Talk:East Liberty (Pittsburgh)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	East Liberty (Pittsburgh) is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East Liberty (Pittsburgh) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 misc 2 NPOV--what's the issue? 3 the main article sanitizes the issue of race, but an editing war on the talk page won't improve the article 4 YO

[edit] misc

This whole thing is written towards the point of view that urban renewal is bad and we need to do certain things to save the neighborhood. --SPUI (T - C) 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I have taken out the remarks criticizing urban renewal and noted the support that some residents had for what were certainly well-intentioned renewal decisions.

I have also taken out an initial comment that the East Busway tended to increase the neighborhood's relative isolation, as it generated discussion that pointed out the inaccuracy of that comment, and seemed to be discursive. Because the busway is largely in a natural ravine, and because its two local stops seem to have helped Shadyside (at Ellsworth and Highland Avenues) without doing much one way or another for East Liberty, I thought this whole section ought not be present. Spakj1 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV--what's the issue?

What exactly is the NPOV dispute associated with this article? There's no substantial controversy discussed on this talk page that hasn't been resolved.

Strangely, and alarmingly, the article studiously avoids race as a factor in the neighborhood's political context and development. In the 50's and 60's, was race an issue regarding the people who left East Liberty for the suburbs? Was race a factor in the concern over the overcrowding of Homewood and the building of three large housing complexes in East Liberty? Was the racial makeup and architecture of those large housing complexes reflective of the city as a whole, or reflective of particular issues of race in Pittsburgh? Eradicating race as an issue disrespects history and colludes with those who wish to eradicate races they don't like. It's politically illiterate, indifferent to history, not encyclopedic, and certainly not NPOV. JimmyTheSaint 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag because I agree with you. No such discussion was ever begun. Do you have information that might be pertinent to the article? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been edited to include racial prejudice as a factor in the neighborhood's decline during the 1960s. Spakj1 13:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)spakj1

Can you provide citations for your claims? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I can and have. Spakj1 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Much better. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the main article sanitizes the issue of race, but an editing war on the talk page won't improve the article

While there was still a NPOV notification in the article, I began this section and raised here another NPOV issue. Being the most recent entry, I put it at the top of the talk page. Almost immediately, the user ChrisGriswold removed the NPOV notification from the main article, then moved this section to the bottom of the talk page, but did not indicate that in the edit summary. I placed it back, since it was still chronologically more recent than the minor items collected under the "misc" heading, but the same user went and buried the controversial issue again, putting "WikiProject Pittsburgh" in the edit summary, which covers the true nature of his edit. Apparently the user ChrisGriswold wishes to sanitize the article and its discussion. JimmyTheSaint 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the user ChrisGriswold stalked me to a completely unrelated WP entry I made when I created a page for St. Mark's Poetry Project on October 16, 2006. Soon after I created the entry, on October 19, with minimal information, he marked it for deletion as not being worthy of note, despite the organizations's fame. What a strange coincidence that he should happen upon such a recently created page just after pulling some shenanigans on me on the East Liberty pages. I can understand that not everyone has heard of the Poetry Project, but it's irresponsible for someone to assume their ignorance alone translates into the organization's insignificance and take such a drastic action as to mark its article for deletion. I fear that this user, who polices the East Liberty page, takes it upon himself to retaliate in inappropriate ways. JimmyTheSaint 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree! That guy is nothing but bad news! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But seriously: I left appropriate edit summaries. New comments go at the bottom of the page; this is the way the entirety of Wikipedia works. I did, in fact, check out your edits because of the way you were reverting my edits here and making accusations. I did not tag the article for deletion; instead, I provided a link to information of how you can prove its notability. Should no cited claims of notability be made, the article will be deleted per speedy deletion guidelines. I removed the NPOV tag from the article because you had a good point: Nobody ever actually raised an NPOV issue here. I unfortunately did not respond to your original comment. Perhaps that was my mistake.

Now, I will ask you to stop making accusations and to perhaps read the above links on how Wikipedia talk pages work, if you are interested in such a thing. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YO

I do not understand why the article leads off with the words "predominantly African American" when virtually all of East Liberty is owned by white people. The policemen and women are mostly white people, too. The so-called "Blacks" who stroll about aimlessly on the streets of East Liberty do not dominate anyone or any thing.HeyYallYo 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)