Talk:Pennsylvania/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

State Entry

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

History of Pennsylvania.

There was nothing on the bankruptcy of Pennsylvania (due to the policy of internal improvements) in (if memory serves) 1833.

True it might be argued that such information might only have a place in a history of Pennsylvania (rather than the history section of a general article - although it is rather more important than much of the information that is the history section), but there was nothing on it in the "History of Pennsylvania" article - indeed there was nothing on the early 19th century there at all.

Paul Marks.

pennsylvania Dutch Candies

Is the candy company the only notable small company in PA? Why this one over all others? Should pennsylvania Dutch Candies be deleted? Key45 22:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

pennsylvania government

re "Pennsylvania's government is unique as it was based on consensus rather than voting?. " The mixed tenses leaves me as the reader uncertain about whether we are talking about the state's current government or its government during colonial times. Eclecticology, Saturday, June 29, 2002

State Information

What format should the "State Information" be in? I put it in two formats for comment. -- Ram-Man

The only thing in that table that I would consider "state information" is the capital. But that's just my cynical opinion. :) --Brion
Yeah, I don't like the title either. It could use something more creative. I'm not feeling especially creative right now. But I've found things like state xxxx in encyclopedias before. I wondered if the table would be appropriate, or just a boring list like everything else. -- Ram-Man
"List of random crap that some state legislator rammed a bill past a quorum declaring to be the official X of the state"? My state has an official state soil for goodness' sake. I would consider it a sore waste of effort to make a table; just toss it at the end of the article somewhere. --Brion
I think I'll keep it since I already went through the effort. If someone else wants to change it to something that pleases them, more power to them. I personally like it. We shall see if in time others agree. BTW, it is not that hard to make a table. -- Ram-Man

It has already been suggested elsewhere that a modified WikiProject Countries table should also be used for major administrative subdivisions like states. See also the currently dormant WikiProject U.S. states. That is the place to work this out. BTW, there is little reason not to have two tables in each state article -- of course the officia state x table found here is not as important as population and such. --mav

Question

From article: Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was one of the most important figures in Pennsylvania's history, although he was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He founded the University of Pennsylvania in 1742. He had the distinction of signing both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. He is buried with his wife Deborah in Christ Church Cemetery in the city. What city? Pollinator 15:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Right here in Philly. I've changed it-- good point. Marnanel 19:58, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Towns in Pennsylvania

There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles about towns in Pennsylvania that haven't been updated since 2003 began. Can you put a Media Wiki box in these towns?? 66.32.74.97 01:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

State symbols

I added some new state symbols that weren't in the list. I'd also like to add the dates that each was designated. I feel that this is pretty important information if someone comes and wants to know how long milk has been the state beverage, for example. I just don't know the best way to go about displaying this...

Skyline picture

That skyline picture of Philly needs moved. It's creating WAY too much white space. sam 14:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I moved the skyline picture of Philly up under the last paragraph in the general section. When it was down under the sidebar, there was a page of whitespace under the paragraph, then a page of whitespace under the image (table of contents took up some of it). I brought it up so the rest of the page would come up. I was thinking about just moving the image down with the Pittsburgh image in the Cities section. Feel free to do so if you think it looks better there. Sam 18:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


License Plate

The license plate shown on the page is outdated. Does anybody have a sample image of one of the newer, uglier ones to put in its place? Lancer Sykera 05:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the new plates that have the www.visitpa.com address at the bottom. These are not the official plates of Pennsylvania, according to the Department of Transportation's License Plate page, found at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/license_plates/index.shtml.Sam 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I think there is a bit to much on the Pennsylvania Dutch in the intro. While they do deserve a mention I think a sentence or two is appropriate in the intro and that the rest should be brought down into the article under demographics or even given their own section. The intro should not be the place that we discern the many sects of Amish people. Interested to hear what others think--Looper5920 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The note on the "Dutch" misnomer should be cut, or at least moved to the body of the article. A simple distinction between PA German and Dutch will do for now. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Concur. I'm from Lancaster County, but there are many articles for the Penna Dutch and the various components of this group. The Note on Dutch/Deutsch merits a single sentance, at best. Redneb 14:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The plain sects aren't really that many in terms of religious demographics, but the tourism industry built around them is significant. Consequently, I figured it made more sense as a Pennsylvania Dutch region as a geography subsection than as a demographics subsection, at least until someone comes up with a better idea. In any case, this gets it into its own section and out of the intro, where it doesn't really fit. ClairSamoht 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Big Mac, an PA invention?

