![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Because of this necessity, Wikipedian developers created a very easy way to create signatures. To automatically sign your posts with a date-stamp, add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Rillian 12:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In what fields? What degrees does it grant? Is it accredited? If so, by what organizations? This article does not even cover the basics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.200.79 ( talk) 04:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Another editor is making the claim on the page that the Citadel has the "largest all-gold college ring in the United States". What does "all-gold" mean? 24K? Because if it is less than 24K, some adjective other than "all-gold" should be used here. (As an example, a typical VMI class ring is 14K gold and 44 dwt, larger than the Citadel's ring, so I am taking it that for this editor, 14K does not qualify as "all-gold".) 98.204.199.179 ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a citation for the Class of 1944's non-graduation status (drafting for WWII) and fixed some formating with images and line breaks... of course, I did this before I remembered to login.
Angryundead 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"All cadets have physical training Monday and Thursday mornings before breakfast, drill practice Tuesdays and Thursdays between 11am and noon, and "Spirit Runs" Friday afternoons after parades."
PT is only at the beginning of each semester until the Corps PT test, where 95% of each company must pass. And only knobs are required to participate in the spirit run with the help of voluntary upperclassmen...
1. Check the average SAT scores for the Citadel! It's nowhere near 1200. It's actually more like just over 1000. Stick to the facts and stop stretching the truth. Saying 1200 is just plain lying...
2. The only cross registration the citadel has is with Trident Technical COMMUNITY COLLEGE whose students can complete two years at the community college and then spend two years at the citadel and graduate with a citadel degree. The medical university of south carolina, college of charleston do not have "cross-registration" with the citadel...again, someone threw out an innacuracy and fabrication...you guys are hilarious. Bullhog 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and once again there are folks out there like you who know absolutely nothing about which you are arguing so vehemently about. Graduate students are those guys who come during the night and have absolutely no interaction with the corps..and guess what buddy, they can get a ring which is entirely different than that ring with which the corps wears. I can guarantee you that the only ring the corps recognizes, as well as the employers who are in high demand for citadel grads, is the one that has been the same for over 70 yrs.. The real band of gold. I dont think its cheezy at all that the citadel offers great learning opportunities in graduate studies for the lowcountry of S.C! How can you say something so stupid?? I dont know who you are and where you come from, but if you dont think our school is tougher than any other military school or academy out there with exception to VMI, just come on down and see for yourself. Westpoint and Annapolis are great schools academically and militarily, but as for being "tough", well, to be frank, they dont know the meaining of that word!
http://www.musc.edu/es/cross_reg.html Shows all: http://www.citadel.edu/registrar/forms/application-to-take-courses-at-another-college-guidelines.pdf#search='cross%20registration%20with%20the%20citadel'
I am a cadet myself right now at the Citadel, and all this talk about how cadets are so tough disgusts me. They march around with huge egos beacuse they think that since they got hazed as a knob, they can take on the world. They are trying to imitate the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who actually do serve in the line of fire. Now, some cadets really are big-muscled fighters, but that's it. for the most part, they are loud, obnoxious boys who came to the Citadel for a ring, not a degree. They worry less about academics than they do about watching movies during study period. There is the minority of cadets who do have a good heart and act in a professional manner....those are usually the ones who are on a military scholarship and will commission into the US Armed Forces after graduation. Those are usually the cadets that were unable to be accepted into a military academy.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
155.225.9.180 (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 14 April 2006
You seem to have missed the point...I have no problem with one disagreeing with the actions of others at a school, my point is if your going to say something like that use the generic words "there are cadets that" instead of "they" as if he or she is not a part of the institution. Furthermore, since you dont know much about the school, let me educate you. The foundations of the school are built around teamwork and commraderie. Nobody says dont be an independent thinker, the problem rather lies in the fact that it is not normal and appropriate to slander your classmates like that, using words like "they disgust me" the Citadel teaches respect, and since this person obviously missed that lesson, I felt the need to dissent from their point of view. Oh yeah, its not "...behavior of himself compared...", im pretty certain it should be "...behavior of herself compared...".
