This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles United States: South Carolina Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

It is requested that a photograph of downtown Charleston be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in South Carolina may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 1 contains talk from 2007 and earlier. See that archive for discussions on sister cities, Joseph P. Riley, Jr., slave trade, current population, a Rainbow Row image, listing local malls, economy, earthquake of 1886, introduction text, Greenberg's Judaism, use of the words slave and race, restoring deleted text, latin version of the city name, lists vs. prose, racial makeup, CARTA logo, firefighter deaths of 2007, correction of population statistic, and religious intolerance.

Feel free to start a new discussion on any of these topics, but please read the archived discussion first.

"Where you exit I-26 onto Meeting Street in Charleston." Really. This is the best you could do? 24.211.215.187 ( talk) 04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

There are way too many lists in this article. Charleston is such a great place that I am surprised no one has tried to bring this up to featured article status. I am going to attck the lists and will make some entries here if anyone wants to discuss my conversions or deletions. - PennySpender1983 ( talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Marinas

My first work on the lists was the list of marinas. I deleted this list for Relevance. A bulleted list of marinas does not seem relevant to an encyclopedic article on a place like Charleson. I did move the list to CharlestonWiki.org/?title=List_of_marinas, where relevance is not as much of a concern.

A list of current and past marinas could be relevant in an article on the maritime history of Charleston, if someone wants to take up that task. - PennySpender1983 ( talk) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Neighborhoods

I deleted the list of neighborhoods and subdivisions based one Relevance. I cannot beleive that there might be articles in WP that have acheived either Featured or Good status that contain a list like this. Again I moved this list to CharlestonWiki.org/List_of_neighborhoods. - PennySpender1983 ( talk) 02:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Notable People

I agree with the sentiment (12 years ago) that this article is way overstuffed with lists. Most of them are headed with hyperlinks to full lists already. I'm not saying that the main article on Charleston needs to just be an aggregation of those links, but some severe winnowing needs to happen. Especially for lists that do not claim to be comprehensive (and really, really especially when there is a hyperlink to a full list elsewhere), I'd like to suggest trimming some of those. The list of notable people includes several people who are not really all that notable to start with and certainly no one associates them with Charleston. It's also a mishmash of historical people (colonial governors) to social media influencers. I don't want to lop off most of the entries, but does anyone have strong feelings about this? Or which (five or six?) are really characteristic of the notable people? ProfReader ( talk) 00:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! I have always thought that this article has sucked and revamping it has been on my to-do list for quite some time. I would not oppose you chopping off a bit of the history section and moving it to the other article. I have been watching what you have been doing with appreciation. Keep up the good work! Muttnick ( talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I've restored "Carolopolis" under the nicknames -- discussion notes that it had previously been removed because someone thought it "silly" to include the Latin name of the city. Understandable, however, Charleston is one of very few cities in the New World to which scholarship gave a Latin name, so I think it's noteworthy. More importantly, the name appears on the seal, is used in the names of several major awards given in the city, and is used in ecclesiastical records, so I think it's important to have it somewhere on the page -- although nicknames might not be the place, but it seems that if "Chucktown" is going to be included in this article, "Carolopolis" should be too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.75.67 ( talk) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I've struck this again. "Scholarship" has not given Charleston a Latin name. In fact, Carolopolis is not even Latin. It is a combination of Latin and Greek. Chucktown is, on the other hand, an actual nickname. People actually use that in Charleston. And, as for "Palmetto City," that is just not even remotely a nickname. The ONLY reference I could find to someone calling Charleston the "Palmetto City" was Harper's Magazine in 1857. ProfReader ( talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've again removed this. Carolopolis is NOT a nickname. When has anyone ever actually used that in conversation? The fact that one word MEANS the same as something else does not make it a nickname.

