, didn't realize that was there. I added the one to the city article a month or two ago from what I remember as New York City's and either LA or Chicago's wikiarticles. I am now observing that New York was reverted sometime to the full list. I can see the pros and cons to both points however if I get the time I might broach this on the Wikiproject site or to the powers that be for aesthetic reasons. Nothing on the NYC talk page about this either so I'm wondering what happened. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree it might look better aesthetically, but I think it just comes down to an access issue for various web devices, etc. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be global too, we can't assume everyone is using the same type of equipment and software. Another thing to think about is how important references are to Wikipedia articles' credibility, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to "hide" the bulk of them in a scroll box. Prominently displaying that an article is well referenced by external 2nd and 3rd party sources may be beneficial from that point of view. Remember, not everyone using wikipedia is familiar with it and plenty are skeptical about its articles' reliability so demonstrating that an article is well sourced might be an argument for the visual utility of a reference sections's full display. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point about winning over/recruiting those wary of or new to Wikipedia.
Resolved

Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 06:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Images

Thanks, CrazyPaco, for your help with the lead -- I hope you will agree it's much improved now. Regarding another issue, I feel like WP:PERTINENCE and WP:IMAGELOCATION are major issues with the images on the article. I feel there are too many images in some parts, and in other parts, images are just randomly thrown in despite having little or no connection to the section they're in. Look for my edits aimed at assuaging these issues. Cheers. —Eustress talk 01:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Towards GA

This article is pretty comprehensive. It needs some more inline citations (I marked where, but only with regards to end-of-para, so probably more are needed), and the last section (people) needs expansion. Once this is done, this can be GANominated. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Having content is one thing (what the GA criterion refers to as being "broad in coverage") -- ensuring it adheres to all GA criteria is another. To that end, I think there's still a lot of work to do here; and it behooves any prospective GA nominator to ensure the article meets those criteria prior to nomination, as opposed to shifting the burden onto one of our volunteer GAN reviewers. —Eustress talk 17:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Public University?

Two of the other main state-related universities in Pennsylvania - Penn State and Temple - are classified as a public university in the information bar and the first line of the entry. I think this entry should be changed to "is a public, state-related research university" and the type of school "public" and "state-related." This should clear up some confusion among people who are looking for public or private universities. 130.49.7.22 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed spam

Please don't use this article to promote products and services by inserting the availability of such things into this, an encyclopedia article. The Pitt article is not intended as a marketing tool. Copyrighted material has been removed. See the documentation here.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

UPITT

I recently noticed an edit war begin about adding the UPITT nickname to the intro and it seems the consensus is that it is not a recognized nickname. I would agree that it is not a regognized nickname and should be taken out. I would like to hear others thoughts on the matter. Acidskater (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion! I don't have an opinion on this matter or any specific knowledge to inform the discussion. However, I note that the onus is almost always on those who want to add or include information to provide supporting evidence. In this instance, it seems like it would be most useful if those who believe this material should be added to or remain in this article would provide credible evidence that the nickname/abbreviation is in widespread use by multiple sources. ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
While "UPitt" has been used in a few news sources in recent years[60], to claim it's an official nickname which should be included in the lead is absurd and not supported WP:V. dissolvetalk 18:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Please note that it doesn't have to be "official." This article is a reflection of the critical information that is documented in reliable sources; it's not merely a reflection of what the university says, wants to be said, or approves of being said. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Pittsburgh native and UPitt alum. I agree that "Pitt" is the university-official nickname and used in many places. However, "UPitt" is also a well-established nickname that is used by some university students and research groups. As a non-exhaustive list:

Some people at the university hate the nickname 'UPitt' and give some great reasons in this Reddit thread. 'Pitt' is a widespread and university-approved nickname and undoubtedly more popular than 'UPitt'. However, to myself, many other university student and research groups, Pittsburgh locals, and people around the world, we are "UPitt" and the University's Wikipedia page should reflect this.

