Jump to content

Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{To do}}
{{To do}}

==Triangle Metro Zoo==
I've lived in Raleigh for most of my life and honestly, I've never heard of those sites, nor have I heard of the Triangle Metro Zoo. You'd think that the TWO Imax theaters downtown, the brand new museums, or the warehouse district revitalization would make it onto the list. (I guess I'll add those later and flesh out a "Character" Section)
[[User:Reid|Reid]] 05:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Fleshed out. -[[User:Wfaulk|Bitt]] 22:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put in the Triangle Metro Zoo when I found out it existed. I thought it was a neat little thing. I still haven't gone to see if it actually exists outside its web page, but I plan to. Really it seems to be a private business, and not any sort of community zoo. Should it be removed? We don't list all our putt-putt courses and other minor attractions.

As for churches, I don't think it's possible to list all the religious organizations in Raleigh, so listing only a few of them does kind of seem like preferential treatment. Why should we list them at all? Churches are an important part of any community, but people will assume Raleigh has its share of churches without us naming all of them. You don't have to name all of them so they won't feel bad also. [[User:Pedro Picasso|Pedro Picasso]] 19:53, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like the "Zoo" is a purely commercial petting zoo type thing. I don't think it is appropriate to list.--[[User:Reid|Reid]] 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
: The "zoo" has plenty of animals you wouldn't want to pet. It was started by folks who bred exotic animals. My kids love it. Definitely more intimate than the NC Zoo -- that was arguably a bad thing the day we came upon the lions mating!

As of 2006 this zoo ceased to operate. --[[User:CarolinaEngineer|CarolinaEngineer]] ([[User talk:CarolinaEngineer|talk]]) 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


==Tornado==
==Tornado==

Revision as of 04:52, 31 October 2023

Tornado

About the tornado that touched down west of Raleigh in November 28, 1988. But, I think it was a F4, with more than 200 mph. That motel and also the old K-Mart store is now gone on Glenwood Avenue. I guess the user had it right, the motel was close to the old K-Mart, which is now a cornfield.

Thanks for improving it.

I can't find any support pinning the speed at 260 mph.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acually, the K-Mart is now a Walmart and that has been there at least 10 years, called the Towneridge Shopping Center or something like that. The motel has since been rebuilt and is now a former Best Western, not sure what it is now. The part of the town surrounding it is suburban, but mostly shopping centers, so there is no cornfield there.--Phoenixphanatic 01:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the tornados that hit Raleigh in 2011 that caused lots of damage to Shaw University, Historic Oakwood Cemetary, and other parts of south Raleigh? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

200% of poverty line

This is the link for the census data:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_P088&-tree_id=403&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=16000US3755000&-search_results=16000US3755000&-format=&-_lang=en

24.172.249.95 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

crime

Why was the crime information deleted?

LegCircus 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • For one thing, three sentences don't warrant a full section. Also, what proof is there that "Raleigh has long tolerated prostitution"? Without a source, that statement can't be included. In any case, I'm in the process of completely rewriting the page, so I'll attempt to work the murder rate into the new format of the page. PacknCanes | say something! 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, deletions of entire sections are not a minor change. And prostitution on Bragg Street has been recently documented by the News & Observer and the Independent on multiple occassions. These are some sources:
The Independent 11-9-2005
The Independent 9-24-2005
The Raleigh News and Observer 9-20-2005

If you would like additional evidence, I have the public police records for Bragg St for the months between March 2005 and August 2005. There are over 4 dozen reports of prostitution for this partial period. Or you take a drive down Bragg St any time of day or night. Its just south of MLK, use Blount or Garner, both intersections are heavy traffic. You can take some photos and add them to the page. LegCircus 05:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI -- the new Raleigh article, which hopefully will be done in the next week or so, will include information about how southeast Raleigh is the poorer part of the city. I'm a little antsy about including the prostitution information, though, because it seems to be singling out one specific type of crime that's not particularly notable (you said it yourself -- Raleigh isn't much different from any other city in that respect). A low murder rate, however, is notable and I plan to include that. Reference San Jose, California#Law and government and Boston, Massachusetts#Law and government -- murder rates are included, but typically nothing else.
Also, per the standards set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities,==Crime==should not stand alone as its own section. (See the two articles, both featured, above). I will, though, include it in the==Law and government==section.
PacknCanes | say something! 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Prostitution is particularly notable, and if you disagree it's probably because your daughter has never brought you a used condom she found in the front yard talking about "Papa I found a balloon."

This article and all articles are the product of community consensus. They are not driven by one person's vision.

I am not currently aware that the greater wikipedia community has approved standards as you see them; I'll look into it.

LegCircus 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities say "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them."
I will follow your lead in improving the article, but you cannot use WikiProject Cities to eliminate material that does not "conform."
LegCircus 16:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Raleigh all my life and never seen nor heard a word about Bragg St. and it's prostitution problem. Do you have some vendetta against the Bragg St. prostitutes? Is one article in the N&O good enough evidence to support the claim that Raleigh tolerates prostitution? I have a great idea. Why don't we just cut and paste every article the News and Observer prints, that way every one story can be archived on Wikkipedia.

Raleigh PD has busted four or five brothels in North Raleigh if somebody want to do the research. I am not sure that is notable when compared to other urban areas. --Thunder 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the crime information from the info published in the Uniform Crime Report. I was already doing it for Charlotte and decided to add it for Raleigh as well.

