Talk:History of South Carolina

message: I'm a bit surprised there is not a section called Proprietership between Prehistory and Colonial. This period introduced the characteristic economic system and concluded with the first of South Carolina's several revolutions.Hughespj 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section title

message: There are currently 6 paragraphs about Jim Hodges in this article. Someone should move most of that content into the Jim Hodges article (which currently is little more than a stub), and create a summarized version for this article. After reading this article, I feel like I know more about Jim Hodges than any other aspect of South Carolina history. Kaldari 21:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content about Jim Hodges 

message: I wonder if we should add something about this mouvement in the article--Revas 17:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to wait to see if it amounts to anything significant. So far, it hasn't. Pollinator 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Christian Exodus]] 

message: Following a request from Toothpaste, I'll have a go at condensing the leader text of the article below. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ==The Leader Text==
The leader text seems drastically changed from these versions.  I think it has POV problems. One could argue SC had an "extraordinary commitment" to political independence for whites; they were happy enough to go along with the Federal government when the South controlled it in the decades before the Civil War--Parkwells 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leader Text

message: *Proposed version completed. Do what you like with it. Rob Church Talk | Desk 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ==The Leader Text==
The leader text seems drastically changed from these versions.  I think it has POV problems. One could argue SC had an "extraordinary commitment" to political independence for whites; they were happy enough to go along with the Federal government when the South controlled it in the decades before the Civil War--Parkwells 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Why did the British split the Carolina territory into North Carolina and South Carolina?  I'm just curious, and think this deserves a cursory explaination in the article.      
Nick 08:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did they split NC and SC? 

message: This section describes nothing positive achieved, when public education, expanded suffrage for whites as well as blacks, and other reforms were instituted. It does not demonstrate NPOV. --Parkwells 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstruction

message: This section only tells problems resulting from Reconstruction, none of the progress. There are no citations for references to "massive corruption", and damage to the state.  Part of the debt resulted from planters refusing to pay taxes.  Also the state took on more social welfare responsibilities during Reconstruction, to try to improve the situation of both black and white laborers, which the planter elite had neglected for years.  W.E.B. Du Bois's account (1935) and Eric Foner (1988) gave more thorough and balanced accounts of what happened during and after Reconstruction. Also, the text refers to a leader's "demagoguery" as being the reason farmers wanted some assistance, but gives no references. --Parkwells 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References added.  If you want detailed statistics of all the ways the Radical Republicans wasted money, you can view the South Carolina Reports and Resolutions, 1868-1900 which is available on microfilm at most SC libraries. Gamecock 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1877-1890

message: A bot  has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article.  If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic addition of "class=GA"