That's sorta like asserting that Henry Ford invented the color black because the model T was available in any color you wanted, as long as that was it.

The Big Mac is simply a double-decker hamburger, and Bob Wian introduced that in 1937. It was popular enough that he renamed his Glendale CA eatery from Bob's Pantry to Bob's Big Boy, and built a nationwide chain of franchised restaurants around that sandwich.

In 1937, Richard and Maurice McDonald's Arcadia, California drive-in was new, and they didn't even sell hamburgers at that point - they sold hot dogs and orange juice.

Maybe the Big Mac deserves mention *somewhere* on the page, but I don't think "inventions" is the proper heading. Consensus? ClairSamoht 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Delligatti invented the special sauce that gives the Big Mac its distinct taste. Since his name is attached to the sandwich I'm guessing he has some sort of patent for it. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 01:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The McDonald's corporate website states that the Big Mac was introduced systemwide in 1968 and was the brainchild of Jim Delligatti, one of company's earliest franchisees. They also mention that by the late 1960s Delligatti operated a dozen stores in Pittsburgh. An article in a local Pittsburgh paper described a schoolkid's interview of Delligatti. Delligatti said they he did not/does not get any type of royalty for the sandwich. McDonald's gave him a plaque to memorialize his creation. The article mentions the first Big Mac was sold in Delligatti's Uniontown store in 1967 and Delligatti told the interviewer that when he first made the Big Mac, McDonald's told him he could only use ingredients already on hand (including the ingredients for the special sauce). So, it seems to me that even McDonald's doesn't view the Big Mac as just another double-decker hamburger. Bosby1 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1967, McDonald's doesn't allow franchisees any freedom at all. They not only had to use the brands of products McDonald's specified, but buy them from the company McDonald's specified. Can you tell the difference between Diamond Crystal salt and Morton salt? That doesn't mean that McDonald's invented salt. Of course, McDonald's doesn't view the Big Mac as just another double-decker burger. Delligatti may not make a royalty on the sandwich, but McDonald's does - between the franchise fees (based on sales) and the rent (based on sales) and the advertising funds (based on sales), it costs a franchisee something like 20 centa on the dollar when he sells a Big Mac, money that McDonald's doesn't collect on a Big Boy, a Double Whopper, a Wendy's Double, a White Castle double hamburger, or the sandwiches I make in my kitchen. The US patent office says an invention much be new, useful, and non-obvious. You might argue that a Big Mac is useful - it keeps the dogs quiet, just as a hush puppy does - but by 1967, it was hardly new and hardly non-obvious. Every mom-and-pop burger joint in the country beat them to the punch. ClairSamoht 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Flight 93

I removed the listing of Flight 93 as the first battle and victory against terrorism. It wasn't. The UK has been battling terrorism in Northern Ireland for decades, as has Israel in the mideast. Given that people were calling themselves terrorists as far back as the 1700s, I doubt they were first, either. (No disrespect intended to the passengers of Flight 93. They are honored for their heroism, not because they were innovators.) ClairSamoht 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

In regard to the anonymous user(s) who keep(s) including population estimates that are, at best, of dubious origin, I've checked the most readily available sources from the U.S. Census [1] on population projection and found the following:

  • Total population, 4/1/2000: 12,281,054
  • Total population estimate, 7/1/2005: 12,429,616
  • Projected total population, 2010: 12,584,487
  • Projected total population, 2020: 12,787,354

This is nowhere near the estimate of 12,800,000 the user has posted for 2010. And as I have yet to find any racial estimates for 2010, I cannot confirm any of the stats provided, but on the surface, I must conclude that they are absurd.

