Talk:Siege of Charleston

message: Somebody keep track of the vandalism going on in this page. This article was turned into a F***ing joke over the last few weeks. Don't we have bots for this?
It appears to be continuing. Someone wrote about Hot Dogs and Abraham Lincoln.167.93.49.185 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Vandalism

message: This article does not follow the proper tone for Wikipedia. Also, the article is too scholarly in tone, and of doubtful factual accuracy. 
I'd write more about this but my head hurts. Requesting a inspection and revision of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryffon (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting a rewrite

message: Please see Talk:Casimir_Pulaski#Siege_of_Charleston for a related discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulaski at Charleston 

message: There is only one footnote in the entire article text. Please rectify this. Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More footnotes 

message: I've heard (from a TV show on the History Channel) that the surrender was the largest surrender of US troops until the WWII Battle of Bataan. I think this should be included, however I can't find any decent online sources. That being said, the article on Bataan says the 1942 surrender was the largest since Harper's Ferry during the Civil War. Does anyone have more information about this issue? Coinmanj (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: If you add up all the casualties and prisoners, you get 5,506 men. This is greater than the number of combatants listed. Also, what about the men who escaped (i.e. Francis Marion, and his escorts)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.254.129 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Numbers Are Wrong? 

message: I have read sources that say that the British 76th Regiment of Foot fought at the Siege of Charleston. Does anyone have any more detailed information on this ?. Here's one example which talks about Lord Caithness (John Sinclair, 11th Earl of Caithness) who was a commander of the 76th being wounded during the Siege of Charleston :The siege of Charleston: by the British fleet and army, under the command of Admiral Arbuthnot and Sir Henry Clinton, which terminated with the surrender of that place on the 12th of May, 1780 - by J. Munsell, 1867, page 162.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British 76th Regiment of Foot 

message: This might be a small point, as it is a small image, but it would be better to have  a less fanciful illustration  than  Chappel's late C19 offering currently on this page,  even if it presents an attractive impression  of colonial Charleston. The British grenadiers with their bearskin caps are least wearing uniforms that conform to the regulations of the time but the  Highlanders that feature fairly prominently in the foreground are wearing uniforms from the Victorian era. It would be preferable not to mislead the trusting public.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Alonzo Chappel illustration. 

message: This article begs for more explanation of Clinton’s refusal to grant the Honors of war. I presume it was because he thought Lincoln hadn’t put up enough of a fight to earn honors. It is relevant to Washington’s tit-for-tat pique Yorktown. At the very least, that statement should be referenced and I have flagged it accordingly. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honors of war