Talk:Research Triangle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Population

The CSA Population is 1,509,560 according to the U.S. Census 2005 predictions. I think this should be added somewhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.55.153 (talk • contribs)

Revert, title

Hi, I reverted the edits by User:Leonard23 to the last version by User:Dubaduba. Leonard's edits did include some useful changes but overall the edits made the article very confusing. Anyone that makes further edits to this article may find it useful to first take a look at the edits by Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TheTriangle&diff=14934735&oldid=14467888).

Now about this article's title... The current version says this: "The Research Triangle, commonly referred to as the 'Triangle'..." while Leonard23 changed it to "The Triangle, commonly referred to as the 'Research Triangle' and 'Piedmont Triangle'...". I'm not sure which is more correct, if "The Triangle" should be the main title or if it should be "The Research Triangle". One thing is for sure, and that is that this article's current title is incorrect. —Teklund 17:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reason for edits & Title Change

My reasoning behind the reverting is because the map of the Triangle area is useful but doesn't offer any real information about the region. The map has been moved to its own individual article so that if you want a visional depiction of the region you can view such. The article is more confusing in it original form because of it offers nothing special to the incite and real information about the region. I have in possession more information about the Triangle and will add very soon. In addition to that I will create a more suitable map that will highlight the region's boundaries and Census definition of the region. I have prior experience on creating article's on metropolitan region's on the website (see Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman Metropolitan Area and The Upstate), so I am trying to make this article more informative, inciteful, and interesting than the former versions of this article offered.

I changed the title of the article from Research Triangle to The Triangle is because I spent many summers living in the region through Duke's high school recruiting program. I learned very much about the region including its true nickname used by actual locals, "The Triangle". Nobody who really has lived there calls it the "Research Triangle", but instead calls it "The Triangle", a more familiar and better suited name for the region. Leonard23 19 Jun 2005 11:30 a.m. (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is this called "TheTriangle" with no space? Why is The Triangle a double redirect to Drexel University's paper? This page should be named "Research Triangle", I think. Either way we need a proper disambig page. Rhobite 17:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

This topic should be "Research Triangle, North Carolina", I believe. Yes, most people refer to it simply as The Triangle, however if they were to search for it they would more than likely search for Research Triangle, as that's the "The Triangle" comes from. Treznor 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've lived there since 1977, and only in WP have I ever heard this term "Research Triangle". There really is no such thing. There's the Research Triangle Park. And there is the metropolitan area, which is called The Triangle. The other already redirects here, so what's the worry? -Jcbarr 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Living in North Carolina most of my life, and in Raleigh for the last 6 years, I've never heard this area referred to as the Research Triangle. I've only heard the Triangle as a name for the entire region and Research Triangle Park or RTP as a name for the park itself. I would like to see some references where this region is called the Research Triangle. --Tony(blah blah blah)(look what I can do!) 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "Research Triangle" was used in the 70s and 80s when the Research Triangle Park was growing quickly, and the name began to be applied to the region as a whole. The RTP is what brought "The Triangle" together from three separate regions into one metropolitain area, and hence the derivation of "The Triangle" from "Research Triangle" is correct. But it is true that "The Triangle" is almost always what's heard in normal conversation today, in 2007. Thus I agree with the article title, but hopefully this explains the confusion. If I can find a good source on this I'll add something to the article. Jpp42 08:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunn

I'm sure this was added (not by me) was because the Dunn Micropolitan Area is officially part of the Raleigh-Durham Combined Statistical Area (Census defin of CSAs). Pick your criteria for "primary", but arguably this should be one. -Jcbarr 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunn is considered a micropolitan. Quoting from that article:The term gained currency in the 1990s to describe growing population centers in the United States that are removed from larger cities, in some cases 100 miles (160 km) or more. Geographically it is "outside the triangle". Please take a look at a map to verify. Also I do not think that Raleigh-Durham Combined Statistical Area should be equated with "The Triangle". It would take over an hour to drive to RDU (Arguably the center of the Triangle) from Dunn. The reason I believe that Dunn is mentioned by the Census is because it so far from what people would consider the Triangle that it was named explicitly to clarify the area that they were using for statistical purposes. Primary cities would to me be the largest. I vote to move Dunn to the "suburb under 10k" (if it could be called that even!) and change Primary to "Primary cities over 50,000 inhabitants". I believe I am compromising by even including it in this article, any complaints with my proposal? If not, I am "Dunn talking" and I will proceed with the edits. :) --coreyr 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep it Primary City as is. A primary city is a primary city regardless of its size. If a city has a nameplate within the name of the consolidated statistical area then we should respect it as a that. I honestly belief you should remain as is with the specific categories I originially created when I created this page. Leonard23 8:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask anyone that lives within the Triangle if they consider Dunn to be a part of the Triangle, and they most definately would not agree. People in Dunn would not consider themselves to live in the Triangle. Dunn is most definately a suburb of the Triangle, not a Primary City. It is listed as a Micropolitan area by the Census, not a Metropolitan area. I would argue that Micropolitan areas shouldn't be Primary Cities, but that Metropolitan cities should, as well as other cities in special cases, as in Chapel Hill in this case as it's the third leg of the Triangle. Treznor 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Centers