I've removed the "prositution on Bragg St" info that was inserted again. There appears to be a consensus here that the info in non-notable, not exceptional, and shouldn't be included. Perhaps if someone wants to included sourced stats for vice crime, that might be more appropriate. --Krich (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drive down Bragg St, contact the police department, or talk with any resident of Southpark. Prostitution occurs on a daily basis, and the police department regularly operates "sting" operations. I understand that most people that contribute to this page are proud of their town and want to boost it, and that doesn't change the truth of the matter. We're not going to vote on if prostitution occurs in Raleigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.255.130 (talk • contribs)

  • This has nothing to do with whether there is prostitution. It is whether in an article about Raleigh, North Carolina, USA that information is encyclopedic or notable. You also added it without including your sources, which should be cited so that the information can be verified. -Jcbarr 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Raleigh is the "City of Oaks" also is uncited. I actually do, or did before it was deleted, have citation for prostition in Raleigh. Crime in Raleigh's working class neighborhoods is notable and encyclopedic. Again, I feel that the reason the section is deleted is because it unpleasant. LegCircus 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here is plainly for not including this information. It's not notable in the opinion of all but one editor. I've removed it again.
There is a lot of unsourced information on Wikipedia. Of course, it's the controversial (or "unpleasant") material that tends to be objected to first when it comes to uncited information found here. Also, simply stating that there have been articles about the subject in the News and Observer and Independent doesn't make a proper citation - specific articles should be referenced when a newspaper is the source, so that the information can be easily verified.
Even if sourced, I'd still think this information is non-notable and thus not appropriate for inclusion. There are several busy intersections in Raleigh where people are routinely cutoff as some drivers fail to follow clearly posted "yield" signs, dozens if not hundreds of times each day. That's a lot more dangerous and much more annoying to me than prostitutes - but those dangerous intersections aren't notable either for a general encylopedia article about the city.

--Krich (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to give a reason that you beleive it to be non-notable, beyond that ignoring crime in underserved communities is popular with the relatively privileged editors of wikipedia.

Nobody living in Southeast Raleigh thinks that the ongoing prostitution and drug dealing are trivial concerns. LegCircus 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reasons for being non-notable are stated above - there is nothing unique about this statement of crime, therefore it is not encyclopedic. Not sure there's a great policy statement on this, but at least the spirit of what I'm trying to say is here Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. I don't think legitimate "concerns" about crime equates to an encyclopedia-worthy entry, even in a web-based encyclopedia. The reason is that it gives a (in my opinion) false impression of what is notable about Raleigh, North Carolina -- that there is a problem more than any other city. If you can show that the problems you cite are somehow significant, I'd certainly reconsider. -Jcbarr 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I see what you saying. That because not every city article speaks on prostitution within that article's city, the Raleigh article's inclusion of prostitution information makes it seem like Raleigh has a disproportionate problem with prostitution. Raleigh does not have disproportionate problem. However the occurance does not have to be disproportionate to be notable. That this info is lacking in other articles is not a reason to delete it from the Raleigh article.

In August of 2004, Deborah Lamm Weisel, working in conjunction with the US Department of Justice, published a report documenting efforts to respond to increasing prostitution and drug dealing in Raleigh. [1] This report highlighted that this crime is "geographically isolated" in working class areas and that Raleigh residents not living in these area have little awareness of the scope of the problem. LegCircus 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 5 days with no reply, restored prostitution info with citation. Increased citation can be added to the front page and is here on the discussion page. I hope that dissenting editors will post in discussion before deleting information, or better yet, improve the information rather than striking it. LegCircus 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I removed it last time, I won't revert your re-addition of it again - but I suspect someone else will soon. You are the only editor who appears to think it belongs here.
I believe the problem with the information is that it's just not notable information, especially in this level of specificity, for a general article about the city. Is prostitution significantly more of a problem in Raleigh than in other similar cities? That might be notable. But is merely the fact that it happens, or that some of it is geographically located in poorer sections of town notable? Isn't that true of just about every city of similar size and larger? What makes this information important enough to detail in a relatively short, general encyclopedia article about the city?
Why not just add the crime statistics for vice crimes in general for the city? This section as it stands and in it's earlier incarnations could be read as more of a attempt to bring light to a personal pet issue, rather than contribute to a general encyclopedia article about Raleigh, in my opinion. --Krich (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the report linked. Still not impressed that it is notable. The report makes no mention of who the author is exactly. It was a report to the DOJ, not from it, so that makes a difference. It didn't even read like there was a huge problem -- more like "how can we address this in a novel way"? I thought we were agreed there's nothing unique about prostitution in Raleigh. It seems to me the consensus of the multiple editors of this article are agreed that equates to not making sense in the encyclopedia. -Jcbarr 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess 2 counts as multiple. You asked for citations, I provided them. Now you have a new difficulty with the issue, one which you can barely be troubled to articulate beyond that you are "not impressed that it is notable." But you are in the majority, most people do not think of prostitution as being notable unless it occurs in white neighborhoods. I would hope that that is not the prevailing sentiment of wikipedia.