I said I am a cadet....now i was formerly a cadet, i transferred. to dissuade your sckepticism: freshmen watch DVD's on their computers (computers have had DVD software included in them for a few years now) yea, they need a break, but for every ESP for most of the year??? and u being a cadet know that no upperclassmen would even come close to reporting a cadet for watching a DVD, ever. also, religious officers are not in the cadet's academic chain of command. do i really have to prove to you how i am a cadet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.183.224 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 June 2006
Actually I got in trouble several times, as well as my classmates when we were knobs for doing ANYTHING other than studying during ESP, whether it be being on AIM, watching a movie, or just goofing off and not studying. I dont know what company you "were" in but it seems as though if you didnt like the fact that knobs were watching movies, you should have stepped up and done something about it. I was a SGT last year and I never caught any of my knobs watching movies during ESP. I also think you missed the whole point of the religious officer being mentioned. The comment above yours was not proposing that someone use the religious officer for academic help, but rather was advising that religious officers can sometimes talk to one and get them to understand the real meaning of college and what that particular person is doing there so that they might reach their full potential. In closing I say to you goodluck with your studies elsewhere, the Citadel is not a place for everybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.7.128 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 July 2006
Big surprise, another kid who couldn't cut it badmouths the Citadel. This kind of thing gets really really old. I don't know what company this kid was in, but even the most lax companies at the Citadel are ten times what this kid claims. Oh well
Yea, seriously. Badmouthing the school without even being able to handle knob year? That really says a lot about why you quit. If you don't even have the discipline or determination to finish what wold have been, in retrospect, one of the best things that could have possibly ever happened to you. What right do you have to judge? And as or proof of me being a cadet, why would I need to prove anything to someone who quit. Quitters are worse than knobs this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.225.150.185 ( talk) 04:07, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
The number of generals and admirals grads is 239 as of September 18, 2007. http://www.citadel.edu/alumni/resources/gen_list.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.193.193 ( talk) 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
All information has been verified and reviewed by The Citadel Office of Public affairs as of 3/5/05, edits on this day submitted via VP Public Relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw your edits, look good however the introduction still seems to hit civilian side versus cadet’s right up front. While the CGPS is a key part of The Citadel and the low country I think it should be reworded as my changes indicated. Interested in your thoughts? {Drive 23} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to get grad in put on adding Sword Drill, http://www.sworddrill.com/ , to the fictional depiction section. I know this might be something some of the members might comment on so treading lightly and testing the waters. V/R {Drive 23} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Fictional depictions? Apparently taken down.--Buckboard 11:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This claim is nonsense. It may have been ranked the number two regional university in the south (It's hard for me to tell, because the linked article seems to be a list of all regional/"master's" universities in the south, and I'm not sure how many of the six schools ahead of The Citadel are public), but the "master's" universities rank below the national universities, meaning that, in order, Virginia, North Carolina, William and Mary, Georgia Tech, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida State, and South Carolina are all superior to the Citadel in the US News rankings. john k 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
YOUR AN IDIOT...DO YOU READ THE THINGS YOU RIGHT DOWN?? what do you mean it may have been ranked the # 2 regional university in the south...the south IS THE REGION. The things that you are typing are NONSENSE!
Fair enough. john k 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of article content that is not cited. I am removing uncited content to The Citadel (military college)/Uncited. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please contribute by providing citations for the information on the Uncited archive, and migrating that information from the Archive to the article page once a citation in provided. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Kabul Compound Renamed in Honor of Fallen Citadel Grad U.S. Army Capt. Daniel W. Eggers Class of 1997
http://www.citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/war/eggers_memorial.html
Camp Udari, located in northern Kuwait, has been renamed Camp Buehring in honor of Lt. Col. Chad Buehring, Class of 1985. Buehring was killed in an Oct. 26, attack on the Al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. Buehring was assigned to Army Central Command Headquarters, Fort McPherson, Ga.
Dan was a great person and a good friend....Looking for some votes to add this info.. V/R {Drive 23} 65.217.57.101 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
http://citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/war/buehring_memorial.htm
I added a little more emphasis on the graduation rate and gave appropriate citations. I'm sure readers would like to know specifically what ranking the Citadel holds in this area, and because I know how defensive others might get when it comes to one college saying it is #1 in something, I wrote verbatim what the source has, and cited that source. If there are any problems with this, please feel free to verify.
Is there a better seal of the university beside a boy scout patch? ArchonMeld 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a very good photo of cadets in a dress parade (2001) for your site if you would be interested
17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)2003 grad
In 2007, The Citadel was listed among the "Best Values in the South" Really? Last I checked it was still 2006... Js farrar 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to the Citadel next year, when do we select which ROTC program we will do. Also how often are you alowed to go off campus?
I believe the alumni/notbale people page should be seperate from the main article...in accordance with similar situations for education institutions with incredible numbers of graduates. The alumni section of the main article is way too long to keep. Suggest keeping the current List of Citadel alumni page and expand Category:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina to encompass all notable alumni. Thoughts, concerns??? Wrightchr 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be going next year, and on the list of items to bring it says one pair millitary boots. Can any one tell me what color, brand and type and/or a link to a website where I can purchase some. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.22.119 ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 January 2007
When do we decide wether or not to accept commision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.22.119 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 January 2007
Don't worry about it Pre-Knob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not really the place to ask these questions. (72.150.22.119). Contact your pre-knob host or the College. Discuss the article HERE. {{radams89| 10:21 AM, 02 April 2007 |}}
Image:Citadelcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:CitadelBulldogs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that under the ranking headline, the Engineering program is said to have been ranked with college's that offer up to a master's degree. This is incorrect, as the Engineering program is actually ranked 32nd with all undergraduate Engineering programs nationwide. I will leave it up to whoever usually edits the article to make the changes. 162.39.117.30 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:CollegiateCitadel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Padgettthomasbarracks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcampusview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In the women at The Citadel section of the article, it states that Ms. Faulkner was housed in the infirmary because she was not quartered with the rest of the male cadets. That is not a correct statement. It was also my knob year and we were in the same battalion. She had her own room with in her company area. After our first PT session as a class she went to the infirmary and resigned not too long after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugee1977 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The following was added to the main article by User:TVPH1220. I've moved it here for further discussion. Rillian ( talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"The reference to the Harvard review is a dead link. The cadets celebrations were taken completely out of context. Around noon that day it had rained. When it rained, the cadets would plug the drains in the quadrangle and cause it to flood. Cadets were seen "playing" in the rain. CNN cameras filmed this celebrating prior to any news of Faulkner's withdrawal. Aroung 4 pm the news came down that Faulkner was quitting. The cadets were given strict instructions to "act as gentlemen" and not celebrate her demise or grant any interveiws. The footage was aired later to make it appear the cadets were celebrating Faulkner's leaving, which was not the case."