I have removed from the list The Lassiter at North Hills and North Hills Mall and added North Hills Shopping Center. The first I removed (I believe) is a reference to North Hills Shopping Center, but that only describes a small portion of the entire center. North Hills Mall was demolished earlier this decade to make way for the new North Hills Shopping Center. Tony 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite needed: "most educated and affluent"

The following claim is uncited:

The Triangle's population is the most educated and affluent in the Southeastern United States.

While I would love to believe this true (since I'm a resident of the Triangle), I would like to see an official source back it up.

--Tony(blah blah blah)(look what I can do!) 13:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fayetteville in the Triangle?

Ok, should Fayetteville be included in the Triangle article? Recent edits have included the city (50 miles away from Raleigh) and Cumberland County... I reverted most because this is the first I've heard of that. Obviously TV networks are including Fayetteville in their "covered" area because it's within their range, but I don't think that's enough for Fayetteville to be considered part of the Triangle. Earlier we had an argument about Dunn not being in the Triangle...why should Fayetteville? I know here in the Triad, local TV networks cover a larger area than the Piedmont Triad itself...including a few counties in Virigina and down into Charlotte/Metrolina territory. Any Triangle locals want to buzz in? --TinMan 03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fayetteville is not officially in the triangle. But several TV stations translate Triangle news from it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fayetteville isn't a part of the Triangle, as a component of the MSA or CSA. Fayetteville is part of the DMA - Designated Market Area, which is not a census bureau term, but a market research designation, used primarily to define radio & TV market areas (a legal requirement in those industries), but also generally approriated into many other aspects of business marketing, tourism and related service industries.

A similar NC/SC example would be the occasionally confused Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson-Asheville DMA, which includes the seperate Greenville, Spartanburg, Anderson and Asheville MSAs (as with the seperate MSAs within the overall CSA that forms the Triangle, the SC MSAs are also combined as a CSA, just to make these kinds of matters more confusing). --Davidals 04:44, 03 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Fayetteville metro is sometimes included as a part of the region and has a population of 2,041,000 when added. Students of land use and regional planning have recently begun to refer to the area as the "Cinco Circle" referencing the elliptical shape of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Cary area. The use of the word "cinco," meaning 5 in Spanish, also reflects the recent substantial increase in the Latino population in the Raleigh-Durham area. Between 1990 and 2004, North Carolina saw its Latino population grow from 76,000 to nearly 600,000. From the school years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, Latino students accounted for 57.3 percent of the total growth in the North Carolina public schools, resulting in a change in school enrollment of 45,148 students.[1]" WHAT??? This is precisely why Wikipedia is a load of bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.221 (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Counties

The number of counties listed for the Triangle were far too excessive and non-factual. I have removed some of them. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's like the Piedmont Triad. Lexington, NC isn't one of the anchors, but it is a "Piedmont Triad community" and it's in southern Davidson County. Similar to Metrolina too. --TinMan 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unusual community names

Cities with interesting, but unofficial acronyms: These were posted on the North Carolina article, but I didn't believe they were of enough importance to be listed there, so I moved them to this regional article. --TinMan 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"the highest number of Ph.D.s per capita"

The source of this statement indicates that the Raleigh/Durham region has a highly-educated workforce, along with several other US locations mentioned. Therefore, the change from "the highest" to "one of the highest". Even this edit isn't fully accurate given that the referenced article makes no specific mention of Ph.D.s per capita.

TTA Rail?

Why is there still a reference to the TTA rial project, the project is almost certainly dead. Shouldn't that at least be noted?

Replacing Chapel Hill with Cary?

(also posted on the talk page for AgnosticPreachersKid)

This is in reference to the recent change: 20:58, 16 April 2008 AgnosticPreachersKid (Talk | contribs) (36,319 bytes) (changed to cary; the new CSA title doesn't include Chapel Hill)

Granted that the US Census defined CSA has changed from Chapel Hill to Cary because of population, however, please consider:

• The area was originally so named because of its location at the center of the triangle formed by the three major research universities in the area -- Duke (Durham), NCSU (Raleigh) and UNC-Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill).