In that I have substantiated the info repeatedly, I would ask that you get an admin involved before you continue to strike this info. LegCircus 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 5 editors so far that have commented on whether this paragraph should be included. Only you, LegCircus, feels that it should be. That makes the "multiple editors" that Jcbarr referred to above 4, not 2.
And regardless of the numbers involved, Wikipedia works by consensus. It is the clear consensus, so far, that this paragraph doesn't belong in the article. It is inappropriate for you to keep reinserting it against that consensus. The burden is on you at this point, not the rest of the editors.
There have been two principal objections to the paragraph; the first, that it was unsourced, you ave attempted to resolve. I agree with Jcbarr that the report you dug up is pretty obscure (it's a report from an academic to the DOJ, describing the approach of a particular style of law enforcment strategy, specifically applied to prostitution in Raleigh), and there are better sources that could establish that prostitution occurs, but I won't quibble on that point.
However, your source doesn't help with the second, larger objection; that this information is not notable enough to warrent inclusion in a general encyclopedia article about the city. In no way does this source (or you) make a claim that prostitution in Raleigh is more of a problem than in any other city of similar size. It is way too specific for a general article.
Even the mentions of murder and rape elsewhere in the crime section don't target any particular aspects of it in Raleigh, as there doesn't appear to be any unique or notable aspects of those crimes in Raleigh, as compared to other cities. So basic crime statistics are all that are mentioned. If information about prostitution or other vice crimes in Raleigh are to be included, basic stats about them are about all that is warrented or appropriate.
It's obvious that you are disturbed by prostitution in these neighborhoods. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the appropriate outlet for your energies in publicizing your issue, or doing something about it. Please respect the consensus views of the rest of your fellow editors here. I'm always willing to listen to arguments if you come up with something that indicates that the prostitution going on in Raleigh rises to some higher level of notability, as I'm sure are the other editors here. --Krich (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather obvious that there have been only two editors that have consistantly objected to this content being included. As to the second objection, I agree that it is less arbitrary. However, for prostitution to be relevant for inclusion does not require that prostitution in Raleigh be greater than that of other cities. And I do hope that you want the Raleigh article to include more than just a list of stats. LegCircus 21:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the last version of the paragraph in dispute, it states that Raleigh has a red light district like other cities. It admits that prostitution is not unique to Raleigh. It also states that people who live outside southeast Raleigh might not know about it. The paragraph has a built in defense mechanism. If it is not unique and nobody outside the area knows about it, I vote that it stays out.--Thunder 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That logic is bad. If most people outside the city don't know that it is the "city of oaks" should that info be removed? What if most people don't know that name of the element "Kv" refers to? LegCircus 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very poor examples. They both indicate something unique to Raleigh and "Kv" respectively. That's what makes them notable and useful to be in an encyclopedia. -Jcbarr 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Observer | 01/29/2006 | Sex rings prey on immigrant women <-article about Raleigh brothels

Okay, fair enough. I better example would be schools and churches. LegCircus

If you want to include things about prostitution and other crime in Raleigh, then why don't you do it for every city? We don't have to go into the specifics about every type of crime. New York City has prostitution and there is nothing on that page about it. It's not necessary because it is too specific. --Scdog99 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an NC native of 50+ years, a Raleigh resident since 1994 and a law enforcement employee in a neighboring jurisdiction for 14 years, not to mention that I've spent considerable time in major cities all over the USA (FL to MA to AK) in my 55+ years, I think I can safely suggest that every city has a "prostitution problem". It's not even worth mentioning here. --JandrosUSA (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh-Cary MSA

This line was deleted in the article: "The estimated Raleigh-Cary metropolitan statistical area population as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004 is 914,680." While I understand that the CSA figure is the "bragging figure," I see nothing that excludes the use of both figures as designated by a respectable authority, the U.S. Census Bureau. I believe this information (Raleigh-Cary MSA population) has a rightful place in this article. 162.6.224.136 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

It's now at Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina/temp. I moved it out of article namespace. -- User:Docu

Pronunciation

What about a sentence how to pronounce Raleigh, either in this article or in the Wiktionary entry (with a link to that entry). I am wondering if it is ray- or raw-, -lee or -lay. Thanks, 84.177.25.183 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's RAH-lee, NOT RAW-lee

I was born and raised here. I've lived here my entire life. It's not pronounced RAW-lee, it's RAH-lee, or ROLLY...rhymes with TROLLY. Or the name POLLY. The dog breed, COLLIE. Or FOLLY. Actual natives and long-time residents pronounce it correctly as RAH-lee. Some transplants from Northern states/cities may phonetically pronounce it RAW-lee, or more accurately, RUA-lee. Some older residents with thicker Southern accents may pronounce it RAW-leh. But it's never been pronounced by most natives as anything other than RAH-lee. So yeah, I changed the pronunciation section to reflect the correct pronunciation. Sorry to sound snarky but editors really should consult with or take the advice of the people who are actually from the cities they are writing about on Wikipedia.

June 4, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.199.6 (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another Raleigh native, and it is definitely pronounced RAH-lee (IPA /ˈrɑli/), not RAW-lee. Here is a link to a local pronunciation guide from WRAL, a Raleigh TV news station: http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/travel/blogpost/10331495/, which clearly gives the correct local pronunciation. The /ˈrɔːli/; RAW-lee pronunciation currently given on the page, and sourced to the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary seems to be correct for the name of Sir Walter Raleigh, which makes sense, as it is a British publication, but a local TV station is a better guide to the current local pronunciation.Mattand343 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Sports Franchises

Why was the reference to the USBL and the Raleigh Cougars removed?