Shannon Faulkner was in India Company. The first 2 days of the Class of 1999 matriculation was spent on Academic Indoctrination which she attended. The following morning, "Hell Week" began with a Army Physical Fitness Test (PT Test in Citadel jargon.) which Faulkner either did not complete or was unable to complete. She was then taken to the Infirmary where she remained until the following afternoon when she returned and attended afternoon chow, but left in the middle of the meal with escorts. The announcement that she had been dis-enrolled was made to the Class of 1999 that evening by Lt Gen. Claudius E. "Bud" Watts. 138.162.128.54 ( talk) 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC) J.L. Carter, '99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.53 ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcadets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Citadel new seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Treason
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bulldog citadel Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have corrected the root cause of the repeated addition of non-english language Half-Life2 links. My guess is that because the non-english language wiki pages for the Half Life2 Citadel pages linked to this page, bots following pywiki protocols continued to re-add the links here. I have gone to the various non-english HL2 Citadel pages, and removed the links to this article, but I'm not sure if I got all of them, so, if any of you see more, please fix, thanks!-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently in the civilian program at The Citadel. I am an undergraduate student. I am working on my bachelors degree in civil engineering. So the cadets are not the only students that can earn an undergraduate degree from The Citadel. Those of us in the civilian program ARE Citadel students and do not cross-register through other colleges. We take classes in the evening while the cadets take classes during the day. We still participate in school organizations and other activities WITH the cadets. We attend meetings and go on school related trips with the cadets. I myself have been to several conferences and competed in academic related competitions side by side with the cadets. I am currently an officer of one of the school organizations. So to say that we, as non-cadet undergraduate students, are not a part of The Citadel, but a separate school, is FALSE. Our diplomas are Citadel diplomas. The only difference is ours do not say "Corp of Cadets". This is similar to the situation with the class rings. We DO get the "band of gold". The non-cadet rings are still the 10k yellow gold and are the same size and weight. Our rings display "The Citadel 1842" while the non-cadet rings display "The Citadel Military College of SC 1842". In addition, the picture of the Lesesne Gate, the Main Gate of The Citadel campus, is closed as opposed to the open gate on the cadets rings. This symbolizes the fact that non-cadet students do not fully understand the tradition and experiences that the cadets gain. So in summary, civilian undergraduate students are part of The Citadel and in most cases, as my own, are NOT affiliated with other colleges. I have a lot of respect for the cadets and all that they go through and the fact that we will never understand what they have experienced. But we do endure the same academic challenges, take classes from the same uniformed professors, pay tuition to The Citadel, and support the schools academic programs and athletic programs. So I think we should be respected, in return, as being a part of The Citadel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldogs04 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Citadel graduates have performed military service for their country in major conflicts. These include World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
I read this paragraph and thought "no kidding." This paragraph is a matter of common sense and it takes away from the paragraph that follows it. The paragraph that follows it actually draws attention to the service of Citadel students, while this paragraph diminishes it. Certainly, the service of Citadel students is noteworthy and a statement such as the one made in the this paragraph actually trivializes it. At most, this statement should be an aside and should form a sentence in another paragraph, stating something to the effect of "Citadel graduates have served the United States in every major armed conflict."
I propose adding that sentence to the end of the following paragraph and removing the aforementioned paragraph: "The entire class of 1944 was inducted into the U.S. armed forces during World War II, and only two members graduated. This was the first instance where an entire class of students was inducted into military service at once since the Texas A&M University class of 1919 entered World War I."
Not a Citadel grad or afficionado, so I'll avoid making the change and leave it to you folks to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.52.13 ( talk) 06:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this a degree granting institution? If so, the article gives no clue as to what one might study at the Citadel. Bachelor degrees? Associate degrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.170.147 ( talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Bob80q has deleted the summer camp section (for at least the second time), presumably because it shows the Citadel in a bad light (he previously deleted this section while editing as an IP). This section is significant because the summer camp program was eliminated follwing a sex abuse scandal. I am restoring the section, and I will begin reviewing the edits made by Bob80q for a possible Conflict of Interest as Bob has previously claimed to be on the alumni history committee. TreacherousWays ( talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This entire section is about people who aren't that notable. This is an article about the school and should be rewritten. Since it is about people who are living I'm deleting it under WP:BLP which requires reliable sources about people who are alive. Buffs ( talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks, I totally agree! I would have deleted it myself but some of the editors seem to be paranoic about people taking anything out. I dont consider the section on Cadet Officer Leadership Program to be very relevant either. Bob80q ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have clarified the verbiage on US News rankings. The old language read "In 2011, The Citadel was ranked as the top public college in the South by U.S. News & World Report and fifth out of all institutions granting up to a Masters Degree." This verbiage could lead a reader to believe The Citadel was ranked ahead of institutions such as UVA and UNC when actually these public Southern institutions are in a different category of US News ranking. Further, The "fifth out of all institutions" verbiage perhaps doesn't make it clear that the ranking is limited to only certain Southern institutions. Finally, the "granting up to a Master's degree" might lead a reader to think US News ranked The Citadel with institutions that do not grant master's degrees.
