Talk:North Charleston, South Carolina/Archive 1

Archive 1

April 2007

The African American population is the majority is should not be listed second. So it should be listed first and changes were made from second to first. The numbers were not altered just the position.Operationmajoritypower 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like "excellent shopping facilities, malls, restaurants and beautifully planned neighborhoods" are clearly opinionated and constitute independent research. The city's crime rate, among the highest in the US, while not great publicity for the city, constitutes "newsworthy" and verifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.26.49 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems quite bias in an effort to portray the city in the best light possible. It says nothing about its extremely high crime rates (according to the FBI, top 10 in the US for its size) and rampent poverty and unemployment. The article refers to the city as "our" which continues to suggest that someone with an agenda is editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.51 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If any of you have newsworthy and verifiable information that you would like to add to the article, please do! I'm trying to improve the article's encyclopedic value and would welcome the help.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CARTAlogo.jpg

The image File:CARTAlogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

September 2010

I do not understand the obstuseness of these posters who are removing information that designates North Charleston as a suburb, or at least a part of, the Charleston metropolitan area. Is it arrogance or immaturity? The other user here who has correctly been placing that information seems to be on something in the history comments; I could see city officials trying to squelch any proof that their city is not the primary political center of the metro area. As noted earlier, this article had been reading as a city brochure or chamber of commerce article rather than a true encyclopedic text. It appears that this trend is continuing, and I think Wikipedia editors need to seriously monitor this article page.

N. Charleston is in the metro area. That is verifiable by noting the city in the title and list of cities in the article itself. This edit war is very immature and pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.145.120 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

January 2011: The case for North Charleston

Technically speaking, it would be most correct to say that it is part of the Charleston – North Charleston – Summerville metropolitan area (the area used by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes, and the article to which "Charleston metropolitan area" disambiguates) and the Charleston-North Charleston urban area. Designating it a suburb is imprecise, as it is not solely a residential area that feeds the employment base of Charleston city proper; rather, it has its own distinct industrial and commercial complex. West Ashley (to include James Island), Daniel Island and the East Cooper area (to include Mount Pleasant, Isle of Palms and Sullivan's Island) better fit the suburb designation, though the first two are technically considered part of the city proper.

Additionally, the city of North Charleston has its own distinct political, economical and demographical identity separate from that of Charleston. North Charleston's mayor is not elected based on party affiliation (though the current mayor is nominally a Republican) while Charleston has repeatedly elected a Democrat. North Charleston's economy is centered on heavy industry, shipping and retail; Charleston's economy relies primarily on tourism. African Americans are the majority population in North Charleston, whereas White Americans are the majority in Charleston.

I agree that the article definitely needs cleanup with respect to NPOV. However, the separation between North Charleston and Charleston (in my opinion, at least) is factual and distinct. Charleston's primacy as county seat of Charleston county is irrelevant, as North Charleston incorporates portions of Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties. While Charleston is certainly the cultural and historical center of the area (and, most residents would argue, the state), and North Charleston was once its suburb, the cities currently share little in actual affiliation other than the name.

(Yes, I am a North Charleston resident. However, I ask you to assume good faith, as I pride myself on trying to hold to NPOV as strictly as possible.)  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the articles cited in the revision history making a case for a suburban designation (namely Arlington, Texas and Aurora, Colorado), the cities in question are distinctly smaller than their associated "primary" cities: Arlington has a population of ~380,000, Dallas has 1.3 million; Aurora has ~325,000, Denver has ~610,000 (and Aurora residents have been pushing for co-equal recognition with Denver based on the fact that their population is over half that of Denver). North Charleston and Charleston do not share such a gap: North Charleston's population sits at ~97,000 (and is growing rapidly due to the influx of workers for the new Boeing Charleston Factory and associated support facilities), while Charleston's is ~125,000. Finally, Charleston, North Charleston, and Summerville are all designated principal cities of the MSA. So can we leave the suburb thing alone? It is at best an inaccurate description whose purpose now only seems to indicate who won "the argument." This isn't intended to be a slight to the city of Charleston; I'm just trying to grasp the most accurate description for North Charleston.

If you would like to discuss this with me further, please leave a message on my talk page.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do agree that North Charleston fits the description of a suburban-style city (no consolidated downtown as of yet, hierarchical street plan vice grid). I just don't think it's accurate to call it Charleston's suburb anymore. I don't know that it could have been called that initially, as the North Area started out as an industrial and commercial district.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

One of three places in the world for widebody commercial aircraft manufactoring

"With the arrival of Boeing Aircraft, the city has gained international importance and stature as one of only three places in the world for the manufacture and assembly of wide-body commercial aircraft. The other two places are in and around Everett, Washington and Toulouse, France."

How can this be true when it is stated on Ilyushin Il-96 that the Il-96-400 will continue to be produced? --79.240.223.86 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Article updated to reflect the continued production of the Il-96-400 in Voronezh, Russia. Contradiction statement removed.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of edit by User:128.23.195.159 (talk)

The article in question is a reliable secondary source that establishes the annexation of portions of Dorchester and Berkeley Counties by the city of North Charleston. Per WP:PRIMARY, use of a secondary source is preferable to use of tertiary sources, of which the SCIWAY website (the previously cited source) as a compendium is one. If you locate a secondary source that better articulates the expansion of North Charleston from Charleston County outward other than a website that establishes it by listing North Charleston under "Places in Dorchester County" and makes no mention whatsoever of Berkeley County, then I'll be happy to change the citation. Thank you.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 00:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SCIWAY.net is basically a privately funded information directory and as such is not necessarily desirable as a "reliable source." I would say in this case the most desirable source would be a government report outlining the scope of North Charleston's city limits (which I have not tracked down yet), followed by articles from a recognized publication, such as a newspaper (one of which I provided as the source). Privately funded tourist/relocation directories rank a distant third.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand done. I located a map of the city's boundaries drafted by the City Planning Department that shows city territory in all 3 counties (there's just a smidgen in Berkeley county as of this map drafting in 2008). I also discovered that I am technically not a North Charleston resident. Go figure.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of edit by User:67.197.15.149 (talk)

I have reverted this edit made by User:67.197.15.149 regarding the designation of North Charleston as a suburb for the reasons previously stated here. Please discuss the issue here. I know that this has been an issue in the past and will initiate an RfC if a consensus cannot be reached.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Census figures

User:City of North Charleston has twice ([1]; [2]) removed referenced data from the previous census in an effort to insert updated but unreferenced data from the 2010 census. Their edit also changed the page to incorrectly state that the city was the 3rd largest in the state upon incorporation in 1972. I reverted once here and left a message on their talk page, but they made the second edit above reverting my revert. I have no issue with the updated census data, but it should be properly sourced and doesn't require (in my opinion) that the old (sourced) data be deleted.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the article to reflect the 2010 census population (97,471) as listed here (Post and Courier) and here (U.S. Census Bureau press release). Figures are properly sourced in article.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)