The Animal 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user box

Hey yall, if anyone is from Raleigh or currently lives there put this in your profile {{User Raleigh}}


Nowiki

I added the nowiki tags above the template above Dsmouse (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]




Merge

I suggest a merge of Article North Raleigh into this article. I don't see why North Raleigh deserves it's own article. It should be part of this article until it grows to a size that supports a new article. Any notable components should be added to this article and then redirect North Raleigh here. Morphh 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Raleigh is an unusual case. Unlike many other cities that have annexed in a circle, Raleigh has annexed much further northward and less to the south... mainly because Garner and Cary are in the way. North Raleigh is a part of the city of Raleigh, but it's so far from the downtown center, it has developed a character of its own. Yet, it is still a neighborhood of the city, and should be merged... until it can get more info. --TinMan 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Morphh - See above
  2. --TinMan 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (see above)[reply]
  3. Snarius 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Raleigh article should describe all pieces of Raleigh.[reply]
  4. --Phoenixphanatic 01:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC) North Raleigh is still part of Raleigh[reply]
  5. Jmturner (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose


Why does the North Raleigh Link in this discussion go to an add for North Raleigh Christian Academy? Or, more likely, why has the North Raleigh article been hijacked for an ad?

GA Drive

I've listed this article for the Good Article drive for Wikiproject North Carolina. Morphh 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take the time to vote for North Carolina on U.S. Collaboration of the Week. Please Vote!!! We need more votes! Thanks, Morphh 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Raleigh section

I live off Penny Rd, and no one in Raleigh says they live in "Penny Rd" neighborhood. A better reference would be Swift Creek, as the area bounded roughly by Tryon Rd, Lake Wheeler Rd, Ten-Ten Rd, and Holly Springs Rd is informally known as....


22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)~ I have lived in Raleigh for almost 31 years originally form NYC we relocated in the late 1970's I am TRULY MAD ABOUT THE SOUTH RALEIGH SECTION!!!!! South Raleigh is just AS populated and DENCE as the rest of Raleigh. The last time I checked SOUTH EAST RALEIGH HIGH SCHOOL was on Rock Quarry Road in SOUTH RALEIGH. The last time I checked there is a road named MARTIN LUTHER KING BULAVARD that connects east Raleigh and West Raleigh running thought the middle of SOUTH RALEIGH!!! Why is this not mentioned in your article is it because the majority of South Raleigh is black and Latino? South Raleigh has some of the oldest communities in Raleigh because that was the only place that a black person could live. I WILL BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE AND ADDING SOME ADDITONAL INFORMATION ON SOUTH RALEIGH!!!!22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add some info about South Raleigh if you have it. Nobody's stopping you if you have decent info. Keep in mind however, that Martin Luther King Blvd is almost downtown if not a part of downtown. While South Raleigh may be as dense in small parts as the rest of the city, North Raleigh is by far much much larger and more dense overall, just by the fact that the Beltline stretches furhter north, the city chose to annex far north, and there is no obstructing other municpality like Garner. With the exception of the Rock Quarry Road area, if you look on a detailed map you can tell that the density really drops off south of I-40 until you hit Garner... and of course, basically nothing is south of Tryon Rd... many roads terminate there. Along S. Saunders Street, you can definately tell a density drop as you leave the downtown area as opposed to the north side of US 401, Capital Blvd. Walnut Creek flows through South Raleigh and that may be worth mentioning though. The area really doesn't have a large shopping district like Crossroads or Glenwood or Capital Blvd or New Bern Ave... maybe a few shopping centers here and there but that's it. A statement saying South Raleigh is "less developed than the other sides of Raleigh" is a valid assessment. --TinMan 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "South Raleigh" is suggested to include the areas of Swift Creek and others (i.e. Penny Road, etc., which are largely not a part of the city of Raleigh proper at all, although most development there has a Raleigh address and ZIP code), then there is much more to South Raleigh than the historically black neighborhoods immediately south of downtown (which actually are more centrally part of a "Downtown Raleigh" definition by this scenario). The greater "South Raleigh" area is far less densly developed and populated than other parts of greater Raleigh simply by the fact that most of it lies within the Swift Creek watershed, a possible future drinking water source for the city. By legislation, any development in the Swift Creek watershed is greatly limited. Raleigh (or Cary, or Garner, or Holly Springs) cannot run city water and sewer lines into most parts of the watershed area, so homes/developments in the area must have their own potable wells and closed septic systems, which of course limits development greatly. (This is perhaps one reason that Gorman Street currently ends at Tryon Road rather than continuing southward.) By the same token, the amount of housing allowed per acre in this area of "South Raleigh" is much less than what would be allowed in North Raleigh or Cary, for example. If this isn't the definition of a lower density of population and development, I don't know what is...

Verify average snow data

Can someone fix the link for the climatology data? I find it hard to believe that the average snow fall for April is 0 inches, then for May-July it's "< 0.5 inches". Why isn't this 0 inches? Is there some freaky 4th of July snow that I don't know about?

fixed! Surfeited (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood table in Cityscape section

I fixed the table of North Raleigh neighborhoods in the Cityscape section which was completely non-functional. However I'm new here and there might be a better way to present this data, would appreciate any improvements. Jpp42 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinate System

I am changing the the Geographical coordinate system in the box below the map near the top to degrees minutes seconds because this is how it is presented on other large cities in wikipedia, with the decimal degrees reserved for the extreme top right. The average viewer may not understand what a negative sign means longitude-wise.