The fault for the potential confusion lies, IMHO, with US News for the strange catergization it uses: national universities, national liberal arts colleges, regional universities, and regional colleges. But, these are the categories US News chose for its rankings, and I think it is important that wikipedia clearly reflect what US News says. Attempting to achieve this end, I wrote the following: "In 2012, The Citadel was ranked fifth amongst regional universities in the South by U.S. News & World Report and the top rated public institution in that category." My attempt to make sense out of US News' nonsensical categories and to reflect the deservedly high ranking of The Citadel. Ocalafla ( talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)\
Ocalafla ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
and actually I agree, this phrasing uses the exact terminology from USNWR so there is no confusion as to what is being rated. Bob80q ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q, do you have any source to back up your contention that The Citadel currently ranks first in graduation rate for colleges with students having an average SAT score of 1000-1200? If so can you add it? If not, I'd suggest that with 8 year old data, we'd be on shaky ground to use the present tense. Ocalafla ( talk) 22:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. The original Citadel press release from 2005 cited College Results Online. I found the latest data from that site and updated the article to reflect the most recent info. Ocalafla ( talk) 13:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, by replacing the Citadel press release with original source, brought article close to complying with Wikipedia:Third-party sources:"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources" Ocalafla ( talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the section on "no lock tradition". This is of questionable relevance; no other college articles discuss such mundane issues as campus security or room locks, I also question the large quotation marks on the statement by the president and the motivation for putting it in. At a minimum it should be rewritten into the section on campus life. Bob80q ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
you people really kill me. you revert things without explanation or discussion just so you can throw your weight around and its of dubious relevance to begin with. then you want a reference for a mention of the honor code without realizing it was quoted in the section above it. if its full of unsourced information and no one can give a logical reason for it to be there why do you insist on keeping it? Bob80q ( talk) 02:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, all mention of Shannon Faulkner has disappeared from this article. Perhaps someone knows what happened there? TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This section, deleted by Bob80q, was properly referenced and addressed specifically by the college president as behaviour that would not be tolerated. How an institution responds to issues such as discrimination, harassment, and other crimes, especially as the military undergoes significant social changes, is certainly relevent to the core values of the institution. TreacherousWays ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
First, who decided to make it a seperate section? This is not a decision to be made by editors and it is NOT YOUR JOB TO DICTATE WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AN ARTICLE. I add a section about admission of women and someone immediately adds a derogatory mention about sexual harrassment; I delete it and someone promptly makes it a seperate section, how convenient and suspicious. Somebody has a real hangup about insisting on including things about faulkner and sexual harassment, the motives of people are highly suspect and the editors are abusing their authority. Second it was an informal survey not a study and the stated results are highly questionable; it was well known that some cadets admitted to fabricating their answers and just "telling people what they wanted to hear". The president was severely criticized by alumni for releasing something that was not scientific or adequately validated.
Treacherous, your name is appropriate and well deserved. You and some of your comrades seem intent on throwing around their power and dictating to people what they should and should not put in articles rather than having a logical and civil discussion; also your obsession with including references to Faulkner, sexual harassment and other questionable information makes me highly suspicious of your motives and the motives of those who have put in certain references. Then when writers complain about the actions of the editors or make edits they dont like they get threatened with being banned for "bias" and "conflict of interest". For all I know you are a VMI grad intent on finding ways of disrupting and discouraging my efforts to improve this page. For the record the references to Faulkner and minority cadets was deleted by Buffs and I concured but I reinserted a reference for accuracies sake; there was no discussion or justification on your part over my deletion of the no lock section, you just automatically revert all deletions without explanation. Your tone and approach are not acceptable, unfortunately I find it necessary to request you no longer edit this article or I will file a complaint. Buffs and Ocala seem more reasonable to work with and threes a crowd. Bob80q ( talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I've edited the info on the sexual harassment study. First, I corrected the source link to The Citadel website. Second, I removed data on sexual harrasment rates nationwide that was not supported by the source. The language I removed appeared to suggest that there is a 20-25% rate of "sexual assault." But, the source actually states that there is a 20-25% rate of "rape or attempted rape". The source does not provide a national number for "sexual assault". So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. I attempted to locate some comparable date, but found none. FInally, I removed the "informal and unscientific" description of the survey because the description on The Citadel's website makes the survey seem far from "informal". Further, there is no evidence that it was "unscientific." I added in the info about the survey's usage at the federal service academies because it seems to make clear the survey's "formality." I think it is important to be clear that the data was obtained by a survey of cadets and not other methodology. The use of the word "survey" seems to accomplish this, but I encourage others to have a go at something better. Ocalafla ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