    • I have also checked this official site, and concur that the current numbers listed in article are INCORRECT.Redneb 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Official demographics from 2000: 84.1% White, 10.0% Black, 3.2% Hispanic, 1.8% Asian, 0.1% Native American, 1.2% Mixed race
  • "Projected" numbers in 2010: 70.1% White, 12.6% Black, 10.8% Hispanic, 6.5% Asian, 1.0% Native American, 2.1% Mixed race

Where, exactly, is this population shift occurring? Is the white population really going to decrease by a million people in just ten years? Yes, urban areas are hotbeds for immigration, but even their numbers aren't enough to affect the rest of the state that drastically. I would like to think that a reliable source can corroborate these statistics (e.g. maybe more white Latinos will identify themselves as Hispanic instead of White). Until I see one, I'm assuming that these numbers violate common sense. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pat, Pennsylvania is #4 of all states in the elderly, and they're virtually all white. "And the white population of the US is so lazy that they don't even breed", as my (white) neighbor points out. The hispanic population has a substantially higher birth rate. Even so, Pennsylvania is expected to have less change in population between 1990 and 2025 than any state but West Virginia[2]. Seems to me that we've got plenty of wooded counties that would benefit from some of those immigrants that California and Texas are complaining about. Immigrants are, by definition, people who are not only dissatisfied, but have the gumption to do something about it. Couldn't we use some more gumption in this state? ClairSamoht 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK once again, the racial makeup anao has posted false information. First of his pouplation estimate was wrong, and i have put up the official projections for both 2010 and 2030 with their corsponding documents linked as well. Secondly the refrence that he gives for the racial makeup in 2010 does not have that information. Per the Census Bureau, Projections Branch

"The projections were produced for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia by age and sex for the years 2001 to 2030, based on Census 2000 results,...This set of state population projections represents only an interim update to incorporate the results of Census 2000. During the next year, we anticipate developing a revised set of population projections that will be consistent with a revised set of national population projections and that will include modifications to produce projections by race and Hispanic origin as well as by age and sex.

theirfor the Census Bureau have not released any official projections on a state by state basis for the racial or ethinc makeup of a state in ehtier 2010, 2030 or any other year, that have only so far released these figures on a national basis for race only [3], of which you can not make any projection or derive a projection of the racial makeup of PA. Othet then that the analysis of the information was nothing short of speculation. Now if the user wants to provide the actucall source document bu Census that shows these projections as official, then i will consider it for inclusion, otherwise it is speculation to be thrown out. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so far, this [4] is the only Census document I can find that contains any racial projections. It is based on data from 1995, so it is not wholly reliable, but it is still probably more accurate than the numbers that keep getting posted anonymously. Here are the projections (approximately) for July 1, 2015:

  • White, non-Hispanic: 10,270,000 (82.50%)
  • Black: 1,396,000 (11.21%)
  • Native American: 24,000 (0.2%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander: 333,000 (2.67%)
  • Hispanic: 507,000 (4.07%)

So while minority populations are almost certainly growing, Pennsylvania won't become a melting pot overnight. Until newer numbers are available, please, no more speculation: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should even use those numbers, being that (even for projections) they would be pretty much outdated. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again [5], our anon user posted FALSE information about the ethnic/racial projection for the state. The only change this time is the user is no sourcing the The Pennsylvania State Data Center, using this link. The only problem is that the State Data Center DOES NOT provide this projection information. The only projection information that provide is for population on a county by county basis, [6], [7]. I wonder what source this user wants to site his information from next. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture-Food Section