Someone keeps adding a link to http://www.beautifulbrentwood.com/ in the external links section. This has been removed several times by previous editors, and I've just removed it again, because it's not particularly notable about Raleigh itself (this is not an article about Brentwood). It's also basically an advertising site and therefore against WP:EL guidelines. Jpp42 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

"You can see the whole state from here" - i've never heard this as Raleigh's motto and I can't find any cite for it that's not just a circular cite back to here. Anyone got anything? Surfeited (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This motto is also news to me. It does not appear anywhere on the City of Raleigh website and the only Google hits seem to reference this page. I am removing it until someone can provide an appropriate citation. Jmturner (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City council/population

There have been recent changes to the population and two of the city council members. The 2008 estimated population estimate can be found here. [2] Someone had reverted and asked for a sources, there it is. The current city council members (with areas represented) are listed here.[3] Unless there has been a recent event that I'm not aware of whereby those two members are no longer serving, the Raleigh government website's list should be mirrored in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines and policy says reliable, verifiable sources should be cited in the article, accompanying the referenced facts. Shawis (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much more reliable can that source be? It's reliable.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC

Enlarge State map

For most readers, a larger state map with the city shown on it, would be more useful than the big county map.--Parkwells (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First African American mayor of southern city

Howard Nathaniel Lee was elected mayor of Chapel Hill in 1969. So I said Lightner was first African American elected mayor of the state capital, and first elected mayor by an electorate with substantial white majority.--Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know about Lee. I guess we can say Lightner was the first in a major Southern city? APK yada yada 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chapel Hill is considerably larger than Raleigh; I assume it was in 1969 as well. I stated that Lightner was the first African American elected mayor of a southern state capital, and the first elected by a voting population with substantial (84%) white majority.--Parkwells (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chapel Hill's 2003 population was 51,485 and Raleigh's 2008 estimated population was 374,320. APK yada yada 15:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, APK, not sure what I was looking at! (Makes me wonder). Feel free to change it as you wish.--Parkwells (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "cityhistory" :
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1587 - 1844)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-095008-History_of_Raleigh__1587.html| accessdate=2008-03-17}}
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1889 - 1930)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-122719-Years__1889___1930.html| accessdate=2008-03-17}}
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1931 - 1965)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-131835-Years__1931___1965.html| accessdate=2008-03-17}}
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1966 - 1990)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-140652-Years__1966___1990.html| accessdate=2008-03-17}}
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1991 - 1999)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-150347-Years__1991___1999.html| accessdate=2008-03-17}}
    • {{cite web| last=| first=| title=City of Raleigh Years (1999 - 2002)| work=| publisher=City of Raleigh| date=| url=http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_202_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/category/Resident/Raleigh_At_A_Glance/History_of_Raleigh/Cat-2CA-2006109-155646-Years__1999___2002.html| accessdate=2008-03-18}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations banner is stale

The main page's banner about the lack of citations has been up for a year. What citations remain to be added? If no one can supply specifics then I will remove it next month. Jmturner (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite on the way

Looking at the first few grafs, I can see that this article screams for a rewrite. The first thing the reader is presented with is Raleigh's population stats. Booor-ing! I will soon use my copious free time (TM) to punch this up a bit. Comments/input welcome (hell, this is Wikipedia, after all!) Jmturner (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities

I was surprised to see Seattle listed as a sister city. I have been unable to find anything that confirms this--does anyone have any references for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.97.17 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Seattle's 21 sister cities. This list comes from the official website of the City of Seattle. Raleigh is not listed as one of them so I will remove Seattle from the article. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it might be a good idea to check out the status of Irvine, California and Richmond, Virginia. I don't have time now, but hopefully I'll remember to do it soon. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed Irvine, California (see this list from Irvine's official website) and Richmond, Virginia (I couldn't find anything in after multiple searches, including this one). --Andrew Kelly (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artsplosure

I am trying to address an issue on the Artsplosure article - the article is has been tagged WP:orphan. I am wondering if this would be a good area to cross reference or describe this major arts festival and link it to that article. Please let me know if you think it is notable enough to be included on this page in the Visual Arts section. Carolinequarrier (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

APK is ready for the tourists to leave 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Residents

Every time I add Jay Glatfelter to notable residents it gets deleted, I am guessing the reason being that some people think this person is not notable but what is the definition of notable it is all a matter of opinion. Here is my defense of Jay Glatfelter he is a popular podcaster with about 50,000 listeners in 70 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of notability is at WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The shortcut for being listed in "notable residents" type sections is for an individual to have a wiki article of their own. Jay Glatfelter is redlinked because he doesn't have an article. I've removed him- if there are reliable sources that can be used to confirm notability, go ahead and create the article, then add him as a notable resident. Otherwise it looks like spam, and wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. tedder (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Here is a link to a secondary source material which is reliable it is an article on CNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270794/
There is also an article releated to his work on another wili which is called lostpedia here is the link to that http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jay_and_jack#The_Lost_Podcast_with_Jay_and_Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another wikipedia, especially wikia, is not a reliable source. Please read WP:SPS: "self-published media (...) open wikis (...) are largely not acceptable". The MSNBC article is helpful, but more articles would be helpful to prove notability. He may be notable- but create Jay Glatfelter first, please. That way we don't have to have a discussion about Mr. Glatfelter on a page about Raleigh, North Carolina. FWIW, here's another source that may help you in the creation of the article on him.
Again, please stop adding him. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is a good example of why- discuss it here until a consensus is reached before re-adding. To put it another way, I've suggested a great alternative- which is to create Jay Glatfelter and then add him to the notable residents list here. tedder (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to create an article I only know how to edit one can you help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to! I'll take it to your talk page. tedder (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Buildings