all mentions regarding participation at firing on Fort Sumter and battle streamers are well referenced on The Citadel website under school history. There is some debate but a review of references on google shows that they all give credit to 2Lt Farley having fired the first shot so I reverted back to the original statement. Information on award of battle streamers is referenced through the websites of the other schools so honored (VMI, FLA ST, U/MISS, William&Mary, Merchant Marine Acad.) and clearly indicates The Citadel as being the only one to have recieved multiple awards. Changed the reference on Tulifinny to indicate it is the ONLY time an entire student body fought as a unit in battle, no other school makes this claim except VMI and theirs is disproven by references in thier own school archives that indicate at least 25-30 cadets remained on campus. I have properly referenced all these issues in the article. Bob80q ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q, do you have a source for the 8% figure? If so, do you mind adding it in? I'd say its probably a good idea when changing properly sourced text to make sure the replacement text is also properly sourced. Also, was there any reason for also deleting the cost of the tuition? 11:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla ( talk • contribs)
It was the only reference I could find, I have heard our President mention this figure on at least 3 occasions but of course that isnt good enough for wiki. I was not the one who deleted the tuition costs. Bob80q ( talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
obviously what wiki and I consider minor are different animals, semantics Bob80q ( talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Shannon Faulkner's place in the history secition is warranted, but I am not sure that it is prominent enough. Her legal battle was nationally-covered, her depature was fairly sensational, and her brief tenure at the Citadel raised national awareness (and congressional attention) as to the military academies lagged behind their civilian counterparts in gender equality. Media coverage of a female "battling to defeat the patriarchy" brings out the buzzards, but does this give reasonable prominence? Certainly female applicants reading this article might like to know what adjustments the institution has made; for instance (as I recall), when Faulker arrived there were no bathroom facilities available, and it was her presence that brought the "no locked doors" policy into question. I am not adamant about this issue, just wondering how other editors feel. TreacherousWays ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q: I have undone your restoration of the statement "The cadet corps is the largest in the nation outside the service academies and annually ranks first or second in the number of military officers commissioned among colleges with ROTC programs. " in your edit summary you said no reason was given for Buffs' deletion. Please review his edit summary where his reasoning was stated.
However, I will elaborate here. The statement in question was tagged as needing a citation to a reliable source several months ago. Note that unsourced statements on Wikipedia are subject to removal at any time, but the best practice is to tag them as needing a citation to allow a reasonable amount of time for the author of the statement or others to find a reliable source. After several months passed without a reliable source emerging (during which time I actively searched for such a source) I removed the statement. You recently reinserted the statement still lacking a reliable source. That is when Buffs again removed the statement.
As Buffs noted, this does not mean the statement isn't true, just that it needs to be verifiable if it is to appear in a Wikipedia article. If a reliable source can be found, the statement would be appropriate for inclusion. Ocalafla ( talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
yet another example of a double standard. Wiki articles are full of statements with no sources; there was no reference in the VMI article to the claim that they are the only school whose entire student body fought in a battle and that they are the only cadet corps authorized to march with fixed bayonets - neither is true. The Texas A/M article includes a claim they commission the most officers, the source cited was a speech by President Bush but this is not adequate reference since he was just reading a speech someone else wrote and is not in a position to know this kind of information. If you are going to insist on a reference for every statement in the articles there wont be much left to read. 23.24.109.165 ( talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Billcasey905, great additions on the sources! Thanks also for cleaning up the little format mess I accidentally left. Regarding the no-lock tradition, the CN tag was intended to apply to the "tradition evolved in keeping with the spareness of military life" as opposed to the no-lock tradition's connection to the honor code. Where I placed the tag didn't make this clear at all. I haven't reinserted the tag yet because I don't think it's that big an issue. But, I like your idea of moving towards a featured article, and this is the sort of statement we might like to have a source for. Ocalafla ( talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q: Please see my note on your talk page regarding Wikipedia's 3 Revert Rule and its applicability to your "cadet corps" edits. Also, please note that, despite your edit summary's statement to the contrary, you added no reference. You merely reverted the edit that Buffs and I had previously made. If you have this source, please add it. If not, I think there is probably consensus that the statement should be removed. Ocalafla ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, make sure you remove the same statement on the Texas A/M wiki article. There is NO attempt to subvert any rules, I probably made some changes without realizing I wasnt signed in and I certainly did not claim a reference that doesnt exist. If you want me to stop reverting deletions at least have enough respect and courtesy to tell me what you did and why you did it; same goes for all the massive changes made to the article recently. Its pretty clear by now that wiki is all about what the editors want and no one elses opinions matter. Bob80q ( talk) 02:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We've gone over this so many times and Bob, you refuse to get it. I've made appropriate changes to make it state what you are trying to show, but at the same time IAW WP:RS. I'll break this down by why what you are trying to input doesn't work:
Because of the above, I've rephrased your claims to match the given sources and our policies/guidelines.
Now, I don't want to discourage you. You clearly have a love for your school (THAT'S A GOOD THING!!!), but you need to make edits IAW WP:Policy. If you need help, ask. We will help. Buffs ( talk) 04:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the recent edit adding info on Shannon Faulkner. Some of the edit was unsourced; the one source given did not support the info in the edit. Per
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I also checked the source Bob80q added for the pipe band statement. I did not find anywhere where it said there were only 21 college pipe bands in the country. Sorry if I missed it.
Regarding the issue on number of commissions, I'm going to re-read Wikipedia:No original research to see how it applies to what we are all trying to say here. Ocalafla ( talk) 10:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Buffs: you are being anal and obsessive and clearly singling out this article for excessive scrutiny because some of the claims dont jive with those of your alma mater, as stated before you have a conflict of interest and a formal complaint will be made; you should recuse yourself from any further editing or I will force wiki to do it.
