Talk:History of the Pittsburgh Steelers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kimo

So, uhm... as a Bengal's fan & Wiki-person I think VonOlf might not have been "blocked" completely into him. Is there a way we could put it so it remains a point of contention as it is over here for many ppl? I don't get any sweeping media sentiment or (talking/w others here) that Kimo meant to put a cheap hit on Palmer, but most ppl think he didn't need to go that "extra mile" and crawl while wrapping him up. What would be a great way to put this in it's contentious context but still avoid an edit-war? --Duemellon 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if it just said "tackled" that'd be fine. It's as neutral as it can be like that. Gold Stur 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be okay, but doesn't quite tell the story. In the CinBen one I was sure to dedicate a section to the escalation of the rivalry. I'm surprised there's no mention of the hit by Thurman that injured Roth. Right now, we hate you guys!!!!!! : ) Rivalries are fun --Duemellon 13:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed it to "hit" --Duemellon 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Should it not be included that the Cincinnati Bengals and Carson Palmer himself have come out to say that the hit wasn't dirty? Murphyr 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to something that I think is fairly neutral. "Late hit" has negative connotations. Shayborg 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the hit not late though? Look at replays. Carson Palmer is looking at Henry at the time he is tackled, well after throwing the ball. Gold Stur 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was definitely after the throw, and my edit is (at least intended to be) clear about that. It's just that the specific phrase "late hit" normally is used to mean a hit late enough to justify a personal foul. This one doesn't fall in that category. Shayborg 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It was FUCKING ACCIDENT-- get over it already. Palmer has admitted it, and so should Bengals fans.

Doesn't change the fact that it was late. Gold Stur 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the fact that it was after the throw doesn't make it a "late hit". As shayborg's noted, the phrase "late hit" is used (usually) as a type of personal foul. As Von Oelhoffen committed no such personal foul (as per the opinions of the officials, Carson Palmer, the entirety of the Cincinnati Bengals organization and most sports analysts), the term "late hit" is misapplied in this case. Was it after the throw was made? Yes. But willfully slandering a player in the face of the evidence and opinions of people that can change is tied to team allegiance, and is nonencyclopedic. Not that it matters that much, seeing as how (as happens with the page of any sports team, for example, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) playoff games are drastically reduced in size following the completion of the season, and Von Oelhoffen thing may get edited out anyway in choosing the important points of the Steelers' 2005 post season. Murphyr 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a revert war here, but I really don't think that "after" needs to be emphasized in "Kimo von Oelhoffen hit Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer in the left knee after Palmer threw a 66 yard pass." Given that it's pretty much accepted by everyone outside Cincinatti that it was accidental, emphasizing it seems unnecessary. Whatever. I don't care all that much, but it does bug me a little bit. Shayborg 10:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what it's supposed to add. Yes. Von Oelhoffen hit into Palmer after the pass was thrown. One could argue he was blocked into him. One could also argue that to continue to emphasize the "late" aspect of it smacks of bias and ignores the opinions of officials, Palmer himself, the Cincinnati organization, every commentator that's going to comment on it, ignores Kimo Von Oelhoffen's apology to Palmer and the Bengals for whatever that could have been avoided and wasn't, and is simply unencyclopedic. It's understandable that Bengals fans be angry about what happened. It's not, however, allowable for that anger to influence the encyclopedic nature of what Wikipedia's trying for. The emphasis adds a bias to the article that disappears without it. Without the italics, it simply states a fact, which is what wikipedia tries to be. Murphyr 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On a separate but related note, the phrase "what many consider to be the defining moment of the game" is an example of the use of weasel words. We are left in the dark as to who those many may be. One might also say that the game was defined more by a lack of Bengals defense in the second half than by Palmer's injury. But then, that's relatively minor.Murphyr 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Take out the 's around "after" and then read it. The "after" is very easily looked over. I didn't even notice it until the second or third time reading it, that's why I made it italized. As for the weasel words, please, tell me what WAS the defining moment? I know Steeler's fans, they'll say the hit was. Afterall, they certainly find it funny enough. As for the defining moment being our defense, look at our defense, it sucks and it always has. BIG surprise. Beside, the offense WILL score when your horrible back up quaterback throws 2 interceptions. Gold Stur 12:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The weasel words allegation does not depend on what the defining moment was, but that no source is cited (rather deferring to the vague "most people"). So telling you what the defining moment was is irrelevant. Furthermore, your response seems to generalize the actions of the steelers fans you know onto the entire fanbase, which I just don't think is true. I'd venture that most Steeler fans a) have forgotten about it by now and b) were genuinely upset, because no one actually likes to see an athelete like Palmer get hurt. The reason I suggested an alternate defining moment is that I, for one, heard analysts mention the injury after the game, but focused on the fact that it's hard to win a playoff game if you give up 31 points. But then these are all irrelevant, as wikipedia's policy is to report facts, not hyper-emphasize phrases so that one viewpoint can be expressed. I'm off to class. EDIT: Actually, forget all of that. I took your advice, and read it without the italics. Because the rest of the paragraph goes on to discuss the controversy surrounding the hit (so that attention is called to the fact that it occured after the throw) and because wikipedia is meant to be strictly encyclopedic, the italics are over-emphasis and unnecessary. Without the italics, the statement is merely that of fact. But whatever. Murphyr 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole thing could be pretty much solved if you keep the word after un-italicized and change the the phrase "in what many considered to be the defining moment of the game" to "in what might be considered the defining moment of the game". I think that properly describes the importance of the moment without the vagaries of the word "many". If there are no objections, I'll make the change and remove the contested notice. --Exquivan42 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What this page is really missing are the views of Skip Bayless , Woody Paige , the whole of the Bengals offensive line and anyone who has ever lived in South Ohio. As we all know all referees are both inept and corrupt in equal measures and their judgements are utterly secondary to a coalition of vested interests , blockbuster hack journalists and a mish mash of ex NFL Wide Receivers better known for their garish dress sense than having even a rudimentary grasp of the NFL rule book.

It is agreed here that Kimo's hit was not dirty, right? So why do Bengals fan see the need to emphasize the minor detail that the "hit" came after the pass was thrown. It was an unfortunate situation, but there is no reason to even imply that the hit was not clean.

As a fan of neither team I can say this crusade against von Oelhoffen is ridiculous and childish. He did not attempt to injure anybody and the dubious inclusion of the question of it in this article, along with the tremendous prominence of it, is ridiculous. It is a sign of some obvious trolling by Bengals fans who want to put a juvenile "Scarlet Letter" on the Steelers Super Bowl victory. Quadzilla99 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad the STEELERS kept the whiny Bengal fans out of the playoffs for another year! GO CRY ABOUT IT TO CARSON FOR ME!

officiating in super bowl xl

today i am reading a lot of articles on the internet about the "controversial officiating" in super bowl xl. although i am a steelers fan, perhaps this should become part of this page. Lenn0r 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Much of this has been written on the Super Bowl XL article. Please do not repeat that content here since it will be redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if we're talking facts then WHY are Bengals fans editing Steeler pages???? Here's FACT:

• A rushing defensive player won’t be allowed to forcibly hit a quarterback below the knees. He has to make every effort to avoid such a low hit. Palmer, Griese and Roethlisberger suffered knee injuries on low hits BUT THOSE THREE PLAYS WERE CONSIDERED LEGAL BY THE COMMITTEE because they involved defensive rushers coming off blocks. Several other plays such as the old Rodney Harrison hit on Trent Green when he was with the Rams along with a Jared Allen low hit on Kerry Collins would be subject to a 15-yard penalty. That proposal passed, 25-7.

I thought Wikipedia dealt in facts until I read the words DOVE under Kimo's hit and the garbage posted under rivalry. I can provide links to ESPN, the Post Gazette, the NFL and NOWHERE to I find what is stated on wikipedia....that the ruling was BECAUSE of the Palmer hit nor can I find a valid reference that it is now referred to as the Kimo Van Oelhoffen rule. Do you always let the Bengal fans make up Steeler history??? If so, can I apply for the job to edit the Bengals page????

Rooney2 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Rooney2

Ah, how about we just include a short paragraph afterwards on the controversy and state that the Bengals staff and the majority of others saw it as a clean hit?

Pirates become Steelers

When in 1940 did they change the name? was it after the 1940 season ended (early Dec 1940) or before the 1940 season. Where they the Steelers for the 1940 season or where they the Pirates for the season? Smith03 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lowell Perry

I just created the Lowell W. Perry article. He's the NFL's first African American assistant coach (receiver's coach for the Steelers 1957-1960). Anyone care to work that in somewhere to this page? Charles (Kznf) 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential re-write

This article needs to be tightened up quite a bit. Some users have put some work into a possible re-write of some portion of the article. If someone has some time and an inclination to improve this page, that might be a good place to start.— DeeJayK (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've incorporated much of the re-write mentioned above into the first section of this article. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of the Pittsburgh Steelers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a lead, references, and some cleanup to avoid recentim, there's already an article dedicated to the Steelers Super Bowl season no need to go into so much detail. See History of the New York Giants. Quadzilla99 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Plan to deal with article length

I am in the midst of re-writing and editing this article as mentioned previously. In doing so, the article is rapidly exclipsing the standards for article length. My plan is to complete at least the initial sweep through the article (I'm currently still in the 1930's) before dealing with the length. I will probably end up splitting the article up in a similar way as has been done with the History of the New York Giants. However, I won't know the best place(s) to split the article until I have a good idea of the overall size of the article. Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on this plan. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Polka

Are you guys going to make a section title called Pennsylvnia Polka so Bert Bell can link directly to it? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My attempt at editing and expanding this article has sort of been put on hold lately due to lack of time. I will get back to it once my schedule permits. However, I don't have nor am I aware of any plans to add the section you are requesting. That episode is covered in the section titled 1940–41: A new name and a "new" team. Please feel free to either link to that section or to create a sub-section or something if you like. Be bold. If you do link to a section from another article, be sure to add a comment specifying that there is a direct link to the section so that link can be addressed if someone edits the section name at a later date. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to link to the former and put in a comment under it. I don't have a grasp on the article so I don't want to tie you guys up by putting in a subsection. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there enough stuff out there for making the Polka its own article? because...for Rooney (if I was writing the Art Rooney article, it meant he helped out Bell and also Rooney wanted the team in Pittsburgh, for Bell it means he was financially helped out by Rooney, for the Eagles and Steelers it looks like it largely means they swapped players and the corporation names' were buggered up. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)