The religious buildings section was just deleted, and I understand the rationale of trying to prevent a big list of every religious building in the city. But I think there is may be an easy way to limit the list to only the most important: what if we agreed that only religious buildings sufficiently notable to warrant their own article should be included? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph about population

As I mentioned before, I think the second paragraph regarding population needs to be moved/deleted. This is an article about Raleigh - the capital city, not an article about RTP. This just doesn't belong in the second paragraph. Thoughts on a better way to introduce the city? Jmturner (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the guidelines for US cities, we should have this info:
  • Name of city and location in state (check)
  • City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.) (check)
  • Metro population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.) (check--more than enough--the rest of the 2nd paragraph should be moved later in the article)
  • Brief note about historical roots/founding (missing)
  • Nicknames, if notable (check--city of oaks)
  • Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc...) (missing, should be a sentence or two)
  • Notable unique characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it (anything that would make the lead less boring?)
I agree that the RTP info should be moved later in the article. I don't think it should be deleted; I think it's relevant to putting the city in context. But it's undue weight in the lead. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POPULATION AGAIN

Raleigh, population is stills way off by some bias people who live in or near Raleigh, the urban population is wrong, it has the Metro Population numbers and the Metro has the (CSA) Population numbers (it should be change). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the census department numbers, and can fix this, please do. --Jayron32 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The population figures are already sourced to the most recent U.S. Census estimates. The IP asking this question is the same person who has already been blocked (more than once) for using multiple IPs to change population estimates in several NC city articles. APK say that you love me 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This wrong information put about Raleigh Metro by AgnosticPreachersKid should be STOP1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 2008 Census Numbers Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas 67.197.178.141 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


After looking at recent edits, I'm inclined to think of this more as a content dispute rather than vandalism. Involved editors should be cautioned against violating the three-revert-rule. The key issue appears to be whether the metro population figure should reflect the "Combined Statistical Area" or "Metropolitan Statistical Area" census figures. I took a look at a few of other cities that had both CSA and MSA figures in the census data. Of these New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles display MSA data as their Metro population. LA goes further and uses the infobox's population_blank1 and population_blank1_title parameters to display the CSA data under the label "CSA". On the other hand, Chicago and Houston appear to display the CSA figure under the metro population label, as Raleigh currently does. (Note that in some of these cases, I was not able to match exact figures with the source.)
Personally, I would think that the Metro population should reflect what the Census Bureau calls "Metro", and we should adapt the LA technique of displaying the "CSA", but this inconsistency issue probably needs to be resolved at the project level, perhaps via a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a content dispute. It's a long-term disruptive user that has caused problems on this article and Charlotte since last spring. He has used multiple IPs - too many to list here - and refuses to accept the census figures that are clearly cited in the opening paragraphs. APK say that you love me 07:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information that was request by me from Jayron32 * http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2008-annual.html, I only want to see the right information in the right ares as most cities has it. I also looked at the other large cities in North Carolina and Atlanta If it said Metro Population it had the Metro Population and not the (CSA) Population, maybe the cites especially the larger ones should have a place for the (CSA) Population. Thank You 67.197.178.141 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about. The Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area is listed as a population of 1,088,765 in the document you link, and the Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC Combined Statistical Area is listed as a population of 1,690,557, which is the exact numbers quoted in the article. I have no idea why you are claiming the numbers are wrong, since the numbers exactly match the numbers in the documents you provided... --Jayron32 19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of the CSA as the metropolitan area figure is misleading as this as multiple urban cores. Typically, the MSA is what should be used for the metropolitan area. A CSA just means that two adjacent metropolitan areas share suburbs. In this case, Durham is a metropolitan area in its own right (i.e. Durham is not a technically a suburb of Raleigh) and using the CSA figure gives a figure that is too large. Also, the urban area figure is incorrect. The correct figure is here. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I am still not seeing the problem. The text in the article says "The Research Triangle region encompasses the U.S. Census Bureau's Combined Statistical Area (CSA) of Raleigh-Durham-Cary in the central Piedmont region of North Carolina. As of July 1, 2008 the estimated population of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary CSA was 1,690,557,[2] while the Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was estimated at 1,088,765,[2] making it the nation's fastest growing metropolitan area.[7][8]" Why are we trying to rewrite this as something different. This seems perfectly unambiguous to me. --Jayron32 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figures in the infobox are the ones that are incorrect (urban) and misleading (metro). --Polaron | Talk 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being a bit lazy and ask for the shouting at me to be at a minimum, but is this argument primarily about the definition between Raleigh-Cary and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. Because while we in Raleigh typically think of the complete area (metro?) being the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill while Cary is just a part of Raleigh it seems that the federal government think of Raleigh-Cary being a metro area... so that settles it, right? Also, why the extreme caring... is there reason to believe in insidious forces, or is this just people being stubborn? --Out of Phase User (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting in my two cents now, because I looked at the US Census. I want to say this with the points that I am NOT sure of who is taking what position, and I am certainly NOT a sock puppet. As far as I can tell, there is very little notion at the US census bureau of an urban area. There is certainly a sense of a metro area, which is the Raleigh-Cary area at 1,088,765 (7/1/2008) (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/cb09-45table1.xls). I'm NOT going to edit the main page with respect to this issue, because I am staying disinterested. --Out of Phase User (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the terms "metro" and "urban" are the wrong terms, then one can just fix them. I used the
| population_blank1_title =
| population_blank1 =
arguements in the {{Infobox settlement}} template to change the headers to the proper ones. This should now be perfectly unambiguous, and you can stop fighting over the ill-defined "urban" and "metro" definitions, since the two figures in the infobox now exactly match the terms in the census data. Problem solved. Anyone else is free to take this solution to fix other articles, but don't edit war over it... --Jayron32 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not really ill-defined. Metro area = MSA and urban area is just based on population density (Raleigh's urban area population is about 680,000). It's just that some people seem to think that the CSA is a metro area figure. As long as CSA and metro area are not used interchangeably, then there should be no problem. --Polaron | Talk 02:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Comment: We're almost at the 2010 Census. --Triadian (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Historical Populations table contain a link to census data for Fayette County, Kentucky? FVman 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvman (talk • contribs)