This section is poorly written, and largely irrelevant- what state doesn't have "ethnic" restaurants, or too many Applebee-clones? Yes, SE PA is the junk food capital of the world-thats as far as I'd go. I would like to delete most of the rest, without getting yelled at. Just wish it was as difficult to ADD as to delete! Redneb 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many of your criticisms. I don't see any reason why "TastyKakes" is mentioned, for instance; it's not like they are something special, in the way that "Vernor's" is different from other ginger ales; snack cakes are pretty much the same no matter where you go, no matter what brand is on the label. Neither is there anything special about the local beers. You might argue that Faschnacht Day is unique to the Lancaster area, but that's really mostly of a Shrove Tuesday thing; they aren't that much different than other doughnuts.

And I'm not sure it's really valid to argue that SE Pennsylvania is the junk food capital of the world. Most of the chinese places appear to have exactly the same menus and the same recipes. Do they get prepared at a central commissary and reheated at each store? Columbus not only has more chinese places, but they are all a little different. It's hard to find greek chili in SE PA; every third storefront in Cincinnati is selling coneys and three-ways. There are few gringo restaurants in SE PA, and virtually no authentic mexican places, possibly because we have so few mexicans here. (Wish California weren't so selfish with their illegal immigrants! I'd love some good menudo.)

The folks in Cincinnati would argue that scrapple doesn't come from Philadelphia, and they have goetta as well.

The things that are unique to SE PA aren't so much restaurant foods but things like chicken and waffles, filling, and pot pie.

Yes, it needs a major rewrite, but I'm not up to it tonight. Maybe our comments will encourage someone else? I think a lot more people would contribute if they realized that they don't have to be perfect, and they don't have to be experts - that it's a group thing, and others will assist in refining the piece in a process of stepwise refinement. I understand your "just wish it was as difficult to ADD as to delete" comment, born of frustration, but it probably doesn't help things.

It SHOULD be harder to delete than to add. If you're deleting something, there obviously was someone who thought the content should be included. If you're writing something, it's more often "nobody bothered to write that yet" than "everybody else thought that was a dumb thing to include". And given the fact that writing is damnably difficult to do, even poorly, we need to value contributors highly, even when they are less than perfect. ClairSamoht 07:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing unique about having loads of restaurant chains in a state, and I have no way of knowing if PA really has the most restaurants per capita. If it isn't unique info, feel free to delete it unless someone objects. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Don't worry, I don't yell! (Although I do have a tendency to bite on occasion...)

Official number

I am not disputing the fact that PA is the second state, but number 2 has no official status as the other symbols in the list do in the state, see: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/VC/visitor_info/hello_pennsylvania/symbols.htm . I could understand if their is something form the state that says the official number of the commonwealth is 2, but i cant find anything to that fact, and to be conststanct with the rest of the list i dont think it should be included. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Roads

It should be noted somewhere in this article that Pennsylvania Offically has the worst roads in the USA. "I could not agree more btw, you can actually see where PA and MD meet, not to mention feel."

I won't believe you until I see a source. Having to drive down Fort Street in Detroit makes me inclined to take your claim with a grain of suspicion. Isopropyl 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was laisted as having the worste a couple of years ago, but i dont belive that is the case currently. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Overdrive ranks PA in 4th place for the worst roads: 1. Arkansas 2. Louisiana 3. Michigan 4. Pennsylvania 5. Illinois. Being from NW Ohio originally, I can agree on PA having better roads than MI. I'm surprised, though, that states without winter freezing might be in the top two positions. Oh, well, I'll count my blessings. ClairSamoht 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE YOU FELIXX <33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.237.159 (talk • contribs)

Delisted GA

Hi. I have removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good article listing due to the following:

  • No references. One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided. Inline citations are preferred but not required. When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate. Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles R or WIlliam?

The beginning is inconsistent - which of these two named the colony? Midgley 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable Pennsylvanians

I dont see why we need an in article list if we have a List of people from Pennsylvania as well, makes the in article list redundant. Recomend moving the list to the list article. Also was this not done once before? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pennyman

This source [8] states the state was named after William Pennyman. There is no article of William Pennyman. Can anyone find any other source backing this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs) .