I've removed this sentense: "It is also the second most productive port in the world behind Hong Kong.", for it didn't had any resource. I only found this on the internet ( http://www.crda.org/business/unique_advantages/port_of_charleston.html ), but that site only says that the port of Charleston is cited as such.-- Robster1983 ( talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it probably won't be any more. Maersk has moved out of the port, and they were a large part of business. -- Scouto2 ( talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm taking out the list of squares in Charleston. First, there are still way too many lists in this article. Second, Charleston is not laid out around squares. In fact, there has not been a Market Square in Charleston for two hundred years. Liberty Square is not really a square in any way but name. And, Courthouse Square is not a square either; it is a street named for the land upon which the actual courthouse is built.-- ProfReader ( talk) 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A section should be created in sports for the Stingrays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.160.2 ( talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Should the fact that ghost superstition and tours are used in Charleston often be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.206.39 ( talk) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Not particularly. 113.22.24.34 ( talk) 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, if you can find a WP:RS discussing it. —  LlywelynII 03:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

This section goes into pretty good detail about Charleston's Infrastructure, but nothing about the economy beyond mention of the Port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.243.136 ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have created a History of Charleston, South Carolina article, in which I have transferred the original components of the History section entirely into the new article. In its place, I have shortened the section to hit the high points of historic significance and established clear historic periods. This was done to shorten the main article and highlight the extensive history of Charleston, which deserved its own article due to its length and importance. Smaller Beaufort (pop. 11,000) had a dedicated History article, as do other cities of Charleston's size and renown. -- Cdamgen ( talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I would very much like to know how on earth it is possible to know that the earthquake of 1886 registered a 7.5 on the Richter scale, when the Richter scale didn't exist for another half century? Also, I would very much like to see any reference to a seismologist saying that it is possible for a quake of such magnitude to be felt at distances as far as those listed. I lived in southern California for 25 years, and the only quakes I felt more than 50 miles away were those over a 6.0 on the Richter scale and even those were within 100 miles of my home at the time (like the quake in Santa Cruz when I was in Monterey). A 1952 quake in California also doesn't seem to have brought reports of people feeling it more than 100 miles away. There was a quake of 8.0 in the Dominican Republic in 1946 "that also shook Haiti," which is, um, part of the same island! I have heard of reports before regarding the Charleston quake (something about church bells ringing in Boston and some witnesses saying they felt movement in New York City, but I highly doubt that the people interviewed had ANY idea of what they were talking about at all and newspapers in those days were not the greatest standard bearers for the truth. There is no doubt that a significant quake happened, but if I do not see some hard references, and some realism, I am tempted to eliminate most of the paragraph about the event. Prosandcons ( talk) 05:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, you might like to visit the (admittedly very short) article on Henry Peronneau, and see if it can be referred to in your subsection on the Colonial period. TheAMmollusc ( talk) 09:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The section of Charleston history is really bad. It is. Sorry to say that, but it is really bad. There are lots of issues, but one overarching one is the length of the section. There is an entire article about just Charleston history, but I feel like this discussion in the Charleston article eclipses that other article (at least in word count). I don't know if anyone really monitors this article very much; I didn't see a heavy concentration of the same editors in the past edits. But I'd like to start a conversation here about the Charleston history section. Any thoughts on the appropriate level of detail that it deserves? I think less is more. But maybe others disagree? I'd like to move big chunks of this to the devoted article about Charleston history (where they would still need significant work), but I don't want to leave the section here with too little content. Thoughts? ProfReader ( talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Can someone fix this phrase? "By 1783, the growth of the city had reached a point where a municipal government because desirable..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.252.181 ( talk) 20:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The first paragraph says the population is about 111,000. But the sidebar says 400,000. I assume the 400,000 figure is wrong. Cwoodw1 ( talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I have 2 things for you to watch and those are:

https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/videos/topic/50-birds-50-states#9f90b420-1512-45d1-8f39-fd8e2fa46ee4

https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/videos/topic/50-birds-50-states#368493eb-5ce3-4940-b4c1-2ab6b6637500

remember they have true facts. 209.122.93.183 ( talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Can someone please take a look at section 9.5 (museums, etc.)? There is a problem with the bullet points preceding each entry. I think that the introduction of the St. Matthew's photo has screwed something up, but I can't figure out how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.45.194 ( talk) 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply

The demographics section needs to be expanded. The data on racial and ethnic groups does not correlate with 2006 estimations. [1] Would be willing to do this myself if no one's up to the task. Thanks--( Wikipedian1234 ( talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) reply

Also, please include the median income amount and other economic stats. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Should {{ main}} be placed on this page to link to the disambiguation page for Charleston? Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 22:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there a userbox for Charleston? Allen ( talk) 11:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I know there is probably a specific statue or whatever but this article reads very pro charleston to me. Not that you need to be super neutral on an article as innocuous as this but some person with a whole lot of charleston pride greatly contributed to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.228.135 ( talk) 08:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