Raleigh Map.

I have a new one at [4].

It's my first draft - I'm not liking the Durham County borders(inasmuch as I think they should go deeper out of Wake, but I need to do more research) and I think I'll do a bit of shading for the city limits. What do I need to do to submit my final image? I don't seem to have any edit tabs on this page. SpaghettiHat (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with background shading: [5] SpaghettiHat (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these guidelines on donating copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, especially the section on donating photographs. Even though this is a map and not a photo, the same guidelines and steps apply. If you have trouble, you can drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated residents list

OK. The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things. But the thing right now is the awful bloated "residents" list. There are hundreds of people on the list, and almost NONE are referenced. Things that NEED to be done are:

  • Split off the list into a seperate "people from Raleigh, NC" article
  • Retain a small list of the 10-20 MOST influential/famous/important Raleigh natives/residents here
  • Insure that every item on the list in this article is referenced to a reliable source.

Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former section on "Raleigh Specific Publications" unfairly limited this article, as it excluded publications without offices in Raleigh but nonetheless cover Raleigh events and news and distribute there, such as Q-Notes an LGBT newspaper and the alternative weekly Independent Weekly. I've changed it to "Print Publications" and included the two papers mentioned above. --User:Matthillnc 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy this argument. If you include every print media that covers events in Raleigh then you have to include papers in Greensboro, Fayetteville, Chapel Hill, Pittsboro, etc. Digitalican (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QNotes is the only LGBT print news medium covering LGBT news and events in Raleigh. Buy the argument. Matt (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, I don't care what it covers, it's not a local paper (Do you have a local bureau? No. I didn't think so.) There are many special purpose periodicals that cover events in Raleigh. That, in itself, is not sufficient to call them a local paper. And...I'll say it simply -- since you're the editor of Q-Notes this smacks of advertising and egregious self-promotion. Digitalican (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm adding back the Independent Weekly. It does more than just "cover events" in Raleigh. It actively writes about issues relevant to Raleigh. Also, they do have a Raleigh office listed on their web site. wfaulk (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Shouldn't there be a section about the demographics with religious beliefs, race, etc. on the Raleigh page? Just wondering. Nctennishco12 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Anyone have a source on racial/economic/religious/etc demographics for Raleigh? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2nd climate graph

I removed the small climate graph on the left side because: (1) It really had no information which wasn't already in the more colorful, easier to read graph. (2) It enabled the picture to be enlarged improving the aesthetics of the article. I also plan on working on the monstrosity which is the history section. If anyone has objections... let me know on my talk page... VictorianMutant (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________

Just some minor edits for clarity...

Hey all. I did some very minor editing on the page this morning, mainly for clarity and appearance. I'm not a WIKI edit king/guru or anything, just hate seeing sentence fragments and grammatical errors. I didn't want to be considered a "vandal" and banned from the page for making a few logical grammatical/spelling edits.

First, under the shopping section, I just edited a typo (choices, instead of "chooses." Second, I edited a sentence about the recent tornado to make it read slightly better...just a slight grammatical error was changed/corrected. Third, there was missing info/fragmented info about the RBC tower. It was all over the place (missing info, TOO much info that was also fragmented). Maybe someone was in the process of editing and wasn't finished? Either way, I really don't think the firm that created the building and something regarding a slight .8 degree incline of the land that the building sits on was relevant. I just capped it at 34 floors. I didn't touch the meter/feet info.

Just a few thoughts....

I was born in this city. I've lived here for 38 of my 42 years (college years spent in another city). I've NEVER heard any section of town called UPTOWN. That's a term for Charlotte's downtown that only people from Charlotte use...why, I don't know...it's just a downtown like any other city (with some very tall buildings). For some reason, there is an UPTOWN section in the article about Raleigh areas/quadrants/neighborhoods. In the article section, it even states that this term is not used. So why even mention it at all? And I can tell you for a fact that the intersection of Glenwood and Creedmoor is certainly NOT in North Raleigh; it's barely outside the inner beltline and considered part of West Raleigh. The northern reaches of Creedmoor Road and environs (Leesville Rd., North Hills Drive, Leadmine Rd.) ARE considered North Raleigh. Intersection of Creedmoor and Glenwood?...NOT. Even the Midtown designation is just a marketing scheme (which you've correctly noted) used mainly by the newspaper and local developers within the last few years...hardly anyone calls "Midtown" Midtown...it's just...Crabtree Valley...or North Hills...or Millbrook. Natives such as myself, laugh at these silly titles. These designations for city areas are a recent thing and only reflects the marketing intentions of certain developers and the newspapers that take advertising dollars from them. (It's also copying Charlotte's rather vain city area designation scheme...)