Bob, I am being neither anal nor obsessive...so let's keep this out of the insult realm, shall we? I don't want to seek a block with you, but edits like these are leading down that path rapidly. FYI: this is simply the only major issue right I think is worth my time. I think you have a viable place within Wikipedia and you make good faith edits, but those edits have to conform with certain rules.
I'm gonna side with Bob on this one (for the most part). The Faulkner issue should be kept. A dead link should also be kept. At the time of that input, the information was available and a lookback may be able to be performed and add an undying link...but only if it is there. If you cite a source from a handwritten book and that book is later destroyed, it's a curiosity/oddity, not "unsourced". The second sentence should be re-added, but with a source (and I've done so). Bob, there's no reason to take this personally. It isn't personal. These are the rules that everyone has to follow. Likewise, removing the information about Faulkner is a case of whitewashing history. It needs to be in there (though the specific phrasing/details included) can certainly be changed.
The claim of "one of the largest cadet corps" is indeed correct, but it includes weasel words which are not permitted (please read the previous link). These types of phrases are almost always found in instances involving boosterism. I too had to remove such phrases in the A&M article. A&M also started the school year with a had a recent-history record class of 950-1200 freshman cadets (started this week, but the specific numbers haven't been announced. These numbers are based upon projections. If these class sizes hold, it's possible we could end up being larger than the service academies). I would go so far as to say that we could call it a tie between the two as the differences on a day-by-day basis, but the issue would be with the phrasing. Collaborative editing is part of the WP process, so how about a compromise?
In short, Bob, this isn't personal, so don't take it as such. This is a collaborative project and we can work together. Buffs ( talk) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I added this tag to the "the South Carolina Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed bodies in the United States" language. Is the intended meaning that the Corps of Cadets is one of the largest bodies of cadets at a military school? If so, then clarification is needed and also see "Corps size" above on the issue of whether or not "one of the largest" is the best choice. If, on the other hand, the intended meaning is that the Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed bodies of any organization in the US, then I suspect there are several Army & Marine divisions that might beg to differ. Ocalafla ( talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The bit about Shannon Faulkner in this article seems incomplete. It does not explain why she went to the infirmary in the first place, why she stayed their, or why she "quit." I mean, unless she really went straight to the infirmary as soon as she arrived on campus, stayed there for unknown reasons, and left for unknown reasons (all highly unlikely), I think more is needed. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
CIDHIST and Bob80q, would you please discuss your concerns with this section here, rather than constantly reverting each other's edits? It will be much more productive and allow you to focus your energies more effectively. Billcasey905 ( talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Appologies Billcasey905
Bob80q for your edification
"Landmark" is defined as 1. An object or feature of a landscape or town that enables someone to establish their location. 2. An event, discovery, or change marking an important stage or turning point in something.
A "Monument" is defined as statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event. 2.A statue or other structure placed by or over a grave in memory of the dead.
The Citadel refers to these various items around campus as monuments in its own literature. Therefore "Campus Monuments" is the correct and proper designation.
Also, one should use the complete names of monuments to individuals. It is the "Thomas Dry Howie Memorial Carillon and Tower" and not the merely the "Howie Bell Tower."
It is also not necessary to give a snapshot of General Clark's biographical information prior to his assuming the presidency of The Citadel. Pointing to his wiki article will provide interested persons that detail. In the interest of brevety one can simply note his tenure as President, his major accoplishments while in the job (largest building program since Summerall; codification of the current Honor System, etc) and that he was President emeritus. Otherwise one could just as easily note his near disasters at Salerno; the bombing of the Abbey at Monte Cassino; the questionable race to Rome; the slaughter of the 36th Infantry Division at the crossing of the Rapido river; the controversy over his being nominated by President Truman as U.S. emissary to the Holy See. Those items would be equally noteable about Mark W. Clark, but then again this is an article on The Citadel and not about General Clark.
A closer read of the sources would be beneficial. CIDHIST ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an anal self important type who thinks he knows more than everybody else and has to have the last word on everything. "Landmark" is construed by most as meaning a significant point on a campus, just because the school uses a term doesnt make it necessary or correct. Websters definition includes "A structure of unusual historical and usually aesthetic importance, especially one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation". It is entirely appropriate to include a very brief summary of Clark and why he is important, many people are too lazy to read full bios; same rationale for including background on Howie. If you are so damn smart hows come you didnt think of including this info long before I did? Bob80q ( talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would someone without a direct connection to The Citadel please review the content added here and at The Citadel Bulldogs football (see diff) regarding the Sports Illustrated article from 1992? The article is certainly something that merits discussion on both pages considering the firestorm it created on campus and in the national media, but I and several other editors with direct connections to the school would certainly take issue with how it is currently presented, most likely resulting in COI concerns. Billcasey905 ( talk) 16:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The citation for the following sentence is very unclear: The South Carolina Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed student bodies in the United States and the school is one of only two colleges where all full-time undergraduates are required to be cadets and participate in ROTC[5].
[5] websites for The Citadel, VMI, Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, Norwich and North Georgia Colleg
All those websites are the source? Where on those websites?