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.
The article is lacking inline citations in many areas, and for the article to maintain its GA status, it needs sources for the information present. There a large wealth of resources at the bottom of the page that can be used to provide the requested inline citations, and if desired, consider using both web and print sources. I have made a list of multiple statements, quotes, and statistics that should have inline citations:
#"The Scots-Irish constituted the largest and last group of immigrants from the British Isles before the Revolution." User:Parkwells put in Fischer cite to address this one.  Done
#"Political tensions between the lowcountry and upcountry became a recurring theme for generations."
#:This isn't a controversial statement - the regions differed in economics, culture, class, slaveholding and settlers' backgrounds. Competition was played out in politics.--Parkwells (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone planning on completing the changes? If not, I will unfortunately have to delist it. I will check back in a few more days to see if there is any additional progress. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen agree that in-line citations are better, but seems harsh to impose a 7 day requirement that a well-sourced article change over rapidly from a general sourcing style that was acceptable in the past to an in-line sourcing style.  That is a lot of work, and the sources in the article are not readily available to editors who might make the changes.   doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Question:  for the sources that are on-line, is there any automatic tool available that could cross-check a given source vs. this article?  I mean something that would run a "diff" to find any word sequences that appear in both, to facilitate identifying where specific inline citations/footnotes can be added.  I would be willing to do some cross-checking along those lines, which could address some of the 23 statements in question. doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I myself have some wikilinks and new sources to add to the article, from active work-in-progress articles on National Historic Landmarks in the state, indexed at List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina.  I don't know whether i have sources that address any of those 23 questioned statements specifically, but I will be adding to this article. doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The seven day deadline was a period for me to determine if anybody was going to contribute to the article and address the issues.  I always contact the main contributors of the article and the related WikiProjects to get more people to assist in the workload. Usually if progress is being made, I will extend the deadline until the work is completed. However, in several cases, I will post the message with deadline and no corrections will be made. Since it appears that there are several editors who are interested in helping the article maintain its GA quality, I have no problem extending the deadline to however long it takes. The article is well-written, but since the guidelines have changed since late 2005 when the article passed as a GA, there are inevitably going to be some changes that need to be made. By the way, if you find a bot that is able to check sources like you mentioned, I would be interested in hearing about it. If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll be happy to answer them. Good job with addressing several of the issues so far. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for ur reply, Nehrams2020.  In ur most recent edit comment, u say something like "You're making good progress", perhaps generically.  All credit to Parkwells for progress however.  I did make perhaps just one edit to the article but do not generally find the National Historic Landmark material that I have command of to be that helpful.  Parkwells, I am glad you are responding and striking out these issues as you deal with them!  sincerely, doncram (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Progress looks like it is still going pretty well. Please continue to address the issues. I'd recommend starting with the lead first since that is one of the largest issues I had with the article. If you address the issues concerning the mention about the BC history and the World Wars history, I'll pass the article for now and you can continue to add the sources for the other statements later. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement. I will tackle the lead next - it needs a complete rewrite and I chose to work on the sources/cites first. Will also address other issues you raised.  Needed a break from SC as I was also working on other stuff.--Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, you've done an excellent job so far. The lead shouldn't be too hard to reduce in size. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey, I want to commend you guys on the work so far, but it is more than a month later and the other tasks still need to be completed. The main problems are still the large lead and the issues listed in the "other issues" section. If you address these, you can remove the statements that are lacking sources and move them to the talk page until a source can be found. Unless the stated issues can be addressed in this week, I'm unfortunately going to have to delist it. If this occurs, the article can always be renominated again after the issues are addressed, and it should pass easily. If you have any questions, please let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: I'm sorry I have to do this, but I'm delisting the article since the above issues were not all addressed. Again, good job so far on the work, and this article should definitely go back to GAN once the above issues are met. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you when I'm available. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

message: It seems highly unlikely that this image of the Compromise Tariff was created by the National Park Service or its Historic American Buildings Survey, or included in an online LOC "Built in America" exhibit. There isn't any relation between those activities and the Compromise Tariff of 1833.
It's more likely that it was simply part of the Library of Congress records of Congressional legislation and its American exhibits. --Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The label is totally incorrect, but I don't know how to fix it. It comes from Statutes at Large - 22nd Congress, 2nd Session, p.629 of 818 (you can read the page number on the image) (Library of Congress, "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875accessed 7 Mar 2008)--Parkwells (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Label is incorrect on image The Compromise Tariff of 1833

message: The lead is much too long - it should be only three or four paragraphs.--Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree...that is my next project.  19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead is too long

message: I think you can see the issue for yourself...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.69 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish population in SC 

message: The SC history sidebar template has been recently revised with slightly different layout and expanded content (following the model of Template:History of Texas). Please edit/add to it! Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:History of South Carolina]] 

message: Any interest in creating a Timeline of South Carolina article? A few other US states have timelines (see :Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:
*  (timeline)
*  (chronology) + via Google Books
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
-- M2545 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of South Carolina 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7023/indigo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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/20061205060613/http://ego.com/us/sc/myr/history/rise.htm to http://www.ego.com/us/sc/myr/history/rise.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134732/http://www.washingtonch.k12.oh.us/mapsite/usctcw/studentpages/54th55th/54th_and_55th.htm to http://www.washingtonch.k12.oh.us/mapsite/usctcw/studentpages/54th55th/54th_and_55th.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to a piece in the Smithsonian" magazine, " In 1526, enslaved Africans were part of a Spanish expedition to establish an outpost on the North American coast in present-day South Carolina. Those Africans launched a rebellion in November of that year and effectively destroyed the Spanish settlers’ ability to sustain the settlement, which they abandoned a year later." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/ Shouldn't this be checked and included?  Kdammers (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1526