VincentHassel (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that is one hell of a case to include it. Seems these are all scholarship papers and I'd be curious if there are any instances of it being mentioned as UPITT elsewhere (news, books, etc). Not that scholarship sources don't work I just think it may be debatable whether that is enough to include as a nickname in the intro. Acidskater (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
No, this is not even remotely a good case. There is not nearly enough to indicate common usage for "UPitt" that would warrant inclusion in the article lead, unless one intends to add "U[school name]" or "[School name]U" to every university article on Wikipedia.
Since 1908 when the university adopted the name "University of Pittsburgh, "UPitt" has never been used either casually or officially, historically or contemporaneously, by alumni, fans, boosters, students, administrators, the university itself, the alumni association, or any university publications, merchandizers (official or unofficial), or local or national media (at least media that knows their topic). You will never find (in stores, ebay, or elsewhere) a single pennant, t-shirt, or hoodie with "UPitt" on it even going back decades before official university licensing and control of its marks and logos.
A search of the Documenting Pitt digital archive, which includes all searchable copies of all of the university's collected student magazines and yearbooks, all alumni publications, programs, catalogues, media guides, press releases, and historical works on the school results in 7 total matches for "UPitt." All but one of those is a false positive due to character recognition mistaking the shape of the 1950s-60s era crest for a "U" while the other match is a false positive due to a truncated w in the www web address of the school's website.
Therefore, a search of nearly 18,000 unique, archived university-related documents reveals zero matches for "UPitt." Meanwhile, a search for "Pitt" comes up with 154,932 matches in 14,535 different documents. For an additional comparison, a search "Panthers" results in 17,338 matches in 477 records. Taking it a step further, a Google search for "UPitt" at pittnews.com, the website of the university's independent student newspaper (The Pitt News isn't archived at the Documenting Pitt site), reveals 2 hits: one an article admonishing new students not to use the term "UPitt" and another with containing a copy of a tweet from a non-affiliate twitter account. A similar search for "Pitt" at The Pitt News results in 25,000 hits while a search for "Panthers" results in 17,000 hits.
The singular phenomena of the university's Facebook account using "UPitt" for its account address is due to Facebook forcing the issue because "Pitt" is a common surname that is also shared by other schools. Nowhere else does the university use this as a web or social media address. Likewise, the link above that reveals 5 student clubs (not my definition of "many" as is suggested) are not official student club names. They are facebook pages of these five clubs, and most are not formal. A search of the 632 actual student organizations for "UPitt" reveals zero hits while there are 125 hits for "Pitt". Therefore, there are ZERO actual student clubs with "UPitt" in the name.
Further, linking a few hundred total instances of academic journal abbreviations of the name of the school are not indicative of common use, and the use of the word "many" is deceiving considering the 1000s of publications that are produced annually at the school. A further investigation of a few reveals abbreviations imposed on multiple schools by the journals (i.e. UPitt is alongside UMN for the University of Minnesota, which is certainly not a common abbreviation for Minnesota). Neither as evidence of common use are a few odd inclusions of the term in the personally edited websites of a few researchers out of the 1000s at the university. These links do not indicate any sort of common use. Pubmed has nearly 64,000 articles that were published by affiliates of the University of Pittsburgh, but 4 total that hit for "UPitt". Again, the use of the word "many" above is nothing more than hyperbole.