• Chapel Hill is still shown as the third point of the triangle on maps at the official rtp.org website. (http://www.rtp.org/files/Maps/rtpeastcoastmap.jpg http://www.rtp.org/files/Maps/maprtpcounties.jpg)

• Cary is not mentioned in RTP's fact sheet (http://www.rtp.org/files/Fact%20Sheets/rtp_general.pdf) or in its History document (http://www.rtp.org/files/Fact%20Sheets/rtp_history.pdf)

Isn't the statement defining the CSA in the article section Cities adequate coverage of the differences between the area as defined by the government for statistical purposes and the area as it is historically known and as it is self-defined? Thank you. --Hennap (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. APK ^{yada yada} 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

APK is ready for the tourists to leave 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Employers

Is American Airlines still a major employer? RDU is no longer an AA hub and the reservation center in Cary left sometime after 2001. How many people does AA employee in the area now?--RadioFan (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Person County

Person County has no research facilities of any kind, aside from some bunsen burners at the high school. It is not part of the Research Triangle. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (born & raised in Roxboro)

Even the Person County website says Person County is not in the Research Triangle. [1] 155.84.57.253 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another official Person County website that says it is not part of the Research Triangle. [2]155.84.57.253 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither website says "Person County is not part of the Research Triangle". Both say "Person County is nearby to Research Triangle Park." RTP is NOT the Research Triangle. The latter is a much larger area. Please do not represent these sources as saying that Person County as not part of the Triangle. It does not say that. --Jayron32 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Please provide a reliable source that indicates that Roxboro/Person County are part of the Research Triangle. All you have provided so far is hearsay. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The RTP official site indicates that there are only three counties in the "Research Triangle area". Person County is not one of them. [3] 155.84.57.253 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet, this site: [4] lists Person County as one of them, actually has 15 counties as part of the region. Another definition, by the offical government agency known as the "Triangle J Council of Governments" (under an older organization of NC, the triangle was known as "region J"): [5] includes seven counties, Durham, Orange, Wake, Chatham, Johnston and Lee, and Moore in the definition of the Triangle, and yet the Census Bureau doesn't include Lee and Moore in the definition. This site includes Alamance County, not many others do. And, the U.S. census does not recognize Chapel Hill as one of the main cities of the region, it calls the region the "Raleigh-Durham-Cary" Combined Statistical Area, (see North Carolina census statistical areas), despite the fact that Chapel Hill, and not Cary, is one of the three "anchor" cities. And its definition recognizes 8 counties as part of the different subdivisions of the Raleigh-Cary-Durham" CSA. So again, we can battle official sources all day long, however I think the best we can say is that some sources list only the three main counties, and other sources also extend the definition to include several other counties, including, among them, Person County. The region has multiple definitions, depending on which source you use. We aren't to judge which source is "more right" based on our agreement or disagreement with the content of the source. As long as they are all reliable, we should give them appropriate weight. The best we could do is to note that some definitions of the Triangle only include the three anchor counties, while other definitions include a wider area. --Jayron32 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Cinco Circle"