Umm you might want to re-read it, it says that Pennyman built Marske Hall, and that it was later occupied by "William Penn who was better known for founding the state of Pennsylvania in America.", So no it was not maked after Pennyman. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Power Plants

In the article it says "The state has five nuclear power plants, more than any other state." That is not true. Illinois has six and even says so on Illinois's article.

The Confusing Question of the "Town of McCandless"

I removed the statement claiming that McCandless in Allegheny County is a town. Since this was backed with a citation, I feel an explanation is in order. The citation is the following website: http://www.townofmccandless.org. In the history section of the website states that McCandless is a "Second Class Township". Furthermore, Wikipedia's own page on Town of McCandless refers to it as a census-designated place, and simply another name for McCandless Township. Given such a convoluted naming scheme, it is easy to see how the editor made the mistake. Nonetheless, McCandless isn't a town, and should not be labled as such. Sixtus LXVI 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning, Sixtus, but Chapter 23 of the Pennsylvania Code would seem to be the ultimate citation. The state chartered the Town of McCandless on January 1, 1975. It's not just a township. It's an incorporated municipality. ClairSamoht 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Chapter 23 simply makes McCandless a Home Rule Charter Municipality. Despite the language of the statute, I question whether it is a town in the same sense as Bloomsburg. Allegheny County's website still lists it as a township [9], and the town hall is located in Wexford (as specified by its mailing address), a separate census-designated community located within McCandless itself. I believe that all Chapter 23 does is make McCandless a Home Rule Municipality named the "Town of McCandless," that happens to also be a township. If this were to case, it would put to rest a lot of the contridictions that can be found from source-to-source.
Having said that, you are probably right, Clair. My opinion, sensible as it may be, means little here. Since the law calls it a town, then we're all bound to treat it as such, unless someone can show us, with more than mere speculation, why we shouldn't. I have, however, made a small change to your edit: I made it clear only McCandless (and not Bloomsburg) became a town through special leglislation. Bloomsburg has been incorporated as a town since 1870, a long time before Home Rule Charter Municipalities existed in Pennsylvania.
Nice job on digging up the Pennsylvania Code. I wouldn't have thought to look there. Sixtus LXVI 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the county website lists it as a town. What you were pointing out was a mistake by someone doing the website, who obviously didn't know better. Search4Lancer 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think's it's presumptuous to claim, absent any evidence, that what I was pointing to "was a mistake by someone . . . who obviously didn't know better." Unless you created the webpage or know the person who did, such theories are nothing but mere speculation. I think a more likely explanation is the the whole situation is somewhat confusing and convoluted. Although McCandless IS a town, it is impossible to deny that it is an odd town which shares many characteristics with a township (which it was until 1975). I think, therefore, that confusion is understandable. "Country" Bushrod Washington 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe Bloomsburg became a town through special legislation, too, not just McCandless. Bloomsburg became a Town on March 4, 1870 when State Senator Charles R. Buckalew proposed the law that would incorporate Bloomsburg as a town. I found that on http://www.columbiamontourchamber.com/Alliance/quality_of_life.html I haven't yet located the law that chartered Bloomsburg as a town. Virtually every other state has their complete state statutes available online, but Pennsylvania does not, and I haven't been able to make it to the local dead-tree repository. Given the p***-poor job Pennsylvania does in funding dead-tree libraries, and "ignorance is no excuse", wouldn't it seem reasonable that Pennsylvania provide