Any use of "UPitt" occurs only by those unfamiliar with the school, history, or culture; whether they are actually affiliated or claim affiliation. The sound/appearance of its use is as grating to those familiar with the school or the Pittsburgh region as is the misspelling of Pittsburgh without the h or the misuse of "Pitt" to refer to the professional sports teams. None of these are ever done by those with minimal familiarity with the region. I cannot overstate the ridiculousness of a suggestion to the contrary.
Inclusion of "UPitt" as a nickname is an absolute gross violation of Expert Knowledge of WP:TPA (and absolutely I consider myself an expert on the topic as my editing history on related subjects on Wikipedia can attest). There are over 105 years of student written and edited yearbooks and 60 years of alumni magazines archived on the Documenting Pitt website. Find me just one single example of usage of the term "UPitt" in any of these documents and I'll completely relent. Otherwise, I will strenuously oppose an uninformed inclusion of this term as a commonly used nickname. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, 'Pitt' is the more common nickname and people fervently fight the use of 'UPitt.' However as I have demonstrated, there are some university-affiliated groups that refer to the university as 'UPitt' and a non-negligible amount of people informally refer to the university as 'UPitt.' My knowledge here is not uninformed as I am a Pittsburgh local and I want this article to reflect that 'UPitt' is a university nickname to some communities in Pittsburgh. I acknowledge that the nickname is not common enough to be included in the article lead and I should have thought more about this before adding it here. Instead, I propose that we add a footnote to the "commonly referred to as Pitt" portion in the lead that says "Less commonly referred to as UPitt." This way the information will be accurately documented and people will understand that the common university nickname is "Pitt" and not "UPitt." We could also mention that "Pitt" is strongly preferred. VincentHassel (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Pitt is the ONLY nickname. "UPitt" is a extremely rare abbreviation for the "University of Pittsburgh" used almost exclusively by those unfamiliar with and thoroughly detached from the university. Any assertions to the contrary are ludicrously uninformed. "UPitt" is essentially never used as a nickname by affiliates nor Pittsburgh locals in ANY community (which searches of the 100+ year archives of the Post-Gazette, Press, Trib-Review, and Pittsburgh CityPaper easily demonstrate), and it never has been so used (as has been thoroughly demonstrated above when the searches of 18,000 of historical university documents and publications failed to return one single instance of its use). The only thing your paucity of links has shown is the very rare use of the abbreviated name occurs in forced situations or by those who are not familiar with the Pittsburgh region, the school itself, or customary terms and names of academia or collegiate athletics, which apparently includes yourself. Any inclusion of it in the article, as a footnote or not, is completely inappropriate. You are the first editor (an editor, I might add, with no other edits other than initiating this edit war) in the 12 years of this article's existence to even suggest it. The fact is, "UP" or "U of P" actually have been used historically, to a much greater extent, than "UPitt" ever has, and the less scarce use of those don't even warrant inclusion in the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, due to inactivity on this, I have added a footnote to the main article with the contents "Less commonly referred to as UPitt." VincentHassel (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
And I've removed it because "UPitt" is never, ever, ever used. It is not different than erroneously calling the school "Pittsburgh University," which it is also occasionally incorrectly referred to as. And when these incorrect monikers are heard or seen used by anyone with any remote connection or knowledge of the university, they are both immediately corrected. Only those thoroughly ignorant of the university would use them, and certainly doesn't come close to fulfilling WP:EXPERT. You are the only editor remotely pursing this wild inaccuracy, your only contributions to Wikipedia have been to engage in this absolutely ludicrous and fallacious edit war, and after two years you haven't addressed and haven't been able to account for any of the above provided information. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