While the Armed Services section is already quite thin, I'm curious why the Air Force and the Navy weren't mentioned in that section at all. ( LadyKatie99 ( talk) 10:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)) reply

Most likely because neither branch has facilities located within city limits. Air Force facilities are located in North Charleston and Navy facilities are in Goose Creek.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 16:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

But on the Airport section the Air Force is said to "shares [the] runways with the adjacent Charleston Air Force Base." If the airport is listed in the article, and in the article it talks about the USAF, then they should be included.--♠|RP|♠ 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This justification is pretty thin. It's one thing to include the airport, even though it's in North Charleston; anyone flying into or out of Charleston pretty much has to use it. Including the Air Force base just because it's mentioned in association with the airport is fairly tangential. If you were going to do this, you'd actually have to address it as Joint Base Charleston, because the entity known as the "Charleston Air Force Base" technically no longer exists – and now you've bought yourself into including the Navy facilities in Goose Creek (also part of the Joint Base), which are not even remotely in Charleston. It is the area's largest employer, so I don't mind inclusion as such, but it should be designated "Joint Base Charleston" and the article should specifically mention that its facilities are located in North Charleston and Goose Creek.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm still not sold on listing Fort Sumter as a Charleston attraction per se. It is technically located in Sullivan's Island, SC, not Charleston. And, while you can get there from Charleston, you can also take tours out there from Mt. Pleasant. In fact, you can actually get there from anywhere you like . . . if you have a boat. It is a national park and free to the public, and there is a dock out there you can use. The only thing is, it's on an island. So, when you pay for a tour of Ft. Sumter, you aren't actually paying for a tour of Ft. Sumter -- you're paying for the ride out there.

How about this? Add a listing for the Fort Sumter Visitor Education Center? That is the exhibit hall run by the National Parks Service with displays about the fort, and the entry can note that harbor tours with stops at the fort depart from the same area.

Here is the link to the National Parks center: http://www.nps.gov/fosu/historyculture/lisqexhibit.htm

Out of curiosity, what is your source for saying that Fort Sumter is "located in" Sullivan's Island? Most sources simply list it as being in "Charleston harbor", and none of the town limit/zoning maps for Sullivan's Island that I've been able to find ( here, pages 54 and 55 and here) show the town limits encompassing the fort, seeming to indicate that it is in fact technically not located in the town of Sullivan's Island. The only things I've found are a Google Maps address on Sullivan's Island (likely for the visitor's center at Fort Moultrie, as Fort Sumter itself is most certainly not located at 1214 Middle Street) and some reviews from Yelp and TripAdvisor, which are not reliable sources. In light of this, and given the historical significance the fort has to the city of Charleston, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me not to include it here.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The National Register application lists its address as within Sullivans Island. And, while it is important to Charleston, the problem is that the list is of attractions IN Charleston, not things that are important TO Charleston. Take Middleton Place as another example. Middleton Place (and Drayton Hall) are important to Charleston's history and are far more closely related to Charleston than Summerville or some other place. But, they don't show up on the sites IN Charleston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.37.131 ( talk) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The only issue I have here is that mailing address is not an indicator of factual location. The maps linked above show pretty clearly that the actual fort itself is not located within the boundaries of the Town of Sullivan's Island.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 19:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I can agree with that, but the original point of my suggestion is still floating around out there. Even if the island is not part of Sullivan's Island, it is also undoubtedly not part of Charleston. I'm not really interested in listing it as part of Sullivan's Island, but I do object to listing it as part of Charleston. It is definitey not in Charleston even if it is closely associated with Charleston. The list of attractions is specifically a list of attractions in Charleston, and this one isn't. There is already a mention of Charleston's role in the start of the Civil War under the history section, and a mention is fair game there. But, I just don't think listing Ft. Sumter by itself as a Charleston attraction is right. Other sections of this article have likewise applied a strict standard in eliminating references to nearby roads, parks, resources, sporting teams, etc. (unless the caption specifically refers to nearby things). I still think that a reference to the National Park's visitor center dedicated to the history of the fort is a fine thing to include with a note that tours to the actual fort leave from nearby.

