This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
I keep changing my mind- I'm not sure who copied from whom, to be honest. This article is quite well sourced (albeit not in-line) whereas there's nothing on the VisitPittsburgh website to indicate authorship or research of any kind. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for noting your concerns! It can be very difficult to determine point of origin when a website has the same content as a Wikipedia page. I've done some evaluation, and with the information we have, we can't really disprove copying of part of the contents of the page. The truly problematic paragraph was added here. It was added all in one piece and without any sourcing whatsoever. The archived version of the external source does not extend far back enough to verify copying on our part, but it doesn't fall so short as to verify copying on theirs, either. Since there have been no changes to that text to show natural evolution, I next looked at our articles corresponding to other listings on their page. No content is duplicated. If they copied from Wikipedia, they would have copied only that one paragraph, which seems unlikely. Under the circumstances, I've removed the problematic paragraph from our article. The rest of the content is, I believe, independently developed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