state-related

To editor Bompeaug: The linked article about the Commonwealth System of Higher Education says "Temple and Pitt were granted state-related status by acts of Commonwealth's legislature in 1965 and 1966, respectively." which is why I reverted you. Please don't attempt to correct things that aren't wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So why exactly should we use the unfamiliar state-specific jargon of "state-related" instead of the much more commonly understood "public" as documented in reliable sources e.g., the federal government's data system? ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Because it's correct? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
What an unhelpful response! There are many reliable sources that simply show this institution is public e.g., [61], [62], [63]. So why should we use language that only a small minority of sources support? ElKevbo (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: The designation "public" is less-precise than the correct term "state-related". I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that apply the term "public." Speaking as a student at this university, I can tell you that the Commonwealth impacts us far less than it does Penn State. Despite the University's tone-deaf pleas in Harrisburg for money to offset in-state tuition rates, only about 10% of the school's funding is public. I thought my initial comment would point you to this newspaper article which backs-up my point. This is the Pennsylvania General Assembly's act establishing it so. This is a recent article about the funding to state-related schools. This is what Pitt says. So, if comparing private schools and public schools, Pitt is public. However, the term public is imprecise and the sources I provide demonstrate that. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It is actually less than 7% these days. The only reason Pitt is listed as a "public" is because the Carnegie Classifications, whose data most publications use in ranking and rating universities, uses an either-or category that is based on whether there is a discount on tuition for in-state residents (no matter how small, and Pitt's is one of the smallest in the nation because the public funding is among the lowest). That classification, however, doesn't reflect the governing reality and structure of the University of Pittsburgh at all because Pitt is privately governed and held and not subject to public reporting law.
The traditional and (very!) widely used public-private dichotomy isn't really about the percentage of funding that is received from the state. It's about governance which means it's about control.
I agree that it's important that readers understand the relative percentage of state funding the university receives and the history of its relationship with the state, including its relationship with the other (public) institutions in the state and the state's university systems. But when we're forced to summarize the nature of the university, which is exactly what we have to do in the lede and infobox, we need to use language that is meaningful for most of our readers. We could, of course, choose to be use very specific and technically correct language (I would advocate very strongly for including most or all of the different Carnegie Classification categories!) but we have to keep in mind our audience. I think that "public" is the best description to use in the lede and infobox with the specific details best left for the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Pitt is privately governed. It's assets are privately held in control of its majority privately selected board of trustees. All officers are privately selected. It does not have to follow public disclosure rules. It receives a modest (<7% of budget) public subsidy in order to reduce the cost of tuition of Commonwealth citizens. It receives this funding outside of the primary state-budget as a "non-preferred" entity. A 1/3rd minority of its board is reserved for Commonwealth appointees. It has been given status of an instrumentality of the state so that it can issue its own bonds. The only accurate descriptor is "state-related." The term is wikilinked in the article to account for it being more rare than an either-or categorization that doesn't accurately apply to the university. The term "state-related" is precise and accurate per WP:TPA and wikilinked if a reader wishes to learn more about the distinction. There is absolutely no reason it should be changed. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the description of the governance of this university

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Despite being open for over 4 months, this discussion does not establish much clarity. In fact, the most honest reading of this discussion is as more of a temporary cease-fire than a resolution. Even taking into account that this is not merely counting noses, the strength of the arguments and the relevant polices invoked do not establish a clear consensus. The term "state-related" was preferred by a plurality of editors but that plurality was slim and good arguments were made that another description should be used or that no explicit description should be adopted. No consensus is apparent from this discussion, therefore, for any proposed lede and infobox description. In an RfC that fails to achieve consensus, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. There are assertions below that a 2018 discussion on this page established "state related" as preferred. Unfortunately, that discussion among three editors cannot be considered definitive due to the lack of agreement and small number of participants. That would normally guide the page towards the last stable version of the disputed text before the RfC began yet that is also problematic. The most-recent edit immediately before this RfC's earliest !vote used "public" but changes between "public" and "state-related" have been occurring with a fair degree of regularity while other edits have been taking place. That is, while there is clear dissension over the topic, there is no clear edit war and a stable "prior version" is not readily-identifiable. Specifying a point in time where either "state-related" or "public" could be considered "...the version of the article as it was prior..." would be very subject to quibble. The slight consensus towards "state-related" should therefore be temporarily respected while other dispute resolution venues are considered. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