No, it undoubtably is part of Charleston. See also any WP:RS book published on the American Civil War, which will place the battle at Charleston or Charleston Harbor, fought by the Charleston militia. It was part of the city's defensive works (it wasn't there to protect Sullivan Island or random shipping lanes) and discussion of it and its battle belong not just in the article but in the lead section. —  LlywelynII 03:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

 Done —  LlywelynII 03:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I have twice reverted the addition of information regarding the Boeing Charleston Factory being located "at" the Charleston International Airport. Boeing owns the land that its facilities have been built on, so they are not part of the airport, regardless of being shown on a map of the airport. Furthermore, the airport is only listed here because it services the Charleston area, so the addition of the Boeing plant (located in North Charleston) does not add value to the article.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 19:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

After looking into it a little deeper, Boeing is actually only leasing the land from the airport authority until its purchase of that land plus additional acreage is finalized later this year (see here). I'm still not sold that the plant warrants mention in the Charleston article, however, unless it's under the economics section, as Boeing is a major employer in the area. It certainly should appear in the airport's article.  Cjmclark ^{( Contact)} 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay. Now were getting somewhere. lol. Ill agree with you on the Economics section and the airport article. Economics is a must because it brought like 2,000+ jobs to the Charelston-"Metro" area. ♠|RP|♠ 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Of course it is "at" the airport. In this instance the use of the word "at" perfectly matches the definition of the word. Merriam-Webster defines "at" as "used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near." So the Boeing factor is both "near" the airport, immediately adjacent the airfield, and "in" the secure fence of the airport. Boeing planes don't land "at" the airport and then call Uber to get to the factory. If you got a call tomorrow from a lawyer saying you inherited property "on" the Mississippi River, would you not know he meant property "adjacent" to the river? Or would you be upset because it was not literally floating "on" the river? - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

For historic colony this should be titled "Province of South Carolina." The colony was never officially called simply a colony, most of the 13 colonies were officially Provinces. In fact the link pointing to the article is also called Province of South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.95.175 ( talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

There has been an ongoing content dispute over the addition to this article of armed forces units and vessels ( link to content addition) located in the greater metro area. This issue was previously addressed by Cjmclark a couple years ago an older thread on this page #Air Force and Navy excluded from Armed Services Section.. However, as there were only a handful of participants, and given the current content dispute, I wanted to re-open the discussion.

I have attempted to discuss the issue on the other user's talk page at User talk:Scsu76#Charleston Armed Forces, but they have refused to respond - simply reverting. Their argument seems to be that because the base is called " Joint Base Charleston" (and not "Joint Base North Charleston", nor "Joint Base Charleston Metro Area"), and because Charleston owes its development to the military, that the military section needs to be expanded to cover all military units in the metro area. This despite the fact that most of those units are actually not within the borders of Charleston itself, but instead are located in the greater Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, mostly in the cities of North Charleston, South Carolina, Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Hanahan, South Carolina. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Listing of specific units might be excessive. However listing of nearby bases, even if outside of the city limits proper, should be included, as well as any demographic information on the economic benefits those bases have on the city.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree, that should be sufficient, and is already mentioned in the article (in the History section as well as the Armed Forces section). But the long list being added (( see here), which includes individual ship names, unit names, as well as the emblem/shield/logo of several of those units is simply too much.

Incidentally, much of the list being added here is also listed in the neighboring city articles for North Charleston, Goose Creek, and Hanahan. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I hate lists within articles. There is probably enough notability to start an article Military forces in Charleston, SC. Here is just one book on this subject. [2] - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

A title such as Military forces in Charleston, SC wouldn't really solve the problem that the majority of the vessels and units are not actually within the city borders of Charleston. They are within the greater metro area, mostly within the neighboring cities of North Charleston, South Carolina, Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Hanahan, South Carolina.

As a result, I agree with RightCowLeftCoast (above) that mentioning the nearby bases in this article is appropriate - and indeed they are already mentioned; but that the units and vessels don't really belong in this article. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Also why the list of highways and routes? Why not have them in collapsed list? Why keep that list, and not this list?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you should rewrite the highway section to get rid of the list. WP:PROSE says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context." - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 05:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Well maybe people would be looking for an article like Military bases somewhat near Charleston, SC that have Charleston in their name. WP:No excessive literalism!! - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 05:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 09:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