In short, why not just merge "Midtown" and the mythic, un-used "Uptown?"

Enough said...THAT said, please don't scream at me. I'm just offering suggestions and trying to make my hometown's wiki page logical and correct...and the best it can be.

Thanks.

Forgot...it's June 27, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.198.192 (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's RAH-lee, NOT RAW-lee

I was born and raised here. I've lived here my entire life. It's not pronounced RAW-lee, it's RAH-lee, or ROLLY...rhymes with TROLLY. Or the name POLLY. The dog breed, COLLIE. Or FOLLY.

Actual natives and long-time residents pronounce it correctly as RAH-lee. Some transplants from Northern states/cities may phonetically pronounce it RAW-lee, or more accurately, RUA-lee. Some older residents with thicker Southern accents may pronounce it RAW-leh. But it's never been pronounced by most natives as anything other than RAH-lee.

So yeah, I changed the pronunciation section to reflect the correct pronunciation.

Sorry to sound snarky but editors really should consult with or take the advice of the people who are actually from the cities they are writing about on Wikipedia.

Thanks.

June 28, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.198.192 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have been concerned about the IPA and respelling. I've been trying to find a good reliable source for RAH-lee. Does anyone have access to the source cited? If so, please check that it really applies to the City of Raleigh. Other Raleighs may actually be pronounced RAW-lee. But I've only known of it as RAH-lee as well. Can someone check that source and/or find another one? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the distinction presumes one pronounces "raw" and "rah" differently. Many English speakers do not, which is why IPA exists. --Jayron32 05:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. :) I guess I should have written out my question in IPA instead. lol. I know that it may just be regional variations in how things are pronounced. Two people looking at RAH could say that differently, I suppose. I agree that the respelling should match the IPA, but really think that it detracts from the article to have /ˈrɔːli/ but not /ˈrɑːli/. And, really, I know that the point is somewhat moot until someone can find a reliable source for /ˈrɑːli/. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, according to this map, the local dialect of english DOES make the distinction, so it is important that we get it right. I am just not fully convinced that the vowel is really ɑː; especially because my native dialect does merge the sound, I have a hard time making the distinction myself. But the point is, we have a reliable reference for ɔː, and until we have a reliable reference otherwise, we need to avoid the "because I know so" argument for making the change. --Jayron32 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population number is impossible?

I see that the populations issue has been raised several times, but the numbers in the article are still strange. I was in the city about 9 years ago and judging from photos it did not change incredibly since than. So how is it, that the population between 2000 and 2010 rose by nearly 50% (!) ?

Did they incorporated other towns in the county (why is that not mentioned in the article?) ? Otherwise there would have to be a huge buildup of new quarters in the city including of course 10s of thousands of additional jobs for the *massive* influx of people.

Could someone clarify the confusing numbers?

87.177.248.26 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


__________________

What a difference 9 years makes. Yes, it is true. The population number just shy of 404,000 is correct according to the latest US Census. The population has gone up by almost 50% within the last 10 years. No other towns were incorporated, no suburbs annexed (other than a few small districts that weren't really independent in the first place). Your "massive" influx of people is a direct result of just that: a massive influx of people from other states. The Triangle area as a whole now has a population nearing 2 million; Durham, Cary and Chapel Hill (and it's suburbs) have also increased exponentially in population. This was mainly a result of dozens of national news articles and magazine articles proclaiming the area at the top of it's "best of" lists (Forbes, Money, etc.) There was also a major job boom (which has leveled off considerably) during the past decade or two. Currently, job creation is NOT matching the influx of growth and population, and as a result the area has an only slightly lower unemployment rate than the state as a whole.

So, don't be confused. Lots of things, including the population, have changed since you left.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Religion demographics

I feel that it is important to include a section of religious demographics in the article.. especially since Raleigh is the seat of many religious insitutions. Raleigh is the seat for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, the North Carolina Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, etc. Not to mention the significant Jewish population and prominant evangelical, A.M.E. and baptist populations. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find a reliable source for such information, feel free to cite that source and add the information to the article. --Jayron32 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for that! I think uniformity within a particular category of articles makes the Encyclopedia much more user friendly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

There is a move request concerning a redirect to this page at Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation) Calidum Talk To Me 12:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Raleigh eastern border and Sacred Heart Cathedral

West Raleigh section mentions Sacred Heart Cathedral. Subjective choices for an eastern border of West Raleigh aside, one block from the Capitol building is downtown. An argument could be made for the original grid border West Street, or the better choice of St. Mary's Street, but I see no reason to include the church in West Raleigh section. --Dexmadden (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Raleigh, North Carolina

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh, North Carolina → Raleigh – The city name is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and already redirects here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures

I'm sorry, but the pictures on this page by Dennis Ludlow (both of college-age women) seem a little creepy. Does anyone else agree? Or could they be replaced with other pictures of the places being photoraphed? Ramendoctor (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the one in the recreation section because the venue was not mentioned in the text, and the second one because there was already an image of the same university above it. The images are of harmless public activity, but as you mention, seem unsavory when you consider they're by the same author and other options are available. The woman in the university picture looked particularly unwilling to be photographed, and there's no good reason why she should be front and center in a photograph of an entire courtyard. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raleigh,_North_Carolina&oldid=1182753481"