Should the lede and infobox say that this institution is "public" or "state-related?" ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Public: Please note that there is some relevant discussion just a few sections up although it's from a years ago. To reiterate and summarize my position supporting the use of "public:" Most of the commonly used sources that classify or compare institutions (e.g., Carnegie Classifications, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. News & World Report, Times Higher Education, Quacquarelli Symonds, and - inconsistently - the university itself) classify the institution as "public." I agree that "state-related" is the precise definition used the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that should be discussed in the article. However, the lede and infobox is not the right place to use unusual jargon that is unfamiliar to virtually all readers and different from what the commonly used higher education literature and scholarship uses. ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related: Previous discussion; I'm not sure why this is being revisited. Wikipedia is to be as accurate and precise as possible, and reflect Expert Knowledge per WP:TPA. The University of Pittsburgh is not a publicly governed institution as it is not publicly owned, controlled, or operated and is not subject to public open record laws. Its board of trustees is privately controlled, elects itself and all officers, including its chancellor, and controls all assets, foundations, and institutional policies. The governance of the university is functionally and operationally private. However, it receives a modest budget subsidy (~7%-8%) from the state in return for reduced tuition for citizens. It is also considered a non-preferred instrumentality of the state for the purposes of budgeting (its subsidy is not part of the state's general appropriations since it is not a controlled entity) and to bestow the university with the ability to issue its own bonds. These facts of its private governance and public subsidization are not in dispute. The most accurate and most correct term, as prescribed and used by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is state-related, and this term is wikilinked in the article for any reader who wishes to obtain additional information on the relationship between institution and state. Because an entity does not fit into a neatly into an either-or bucket created by third-party publications or organizations does not license the use of incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading descriptions in Wikipedia articles, whether appearing in the infobox, lead, or otherwise. Strict adherence to artificial binary categorizations is not a requirement of Wikipedia nor does it serve it well. Because this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, it is hard to understand how the term "state-related" would lead to more confusion or misunderstanding of the institutional governance than the use of the term "public" which is at best inaccurate and at worse false. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related per Crazypaco and the points I made years ago (above). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No type description in the opening sentence of the lead, but a mention in the opening paragraph, roughly as is currently done, and a more detailed discussion in the history section. So something like "The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is a research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pitt was founded as the Pittsburgh Academy in 1787 on the edge of the American frontier. It developed and was renamed as Western University of Pennsylvania by a change to its charter in 1819. After surviving two devastating fires and various relocations within the area, the school moved to its current location in the Oakland neighborhood of the city; it was renamed as the University of Pittsburgh in 1908. Pitt was a fully private institution until 1966 when it became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Why would we do this when all other reliable sources except those controlled by the institution itself - and not even all of those - classify the institution as "public?" It really seems like OR for us to classify the institution differently or refuse to follow the sources simply because a few editors have performed their own analysis and come to a different conclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Well we could follow what you suggest and call it "public" in the lead, even though the rest of the article makes clear that it is "state related" rather than truly public, or we could follow what Crazypaco and Chris troutman suggest, and call it "state related" in the lead, even though the rest of the article makes clear that it "is typically categorized as a public university", or we could follow what I suggest and reflect the ambiguity found in the main article in the lead, which is what MOS:LEAD tells us to do. I would also suggest that the point of an RFC is to gather wider opinions, particularly from editors who are previously uninvolved, rather than trying to "win" the argument, and that letting the discussion run for a day or two before seeking to rebut points you disagree with is generally more conducive to this process. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Public – The description of 'state-related' given above is in keeping with what would be called public elsewhere – British universities are not government owned or governed but are called public on the basis of their receipt of government funds and the obligations they take on for doing so (in particular limits on tuition fees for domestic students), which sounds very like the position here. I therefore agree with ElKevbo that there is no need to introduce a new and unfamiliar term. The precise nature of the university's relationship with the state can be explained further down in the article, but for the purposes of the lead, where we should be using terms familiar to general readers, 'public' covers it quite adequately. Further, we should be preferring third-party sources over the university's self-description, and these seem to come down overwhelmingly on the side of 'public'. The proposed phrasing "became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education" is basically saying it became a public university, so we should simply say this. Robminchin (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clear why the British definition of a 'public' university is relevant to this American school. There are a lot of ways British and American English vary, even to the point of the same word in the same context having opposite meanings (see, for example, the verb table in a legislative context)…. Secondly, the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is separate and distinct from the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education and specifically does not make a school public—like the other CSHE schools, Pitt is not owned or controlled by the state. Despite receiving a small public subsidy, Pitt and the other CSHE schools are State-related, not public. It's not just a self-description, it's a legal definition; if anything, calling Pitt 'public' is using the university's confusing, inaccurate self-description. Infinitebuffalo (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clear why we would rely on the judgments of Wikipedia editors instead of the many reliable sources that have been cited above. The U.S. higher education "system" is very complicated and we should be very wary of Wikipedia editors substituting their own evaluations and judgments in place of those made by scholars and experts. Those scholars and experts had to make the same decision we are trying to make - how to best succinctly describe the governance of this institution, in many cases for publications that have an audience as varied as Wikipedia's - and they have all made the same decision. We should follow their lead. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As you wrote in the previous discussion two years ago, the "public-private dichotomy isn't really about the percentage of funding that is received from the state. It's about governance which means it's about control." Pitt isn't controlled by the state, as Crazypaco described just a couple days ago. It is (barely) publicly subsidized, but it is privately governed. Infinitebuffalo (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is international, not just American. The point of Pitt being similar to British public universities is that Pitt clearly falls within what is considered public worldwide, so it is entirely correct to refer to it as such. Under MOS:COMMONALITY, this article should use the common international term, "public" rather than the highly specific "state related". Robminchin (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not getting directly involved here as both sides seem fair, however, using MOS:COMMONALITY and this line of reasoning is bit of a stretch, not particularly because this is an American subject matter (scroll down to the next section) as it still would be better to choose a common term, but more because these terms do vary between countries. British universities which are clearly public by local definitions could be classified as private elsewhere, as they're private bodies with a proportion of public funding, not unlike (at a stretch) Cornell University or (at a far greater stretch) MIT (it even has the governor on it's board). To pick a similar example where this is more clear, take public school and public school, a similar topic with far stranger public/private terminology. I'm not saying either side is right, clearly this university would be public by British definitions, and may be private by some US definitions, however arguing based on British terminology here seems a little strange. Shadowssettle(talk) 09:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Public – I think ElKevbo and Robminchin provide compelling reasoning. If the school itself says it is a public uni, is categorized in such fashion by outside organizations, it is public. Along with the whole paragraph detailing the state-uni relations, I think there is no reason to make it unnecessarily confusing for a visitor who's just glancing the lead. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related — in addition to my comments above, I strongly agree with Chris troutman and Crazypaco above, particularly this point: "Because an entity does not fit into a neatly into an either-or bucket created by third-party publications or organizations does not license the use of incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading descriptions in Wikipedia articles…. Strict adherence to artificial binary categorizations is not a requirement of Wikipedia nor does it serve it well." Pitt is neither fully public nor fully private; if the term state-related is problematic (I agree it's unusual) and readers don't understand what it means, well, as Crazypaco wrote, that's what links are for. Infinitebuffalo (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • State-subsidised The difficulty for me as a non-US English speaker is that with "state-related" it is not immediately obvious to me what precisely is being implied; a state, as in a subregional unit of a specific country (in this case Pennsylvania), as against the state in general (ie State (polity)). Moreover, the state-related link is a redirect to a differently titled article, with a not particularly clear introduction as it stands. At the same time, I can see the point behind not calling this a public university; that does imply a different set of institutional relationships which do not exist here. My suggestion would be wording such as this (accounting for US English): "The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is