March 31, 1801, a group called The Eleven Gentlemen of Charleston organized what is today's Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry. The Scottish Rite was organized in Charleston at what was Sheppard's Tavern. Every Scottish Rite body that opens, across the United States and the world, always mentions Charleston as the place of the Rite's birth. Given the important cultural value of the Scottish Rite and its impact on society, I do believe the Rite deserves a mention in the overall history of Charleston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.204.182 ( talk) 17:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mace Brown Museum of Natural History, and Confederate Museum.-- Manfariel ( talk) 00:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I replaced the unsourced claim that the '65 image solely showed destruction owed to the '61 fire as (a) completely unsourced and (b) highly dubious, but if there is sourcing somewhere for that claim feel free to restore the information. I think a generic caption about the city's ruined state and reference to both major fires works better to illustrate the article and the city but, if the detail is accurate, it certainly belongs on the picture's summary at Commons (which says nothing of the kind atm) and could go here in a {{ efn}} note. —  LlywelynII 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Britannica

Well, honestly the history section here could use paring and merging into the History of Charleston, South Carolina, article at this point, but it'd probably be best to mine the rest of the info from the EB9 and EB11 articles first on topics such as the 19th-century railroad links, rice mills, phosphate and fertilizer industry, &c., and as a source verifying that the focus of the economy long remained based on cotton. The current article wants to upsell the industrial development up to 1880 but in 1878 $18.7m of the city's $19.7m exports was cotton; there was more development after but some explanation should be found for the bottom falling out of its exports: only $10.8m in 1897 and less than $2.2m in 1907. Also has some other interesting points, such as the black and white schools of the 19th century both being almost entirely staffed by white women. (The remainder being 4 white men.) —  LlywelynII 03:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Commons

There's also much more at Category:Charleston at Commons and its subcategories like Category:History of Charleston. The city has been important for long enough that we should basically be able to have period paintings throughout its history mixed with topical images like the Indian map or the photos of the Battery in 1863 and the destruction in 1865. —  LlywelynII 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Further reading

Looks like someone or some people spent some effort on this but it's not actually helpful to have a long list of books that is—in effect—just a half-arsed cut-and-paste from a Google or Amazon topic search. An example of how slapdash it currently is is the omission of Simons & Lapham from the architecture section.

At minimum, it needs to be pared down to the major, influential, or comprehensive works and glosses provided to explain their relevance. Better would be split this off as Bibliography of Charleston, South Carolina, and go in depth into the fights over the historiography of the city there. Best would be to use the best sources as sources for the article (or spread them out as needed to history of Charleston &c.) and leave the unnecessary works by the wayside. —  LlywelynII 04:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Marek69 seems to have adopted an arbitrary standard, rolling back my edits today when I was still working on the article, saying the reason was "more than 10 edits". But the rollback rules do not address this - it says "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes." I see that Marek69 has also been working on this article and, as most editors do, apparently prefers his version. My edits are good faith and are not vandalism. Of course there are issues over which we can disagree. I think it usually strengthens an article to use active voice, and had content to add about some portions of the slave trade and history, among others. I have worked on this article before, as well as several articles about Southern history, the Denmark Vesey rebellion, the domestic slave trade, etc. I also added sourced content from a 2011 article about the shift in ethnic population from 1980 to 2010 on the peninsula, as it seemed pertinent to an article about the city including recent history. Parkwells ( talk) 19:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Marek69 rolled back my second edit today, using the same "more than 10 edits," before I even had a chance to add the cite. The editor has not responded to my efforts to discuss content. Parkwells ( talk) 15:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charleston, South 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply

At 155kB, this article is significantly longer than what the WP:SIZERULE suggests. I propose moving some material from the lengthy sections (eg, History, Culture, Transportation) into related articles. History already has its own article, yet much of the History section of this article is longer and more detailed than the corresponding sections in the History article, which seems backwards. I may create new articles for other material. I just wanted to give others notice before I start moving chunks of text into other articles. If anyone has an objection to this proposal, please speak up. Thanks. CUA 27 ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Charleston, South 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68OJFtype?url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904032047/http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/02.htm to http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014220553/http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019182931/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanstyle.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core%20Pages&gid=D4BC7638393C45F5B69956570EB94649
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420032524/http://www.carealliance.com/bssf/default.asp to http://www.carealliance.com/bssf/default.asp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201161757/http://eastcoopermedctr.com/CWSContent/eastcoopermedctr to http://www.eastcoopermedctr.com/CWSContent/eastcoopermedctr/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charleston, South 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225134258/http://statelibrary.sc.libguides.com/sc-information/sc-counties to http://statelibrary.sc.libguides.com/sc-information/sc-counties
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028004634/http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4870&context=etd to http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4870&context=etd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106211013/http://www.screconstruction.org/Reconstruction/Sites_of_violence/Entries/1876/10/16_Cainhoy_Riot.html to http://www.screconstruction.org/Reconstruction/Sites_of_violence/Entries/1876/10/16_Cainhoy_Riot.html
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/2010_population_estimates.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140710102707/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/4513330.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/4513330.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204015408/http://www.scspa.com/Cargo/ReadytoGrow/harbordeepening.asp to http://www.scspa.com/Cargo/ReadytoGrow/harbordeepening.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715120014/http://tvstations.procontentanddesign.com/browse/city/185_Charleston_SC.htm to http://tvstations.procontentanddesign.com/browse/city/185_Charleston_SC.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charleston, South 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806100339/http://www.scottishritecalifornia.org/charleston_time_line.htm to http://www.scottishritecalifornia.org/charleston_time_line.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140922135701/http://www.travelandleisure.com/americas-favorite-cities/2010/category/culture/theater-performance-art to http://www.travelandleisure.com/americas-favorite-cities/2010/category/culture/theater-performance-art
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101032104/http://www.ridetricountylink.com/index.html to http://www.ridetricountylink.com/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715101957/http://www.tourism.gov.bb/cultural-heritage-programme.html to http://www.tourism.gov.bb/cultural-heritage-programme.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

"The dewpoint in June to August ranges from 67.8 to 71.4 °F (19.9 to 21.9 °C).[17]"

Outdated, the dew point is in the mid 70s currently and will be at least 72 thru this week, in September, and hits upper 70s regularly in mid summer, when nights are consistently in the upper 70s to 80. B137 ( talk) 15:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Charleston was controlled by an oligarchy of white planters and merchants who [...] launched the Civil War

Can we have a source on this? - 91.10.15.216 ( talk) 23:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I updated the regions section to include Mount Pleasant as this is a highly populated residential and commercial town where many (if not most) Charlestonians live. I consider it a region of Charleston because it is directly across the river from the peninsula, and anyone who lives in Mount Pleasant considers themselves to be living "in Charleston". Futhermore, the Charleston official website considers it a highlighted area in "Charleston" [3]. I'm curious if you all think Sullivan's Island and Isle Of Palms should be included on this list for similar reasons? Sarahjessamyn ( talk) 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Sarahjessamyn: First, I agree that Mt. Pleasant is basically Charleston. I also agree that Sullivan's Island and Isle of Palms are also basically Charleston. But I must note that most Charlestonians do not live in Mt. Pleasant if you look at the population numbers. Muttnick ( talk) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Muttnick: Good point, I didn't base my assumption that most Charlestonians live in Mt. Pleasant on any data (this is not included on the article page). Thanks for your corroboration, I added in Sullivan's Island and Isle of Palms to the list. Sarahjessamyn ( talk) 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This article is about the city of Charleston, not the surrounding cities. In other words, if it's outside the city limits, it really shouldn't be mentioned here. There is a separate article for the Charleston metro area, which includes Charleston and the surrounding suburbs. Sullivan's Island, IOP, and Mount Pleasant are separate municipalities, so should not be mentioned as sections or neighborhoods of Charleston. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

JohnRidinger is correct, in my haste to correct the assumption (as a proud Charlestonian) I misspoke. However, there is no reason not to add this information to the metro wikipedia article. It is linked to in the first paragraph of the article. Muttnick ( talk) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

In the same article, the city is referred to as Charles Town, Charlestown, and Charleston. The only note of a name change is "about 1719". In fact, the name of the city was changed in 1783 according to the history timeline. Most of the article deals with the current city, so it would be Charleston of course, but when speaking of historical events is it feasible to use the official name of the city? If so, it would be Charles Town until 1783, and Charleston thereafter. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 23:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I would be happy to have help with this draft. FloridaArmy ( talk) 15:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Would love a photo of the Marx Cohen Jr. cenotaph at Coming Street Cemetery for List of Confederate duels. TY if anyone can help! jengod ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Should the fact that Charleston was at one point the most Jewish city in US be mentioned in the intro? 2600:100C:A20A:17AF:391E:5C87:CC3F:37E0 ( talk) 00:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply