Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina

Section on ethnic communities in Demographics

This part has changed from specifying a heavy Dominican population to having a heavy Puerto Rican population, to having a heavy Mexican population. So which is notable? Any of them? All of them? I really don't know, personally, but going back and editing over stuff like that over and over doesn't make much sense. Ncsupimaster 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Article improvements forthcoming

I'm starting to work on this article to get it up to a featured article. Any help is welcomed, and if you have any suggestions or ideas please pass them along to me on my talk page. Thanks! PacknCanes | say something! 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious organizations

I question the significance of the organizations listed under "Religious Organizations and Churches." One of them, Deeper Devotion Student Ministries, has its own Wikipedia entry, which started out as no more than an advertisement. The same person is responsible for the listing and the Deeper Devotion entry; he or she appears to have contributed nothing else. Could these not be removed without harm? Flauto Dolce 23:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Religious section seemed a little thin and perhaps a little fundamentalist-oriented. I added as much as I could to round it out, trying to stick with churches I knew were stable. Someone please add better Jewish links and any Islamic links. -Bitt 21:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm beggining to think that the relgious section is a mistake because:

• It invites every minor league religious institution to post an advertisement on Wikipedia
• It forces us to choose what institutions make it onto the page
• Like most moderatly sized cities in the South, there is a staggering amount of religious institutions

Reid 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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) Reid 05:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Fleshed out. -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. 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.--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!

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)

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)

crime

Why was the crime information deleted?

LegCircus 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

• it is rah- -lee. -Jcbarr 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Jcbarr is right, what the hell is rolee? BTW changed population to 347729, bye as shown here http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Planning/Demographics/Population_Estimate_January_2006.pdf - Squadoosh

Failed Sports Franchises

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

The Animal 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

user box

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

This user lives in or hails from Raleigh.

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)

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)

Support

1. Morphh - See above
2. --TinMan 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (see above)
3. Snarius 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Raleigh article should describe all pieces of Raleigh.

Oppose

GA Drive

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

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)