a privately-governed, state-subsidized research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related — "State-related" is the actual government designation for the relationship between it and this institution. Not only is it the correct and most accurate terminology to use, the term itself is intuitive and largely self-explanatory. "State-related" could hardly be considered obtuse jargon as has been suggested, especially when compared to the many examples of far more specialized language used in various technically-orientated Wikipedia articles. It is not confusing, and it effectively conveys a sense of the hybrid nature of the university while maintaining the appropriate standard of accuracy. And if all of that fails, it is appropriately wikilinked. Pennaltoid (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jonathan A Jones suggestion or similar. The descriptor "public" is understandable but misleading; the descriptor "state-related" is confusing jargon. There is no clear consensus for either label, and so the sensible thing to do is a short, well-written description of the status that avoids specific labels, as offered by JAJ above. --JBL (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Public: Agree with the reasoning provided by ElKevbo, Robminchin, and GreaterPonce665. The four members of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education are treated as public universities by all major education publications, so I see no reason to use non-standard terminology here. The CSHE may be different from most state university systems, but if you disagree that CSHE universities should be called "public", take it up with the countless reliable publications that classify CSHE universities as public universities. Also, I should also add that the wording needs to be consistent with the other CSHE universities; in other words, I can't see any justifiable reason to change it to something other than "public" on this page without needing to get consensus on the talk pages for the other CSHE universities. --Drevolt (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I'll drop a note in the Talk pages of the other institutions and invite input from editors who watch those pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related - I agree with CrazyPaco and the other users above, and believe that "state-related" is the best option. The term is precise and more accurate than "public." JohnDorian48 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Came here to close this, but I can't find a consensus. After trying to close it as NC, I realized that I had a strong enough opinion that I should !vote instead. To summarize, we have folks like US News and even the Carnegie Classifications using the term "public". We also have generally agreement that that term isn't quite right and "state-related" is more accurate, but less-well understood. So we've got a lede that uses "public" and an infobox that uses "state-related". Even more oddly we have the "public" in the lede linking to "state-related" which is just very non-intuitive. I think public is misleading and needs to be removed (though a reference to how it is considered by US News and the Carnegie Classifications certainly needs to exist). So state-related is the term I'd go with in the lede and infobox. I think being obscure (with a link) but correct is more important than using a term because things like the CC didn't have a box Pitt really fit into. I'd be fine with "State-subsidized" also. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for not closing the RfC and !voting because you have a strong opinion! I hope this isn't badgering because it's not intended to and it's not directed at just you but I'm very uncomfortable with the !votes advocating for a solution that is not reflected in the cited sources; it seems like original research. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Both options are, IMO, well cited. Just one is more accurate. And I really really hate the linking of "public" to "state-related". That's just completely surprising. See Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment, especially the "Easter-egg" link part. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For the lede, neither option as per Jonathan A Jones' suggestion above; we should write around the problem, which accurately reflects the ambiguity of the situation. If we absolutely must mention one or the other in the lede, it should be "state-related" as that is the legally applicable term. This could be done by expanding the last sentence into two with a short explanation: 'Pitt was a fully-private institution until 1966, when it became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education. It is now designated as "state-related", which means that it remains privately operated but receives some public funding.' For the infobox, state-related, but I suggest an {{efn}} footnote explaining the term, possibly paraphrasing or copying the description in the lede at Commonwealth System of Higher Education, or linking to that article from the footnote (e.g. "State-related is defined more fully in the article about the CSHE designation.")
This avoids the Easter-egg problem of calling it "public" but linking the word to an atypical definition (plus the secondary problem of people who think they know what "public" means and not clicking the link, thereby missing the fact that it's not a typical public [government-operated] university). It also avoids the problem of calling it "state-related" by itself in the opening sentence, which is an unusual descriptor that only applies to these four universities and doesn't have a good standalone link target. –Darkwind (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • State-related or neither. Public is imprecise. It is quasi-Public, but not quite. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2020 (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.

