Talk:University of Pittsburgh/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: 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)
thread_title: Other athletics

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:School and university projects/Pitt-Societies-2005]] 

message: 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. []
*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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Football

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motto? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Posvar

message: 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)
thread_title:  PT Marion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Panthers

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd like to thank  for confirming for me that Telefact is on the ninth floor of the William Pitt Union. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student media 

message: 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. Yes, I'm doing research. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alma maters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: General Needed Univeristy of Pittsburgh stuff

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some Dead Dog Research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Actually I believe it was Appalachian State that collaborated on that. Or was it South Florida? Douglas Barber 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Polio

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Thoughts on some merges for buildings

message: 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  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)
thread_title: AfD nomination of Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Versions of the intro under debate

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Singin Rain.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pitt law rankings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protect request 

message: —Bill Price (nyb) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/paste 

message: There probably should be some coverage of this University shooting in this article.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: March 8, 2012 shooting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Community impact" section

message: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Towards GA 

message: 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)
thread_title: Public University?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on University of Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611070511/http://www.alumni.pitt.edu/impact/trad-right.html to http://www.alumni.pitt.edu/impact/trad-right.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705124257/http://www.webometrics.info/top6000.asp to http://www.webometrics.info/top6000.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed spam

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive //web.archive.org/20080929145557/http://www.ecac.org/membership/division_I/index to http://www.ecac.org/membership/division_I/index
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926193213/http://www.pdehighered.state.pa.us/higher/cwp/view.asp?A=6&Q=41016 to http://www.pdehighered.state.pa.us/higher/cwp/view.asp?A=6&Q=41016
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  described just a couple days ago.  It is (barely) publicly subsidized, but it is privately governed.  Infinitebuffalo (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC about the description of the governance of this university 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Per the closure above, "The slight consensus towards "state-related" should therefore be temporarily respected". CrazyPaco (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seconded. --Drevolt (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New RfC opened on "state-related"

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