Half of the lead paragraph is spent on "Cinco Circle" being an alternative term for the The Triangle, along with discussion of the influx of Latinos. Personally, I've never heard the term "Cinco Circle" before and nearly every reference to it in a Google search appears to be based on this Wikipedia article. The text then goes on to discuss the growth in numbers of Latino children in North Carolina schools as a whole, not The Triangle in particular. None of this is appropriate for a lead and doesn't even seem to be notable enough for inclusion in the article. There is a reference for some of the text, but upon inspection, the reference was an existing one that was simply co-opted and doesn't appear to bear any direct relation to the claims being made, although the reference itself is so vague as to be nearly useless by linking merely to the front page of the American FactFinder rather than any specific documents. The text was introduced in December 2009 in a pair of edits by an editor identified only by his or IP and which has made no other edits on Wikipedia. For the reasons outlined above, I am deleting the reference to "Cinco Circle" and associated content. Other editors who can provide referenced information and justify notability are of course welcome to offer their contributions. WildCowboy (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The same text was just re-introduced by another IP-based editor (possibly the same person), and I have again removed it for the reasons noted above. I'd appreciate input from any other editors regarding this issue. WildCowboy (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've lived in the triangle for 20 years and have never heard this term. Sounds like someone trying to be cute. Like any unreferenced claim of questionable validity, it should continue to be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The mysterious "Cinco Circle" section has reappeared, with the reference being a random link to an SEO-laden Cary apartment search guide that almost certainly drew its content from this Wikipedia article the last time the text was introduced. Other references to the term are few and far between according to Google, with almost all of them also being lifted from this Wikipedia article the last time the text was introduced. People who live in the Triangle have never heard of this term, and including it in the lead section of the article (or even at all) is simply misleading. The editor in question has also added a section to the lead discussing growth of Hispanic populations in the area, lifting text straight from a study that was specific to Durham, not the Triangle as a whole. Yes, the Hispanic population is growing in the Triangle, as it is in much of the country, but these additions simply overstate the realities of the Triangle and are of dubious (at best) reliability. I have once again removed the content until someone can provide a reliable reference that supports the inclusion of the text in an overview article on the Triangle. WildCowboy (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still no valid references, has no place here. Removal is the right thing to do.--RadioFan (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WildCowboy, it is misleading to say that you have never heard of the Cinco Circle when you are the one that removed this content in 2009. The references supplied substantiate: 1) property owners leasing apartment units have come to identify the area as the "Cinco Circle." Secondly, the City of Durham's housing element considers regional housing needs in both Durham and Orange County and quantifies population statistics and growth in racial groups by unbiased third parties. These are public documents that have been submitted and accepted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the United States Government. I will look for a third party expert to weigh-in on this issue, but would ask as a matter of fairness and ethics that you not remove this content for at least 10 days until we can have an expert review this issue.Planner Todd —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The "references supplied" are either dead links, links to other Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia cannot source itself), or otherwise don't verify widespread use of the term "Cinco Circle" or the other claims you have made. Cresix (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had not heard of it when I first saw it on this page several years ago, and this article and other sources that appear to have simply pulled the information from this page remain the only places I have ever heard of or seen it. Another longtime Triangle resident had also not heard of the term until it was seen here. The term has no business being in a lead section on the Triangle given that people here haven't even heard of it, much less used it. For support, you reference an apartment site that I believe simply pulled the content from this same page while it was on here for almost a year with no supporting reference. Google searches of "Cinco Circle" paired with terms like "Raleigh" or "Cary" to limit results yield very few hits, with almost all of the relevant ones apparently just lifting their text straight from the 2009-2010 version of this article that included the text. Regarding your other additions, you in part include data on growth of Latino populations and school growth for North Carolina as a whole, not the Triangle. The final addition about growth of Latino population applies only to Durham County and is thus an incomplete picture of the Triangle as whole. A discussion of Latino population growth may be appropriate for a "Demographics" section of this article if supported by references that actually cover the Triangle, but what you have added is not appropriate for this article. WildCowboy (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ratings and Quality Assurance

this article has two tags for quality problems (promotional material and missing sources), but it had two ratings with the best grades - strange contradiction.... (or promotion via ratings?) 193.174.131.14 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it strange. Ratings are often done by casual readers. Quality tags usually are placed by serious editors. You can find skewed ratings by readers on lots of websites; check IMDb. Wikipedia does not have paid editors to manage quality control, so it is done by means of the tags. Cresix (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Research Triangle. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080702033749/http://www.wcpss.net:80/demographics/ to http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060827171207/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/1/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=1&passYear=2003&passListType=Misc&uniqueId=2799&datatype=Misc to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/1/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=1&passYear=2003&passListType=Misc&uniqueId=2799&datatype=Misc

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Research Triangle

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Research Triangle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FAA":

• From Raleigh Executive Jetport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for TTA PDF. Federal Aviation Administration. Effective 8 April 2010.
• From Triangle North Executive Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for LHZ PDF. Federal Aviation Administration. Effective 11 February 2010.
• From Person County Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for TDF PDF. Federal Aviation Administration. Effective 8 April 2010.
• From Raleigh–Durham International Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for RDU PDF, effective February 1, 2018.
• From Horace Williams Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for IGX PDF. Federal Aviation Administration. Effective 27 Aug 2009.
• From Miami International Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for MIA PDF, effective October 25, 2007
• From Washington Dulles International Airport: FAA Airport Form 5010 for IAD PDF
• From Rockingham County, North Carolina: FAA Airport Form 5010 for SIF PDF. Federal Aviation Administration. Effective 11 February 2010.
• From Greater Hartford: FAA Airport Form 5010 for HFD PDF, effective 2007-07-05

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It appears Greater Raleigh-Durham CSA and Research Triangle both cover CSA information. It seems convention is to only have one article for the CSA and the "nicknamed" region (e.g. see Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area redirect to Piedmont Triad). Am open to the direction that the merger should go, though, if this deduction of convention is wrong. — aegreen (talk • email) 21:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Combined Statistical Area does already redirect to this article. — aegreen (talk • email) 21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. — aegreen (talk • email) 13:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CSA Map Needs Update

CSA does not include Nash or Wilson counties, which are part of their own Rocky Mount-Wilson-Roanoke Rapids CSA. Went ahead and removed mentions of both from the article. However, the current CSA map still needs to be updated to remove Nash County to match the U.S. Census Bureau's own map from the 2012 economic census.[6] — aegreen (talk • email) 19:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit has been completed. — aegreen (talk • email) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)