their statutes online in full? (Oh, well. If that were my biggest complaint, I'd be really well off.) ClairSamoht 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be reasonable for the Commonwealth to post all of its statutes online. As a law student here in Pennsylvania, I have been frustrated by this on more than one instance. No need to find the specific law incorporating Bloomsburg; the website you've found seems good enough. I'll make the appropriate changes. Sixtus LXVI 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the history section of the website states that McCandless is a "Second Class Township". - what you did just there was twist their words. It says "The Township was incorporated in 1857 as a Second Class Township..." It does NOT say that it is a second class township. Search4Lancer 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
First. I did not twist their words, and I do not appreciate the accusation that I did. Twist —- to distort or pervert meaning -— seems to imply some bad faith on my part, be it malice or reckless disregard for the truth. I can assure that the my argument was made in good faith. The history section states that McCandless was incorporated as a township. It makes no mention of the Special Act that reincorporated it as a town. Absent any knowledge of the Act's existence, I assumed, as the average person would, that it was still a township. While this is incorrect, based on the evidence I possessed at the time it seemed to be a reasonable inference.
Second. I don't really understand why you're pointing out the flaws in my arguments now. Clair did an excellent job refuting them back in June. I thought that McCandless was a township, and did some research, which confirmed my suspicion. I therefore made the appropriate changes, and posted my reasons. Clair reverted, pointing out that Ch. 23 of the Pa. Code incorporated McCandless as a town, and was dispositive. I agreed that the Code was dispositive, however, I still had my doubts as to whether McCandless was a town in the same sense as Pennsylvania's other town, Bloomsburg. Clair then responded stating that Bloomsburg became a town under similar circumstances. That's largely it. Clair proved his point, and was correct. McCandless is a town, albeit an odd one. There’s little more to be said. Your time would, therefore, be better spent making constructive edits, as opposed to furthering a discussion that ended six months ago. "Country" Bushrod Washington 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there may still be confusion and possibly misinformation about this. A number of recent Pennsylvania government publications reassert the statement that Bloomsburg is the only "incorporated town" in the state. [e.g., The Pennsylvania Manual 117 [10], section 6 page 22 states: Bloomsburg, the county seat since November 30, 1847, was incorporated as a town on March 4, 1870, and still is the only incorporated town in the state. Section 6 page 6 lists McCandless as one of twelve townships that have adopted home rule charters. It lists the name as "McCandless Town" on page 6-7. Bloomsburg is given an asterisk on 6-10 with the notation that it is counted for the purposes of recordkeeping as a borough. The Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006) Chapter on "Local Government Entities in Pennsylvania" states "There is only one incorporated town in Pennsylvania." citing the Pennsylvania Local Government Fact Sheet. The Pennsylvania Local Government Fact Sheet, 2005 [11] lists only one town. The "Municipal Statistics" chapter [12] lists only one town. It seems to me that the township of McCandless adopted a home rule charter and decided to adopt as its name "Town of McCandless" -- it does not appear that McCandless incorporated as a town -- merely that the township adopted "Town" as part of its name. However, as far as the state is concerned, it is nonetheless still a township. Bloomsburg was apparently incorporated as a town and is the only entity specifically incorporated as a town. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the information - to add to the possible confusion, I see there are also 17 boroughs (if I counted right) that have the word "City" in their name [13]. And we think medieval theologians were silly to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable musicians from Pennsylvania