New RfC opened on "state-related"

This issue has been opened again in a new forum despite the failure to gain consensus for the change here.
See new RfC here
CrazyPaco (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi CrazyPaco - This has already been pointed out in the RfC, but I thought it was noting here on the talk page as well that no consensus was found, and that running a no-consensus again in a context likely to garner wider participation is fairly common. If there's once again no consensus found, this will likely have to go to dispute resolution for a decision. But I thought it was important to make sure you knew that this wasn't some kind of nefarious attempt to undermine the last RfC, because there was no consensus in the last RfC. --Drevolt (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Per the closure above, "The slight consensus towards "state-related" should therefore be temporarily respected". CrazyPaco (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Per further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, the discussion "remain no consensus, which defaults to the existing status quo of "state-related" across the board." Since 2004, "state-related" has been the original and only accurate descriptor of the institution's governmental relationship and has been continually and appropriately appeared in the article for the nearly the entirety of its history. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It's inappropriate and disingenuous for you to mix accepted, factual statements about the status of the article and previous RfCs with your own contested opinion as if your opinion is also uncontested. ElKevbo (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. --Drevolt (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

CrazyPaco, there's no consensus for either of the options that were previously on the table, and I was advised at the dispute resolution noticeboard to open a discussion regarding compromise options at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, which is what I did. You're welcome to suggest other ways in which the article could be edited in order to incorporate both sides of the RfC (which it's now been firmly established are both technically correct), so if you're not happy with this particular phrasing, please propose a new compromise option there or endorse one of the others which was suggested. But a "no consensus" result from an RfC unambiguously does not authorize you to stonewall any attempts to find a compromise; and it's become pretty clear that an "either/or" approach just isn't going to address everyone's concerns adequately, which was not clear before we had two consecutive RfCs that reached a stalemate. I would vastly prefer if we could set this to rest now with a compromise, because otherwise, this topic is going to produce yet another RfC in 2021, which several other editors had suggested but which seems very unlikely to find any consensus for either "state-related" or "public". I would therefore really appreciate it if we could have a civil discussion at the WikiProject Higher Education talk page about the sort of compromise you'd prefer, rather than sparking an edit war over this. --Drevolt (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh is not "one of the top universities in the US according to domestic and international rankings".

There is clear academic boosterism throughout this page, but let's start with the most far-fetched claim: "Pitt is ranked among the top research universities in the United States in both domestic and international rankings." This claim violates several policies including W:OR, WP:BOOSTER, WP:WEASEL – primarily since 1) not a single source cited calls Pitt "one of the top universities in the US" (OR), 2) the purpose of the statement is entirely intent on trying to bolster the image of the university (BOOSTER) 3) The word "top" is clearly being stretched far beyond its standard understanding (WEASEL).

Here are the facts that don't care about your feelings:

Pitt is ranked outside of the Top 50 in 6 of 7 domestic and international rankings. It cracks the Top 50 in a single domestic ranking, ARWU, which isn't even a domestic ranking publication. The gold-standard American ranking publication that everyone cites, US News and World Report, doesn't have it in the top 50. Further, US News classifies Pitt as "more selective" – this is not a good thing. For context, University of Florida, a school that's not necessarily known for its academic reputation, is considered "most selective" – a tier above Pitt. Forbes has Pitt at 144th in the United States! WSJ has it barely cracking the Top 100.

Universities that receive the designation of "top university" on Wikipedia are universities that are Top 5 nationally and Top 10 internationally i.e. Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Oxford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, U of C, Cambridge, Tsinghua, etc. These are the "great universities" of the world that in an encyclopedia deserve recognition for their significant contributions to society in terms of research, alumni, impact on popular culture, etc.

Whether you look at expert analysis (rankings), raw data (student profiles), or society's general perception, Pitt is at best - at best - a mediocre school.68.199.120.122 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ [64]Bill Hoffmann (2005-06-28). "Blood Swapping Reanimates Dead Dogs". Fox News. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "PA Higher/Adult Ed.: State-Related Universities". Pennsylvania Department of Education. 03. Retrieved 2008-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
  4. ^ Alberts, Robert C. (1987). Pitt: The Story of the University of Pittsburgh 1787–1987. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. book One, p. 1. ISBN 0-8229-1150-7.
  5. ^ "PA Higher/Adult Ed.: State-Related Universities". Pennsylvania Department of Education. 03. Retrieved 2008-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ "PA Higher/Adult Ed.: State-Related Universities". Pennsylvania Department of Education. 03. Retrieved 2008-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
  8. ^ "PA Higher/Adult Ed.: State-Related Universities". Pennsylvania Department of Education. 03. Retrieved 2008-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ "PA Higher/Adult Ed.: State-Related Universities". Pennsylvania Department of Education. 03. Retrieved 2008-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh/Archive_1&oldid=1170928734"