I'm a n00b here, so please excuse my errors until I get up to speed. I noticed that the Notable musicians from Pennsylvania section completely omits any references to notable musicians from Pittsburgh's jazz scene: George Benson, Earl "Fatha" Hines, Erroll Garner, Ahmad Jamal, Stanley & Tommy Turrentine, Billy Strayhorn, Billy Eckstine, etc.

Once I finish the tutorial and get my information together, I believe I'll add them to the list. Bosby1 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Coast vs Shore

This article distinguishes between coast and shore, stating that a coast abuts the ocean, and a shore need not do so. However, that distinction is a quibble that most definition do NOT agree with: [14]. It's also one that the US Government does not agree with: the United States Coast Guard maintains a station in Erie, Pennsylvania.

In as much as Wikipedia leans towards to plain speaking with such policies as Common Names, I think it's more reasonable to refer to the Lake Erie coastline, and the Delaware River shoreline. Consensus? ClairSamoht 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

Can we add a section about the how the United States Marine Corps was founded in Tun Tavern, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1755? Also note that when it was founded, it was called "The Continental Marines" which was the fighting force of the "Continental Navy." Later the Continental Navy because the United States Navy as well as the Continental Marines became known as the United States Marine Corps. Knippschild 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. This article is already "overweight" and we're trying to pare it down as we rework the page, trying to become a "Featured Article". One of the things we're doing is taking some of the more important topics and turning them into articles of their own, leaving just a "See also" link in this article, and where possible, a short summary.
We've got a very nice article called List of Pennsylvania firsts that would be the perfect place for that item. It's all about the innovations, inventions, and creations of Pennsylvanians. At this point, it's just a list; most of the items read something like
because nobody's touched the items since they were moved from this article, but there's no reason we couldn't go into a little more detail, now that we have room. You know, something like
although I don't know that 1776 is the correct year; I just guessed. You probably know, so please feel free to add that item to the list, if you would. And thanks for the suggestion! ClairSamoht 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not much of a wiki'er and I am not really sure where I'd put it and how I'd state it. I'm afraid I'd add some bias to it as I am a marine, myself. I'd like it to be more than just a mentioning "Marine Corps, founded in Philadelphia 1755.", perhaps its own paragraph. As there is some interesting facts you could cite. Knippschild 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Overcited

This article is massively overcited, damaging it's readability. JBKramer 13:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. When one writes and includes information that is not one's own work, one is obliged to provide a citation. This allows the reader to verify facts. As there is no original research on Wikipedia, all articles should, therefore, abound with citations. This page is, in my opinion, becoming a model of a properly cited article. "Country" Bushrod Washington 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As someone said elswhere - "The effect is almost one of academic parody, and very distracting." Citations are not needed for trivial facts. JBKramer 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed your Cite Check tag. None of these citations are misinterpereted or inappropriate. Your complaint is that the article is overcited, not that there is anything inherently wrong or misleading with the citations. The tag, as I understand it, is not meant for situations like this. If you feel that too many "trivial facts" are cited, then fix the mistakes. Don't just throw a tag on the article, and then leave it for others to deal with. "Country" Bushrod Washington 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked 21 random articles (1 was a disambiguation, so I didn't count it). 70% had nothing labeled as a reference or footnote or source (of these 7 (35%) had no references or external links, 7 (35%) had only external links (but at least there's something outside the article referred to)). Of the 6 that had references (30%), 4 (20%) had only one reference and 2 (10%) had two references. Some of the articles with refs also had external links, but I did not keep track of that. Given the fact that verifiability is supposed to be a key factor in Wikipedia articles, I think complaints about too many references are a bit misplaced, don't you? Ruhrfisch 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely ruined by all those references.--81.240.91.78 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion Entry

If you add up the religion statistics they assume that there are no non religious, atheist or agnostic people in Pennsylvania. This article needs statistics that include all religious orientations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.26.9 (talk • contribs)

  • No. If you read the description and look at the numbers, it says "There were 7,116,348 religious adherents in Pennsylvania in 2000, following 115 different faiths...". The percentages refer just to those identified as religious adherents. Since there are over 12 million people in PA, it is clear there are a lot of people who are not religious (although as the note explains below the entry in question, about 1 million religious adherents are not included in the number used for percenteages. I will try to clarify the statement since it is confusing if not read carefully. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoever decided to fix the religion breakdown section: It doesn't make much sense, given that you go into overlapping detail in certain areas (e.g., Episcopalians, etc. are Protestant denominations, so there will be confusing overlap with "Mainline Protestant" - the analogue would be listing the various Orthodox denominations with adherents in PA, and then having a separate category for "Orthodox.") Please fix this. Additionally, I note that the Orthodox percentage has been done away with altogether. Why? Narsil27 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I restored the referenced version and put the note below in a new Notes section (always seemed awkward in tiny script in the text). Ruhrfisch 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)