Seraphya ( talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
request that this article be write protected due to numerous and frequent malicious edits by anonymous sources. Bob80q ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Citadel, The Military College 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I replaced the military rank for the President, Dean and Commandant; this should not have been removed in the first place. Bob80q ( talk) 14:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It IS most certainly significant; military officers are entitled to be addressed by their rank, especially General and Flag Officers. To tell any military officer (including myself) their rank is not significant is insulting and disrespectful, it is NOT just another title like Professor. It is quite different from a civilian with a Doctorate (who are entitled to be addressed as Dr.) Additionally The Citadel is not just another university, its the MILITARY College of South Carolina and a Senior Military College. The ranks have been on the article for quite a few years so who are you to suddenly deem them inappropriate and "insignificant"? I also suggest you check the articles for VMI and the service academies, they include ranks for senior administrative staff. Kindly move on and find something better to do. Bob80q ( talk) 00:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey dimwit the correct abbreviation for a Navy Captain is CAPT http://www.defense.gov/About-DoD/Insignias/Officers Bob80q ( talk) 15:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the pages for several other Universities, both similar to The Citadel and not so similar, I think it is time to look at a reorganization. The article seems to be losing its focus on the College itself, and moving into other areas which are best handled in standalone articles. Below are the changes I propose, some of which will require fleshing out additional sections. It is my hope that after this reorganization and some additional work, we can begin the process for getting this page rated as a Good Article.
Please share any thoughts or alternative ideas, or voice your support or opposition to this proposal. Billcasey905 ( talk) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and think it is very inappropriate to make random changes out of the blue. Numerous alumni worked together to write the original article and agreed on its content, no one else has suggested that it needs changes and it is fine the way it is, if it aint broke dont fix it. In addition the random malicious changes are continuing, this article clearly needs write protection. Bob80q ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Bill I will qualify and modify my comments. The only thing I have heartburn with is moving the section on history to a summary and putting in a link to a seperate article; its a significant aspect of the school that I feel should remain wit the main article, also I note in looking at articles for many other colleges particularly the federal service acadamies and SMCs that they contain much lengthier histories. Otherwise I like the changes and agree that it makes sense to put some of the sections in a higher order. And thanks for arranging for the write protection, unfortunate that one idiot made it necessary but this should hopefully negate any further vandalism. Bob80q ( talk) 00:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Bill I have rewritten the history section on the main page and welcome any feedback you have. I think a paragraph on the Fourth Class System needs to be added to the section on Student Life and I will next start working on a draft of that. Bob80q ( talk) 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Billcasey come in please
Bob80q (
talk)
02:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The Citadel Graduate College is not independently notable enough for an article, and I have doubts about the other colleges as well. I can see the justification for keeping these separate from the much more famous cadet program, but we usually do not make these splits except for largest and most famous universities. The School of Business might be an ecception, as these often do have separate entries. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Bob80q and Strgzr1: Can we discuss the recent edits over the past 10 days or so? I see a number of instances of changes to properly sourced content without a more recent or better citation (particularly covering the makeup of the student body) and I think we've gotten a bit too detailed in the now missing College overview section. If necessary, let's break this into a few parts and discuss and see if we can come to an agreement. As always, I'd ask that we Assume good faith and remember that anything without a citation is subject to challenge and removal. It would also be helpful if we can be sure we're logged in when making edits, so we can clearly attribute to the appropriate editor. Billcasey905 ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Bill just who is this stargzr? His tone is snarkey and hostile, clearly has some issue with The Citadel; a VMI grad for all we know and obviously a conflict of interest for him to be involved with this page. I wont even dignify his comments with a response because they are way off base. As is evident from the exchange about ranks some editors are clearly intrusive and don't have their facts straight. On other issues since you are one who can have a polite and sensible conversation; I have provided a reference on Tulifinny (which was a BATTLE not a SKIRMISH), there is ample evidence that aside from The Citadel and VMI the only colleges to have their students fight as a unit in combat are William and Mary, Florida State and U. of Mississippi; none claim it was their ENTIRE student body. On enrollment figures, so far as I know they are only published in the fall after the new year starts, can be updated when info available. I note that all the photos have suddenly been removed from the article, don't know if this was malicious on someones part but can they be restored? Lastly is the article still write protected? I have noticed frequent edits recently that seem to be malicious and similar in tone to the person who was vandalizing the article repeatedly for a time. If its this stargzr he needs to stop immediately or I will file a complaint, how about we get some other editors who are neutral and unbiased to assist in monitoring this page. Bob80q ( talk) 15:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
And let me add that stargzrs comments sound suspiciously similar to some nasty and demeaning posts left by an anonymous person on several talk pages including my own and this one, see the archived posts as reference. He also sounds like an infamous VMI grad who has been making demeaning comments and spreading gross disinformation about The Citadel on a military college website. His tone and comments show a clear bias and agenda which disqualify him from any further involvement with this article, cannot do your job properly without fairness, neutrality and objectivity. Bob80q ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And again, just who are you? Are you a wiki editor? If so someone else who is more fair and objective needs to evaluate the article; just who are you to decide what should and should not be in it? You do not have your facts straight and clearly have not done any research on Tulifinny, there are no references or articles that classify it as a 'skirmish' instead of a 'battle'; VMI is the only other college to have claimed their entire student body fought in combat (New Market) but this is disproved in their own archives. You sound like NAS or someone else with an agenda, Bill I request that other unbiased editors be brought into the discussion and provide their view, stargzr clearly has a closed mind on the subject. Bob80q ( talk) 13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
( talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
====Bill now you can see why its necessary to continue the write protection and maybe now you can understand just what a sick and twisted ahole this guy is. He has a pathological hatred of The Citadel and will not stop his sad little game but that's OK, as fast as he vandalizes the article I can just change it right back. No point in trying to have a rational dialogue with him, just chop him off at the knees and be rid of him. Bob80q ( talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) NAS if you have issues with this article take it up with the editorial board, otherwise as the Brits say, sod off. 50.59.106.156 ( talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Trying again to re-engage constructively. I see a lot of disagreement over the commissioning rate. It seems that we have dueling percentages which are being calculated offline rather than using a citation. The Citadel is claiming 29% - see here on the right side under Academic Year Facts: Corps of Cadets. Given that Wikipedia operates on citations and we have a disputed number, this seems like the best one. I assume The Citadel is not counting those ineligible for a commission (such as graduate students) but I haven't dug into the numbers. Billcasey905 ( talk) 15:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Citadel, The Military College 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Because of this necessity, Wikipedian developers created a very easy way to create signatures. To automatically sign your posts with a date-stamp, add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Rillian 12:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In what fields? What degrees does it grant? Is it accredited? If so, by what organizations? This article does not even cover the basics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.200.79 ( talk) 04:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Another editor is making the claim on the page that the Citadel has the "largest all-gold college ring in the United States". What does "all-gold" mean? 24K? Because if it is less than 24K, some adjective other than "all-gold" should be used here. (As an example, a typical VMI class ring is 14K gold and 44 dwt, larger than the Citadel's ring, so I am taking it that for this editor, 14K does not qualify as "all-gold".) 98.204.199.179 ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a citation for the Class of 1944's non-graduation status (drafting for WWII) and fixed some formating with images and line breaks... of course, I did this before I remembered to login.
Angryundead 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"All cadets have physical training Monday and Thursday mornings before breakfast, drill practice Tuesdays and Thursdays between 11am and noon, and "Spirit Runs" Friday afternoons after parades."
PT is only at the beginning of each semester until the Corps PT test, where 95% of each company must pass. And only knobs are required to participate in the spirit run with the help of voluntary upperclassmen...
1. Check the average SAT scores for the Citadel! It's nowhere near 1200. It's actually more like just over 1000. Stick to the facts and stop stretching the truth. Saying 1200 is just plain lying...
2. The only cross registration the citadel has is with Trident Technical COMMUNITY COLLEGE whose students can complete two years at the community college and then spend two years at the citadel and graduate with a citadel degree. The medical university of south carolina, college of charleston do not have "cross-registration" with the citadel...again, someone threw out an innacuracy and fabrication...you guys are hilarious. Bullhog 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and once again there are folks out there like you who know absolutely nothing about which you are arguing so vehemently about. Graduate students are those guys who come during the night and have absolutely no interaction with the corps..and guess what buddy, they can get a ring which is entirely different than that ring with which the corps wears. I can guarantee you that the only ring the corps recognizes, as well as the employers who are in high demand for citadel grads, is the one that has been the same for over 70 yrs.. The real band of gold. I dont think its cheezy at all that the citadel offers great learning opportunities in graduate studies for the lowcountry of S.C! How can you say something so stupid?? I dont know who you are and where you come from, but if you dont think our school is tougher than any other military school or academy out there with exception to VMI, just come on down and see for yourself. Westpoint and Annapolis are great schools academically and militarily, but as for being "tough", well, to be frank, they dont know the meaining of that word!
http://www.musc.edu/es/cross_reg.html Shows all: http://www.citadel.edu/registrar/forms/application-to-take-courses-at-another-college-guidelines.pdf#search='cross%20registration%20with%20the%20citadel'
I am a cadet myself right now at the Citadel, and all this talk about how cadets are so tough disgusts me. They march around with huge egos beacuse they think that since they got hazed as a knob, they can take on the world. They are trying to imitate the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who actually do serve in the line of fire. Now, some cadets really are big-muscled fighters, but that's it. for the most part, they are loud, obnoxious boys who came to the Citadel for a ring, not a degree. They worry less about academics than they do about watching movies during study period. There is the minority of cadets who do have a good heart and act in a professional manner....those are usually the ones who are on a military scholarship and will commission into the US Armed Forces after graduation. Those are usually the cadets that were unable to be accepted into a military academy.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
155.225.9.180 (
talk •
contribs) 10:33, 14 April 2006
You seem to have missed the point...I have no problem with one disagreeing with the actions of others at a school, my point is if your going to say something like that use the generic words "there are cadets that" instead of "they" as if he or she is not a part of the institution. Furthermore, since you dont know much about the school, let me educate you. The foundations of the school are built around teamwork and commraderie. Nobody says dont be an independent thinker, the problem rather lies in the fact that it is not normal and appropriate to slander your classmates like that, using words like "they disgust me" the Citadel teaches respect, and since this person obviously missed that lesson, I felt the need to dissent from their point of view. Oh yeah, its not "...behavior of himself compared...", im pretty certain it should be "...behavior of herself compared...".
I said I am a cadet....now i was formerly a cadet, i transferred. to dissuade your sckepticism: freshmen watch DVD's on their computers (computers have had DVD software included in them for a few years now) yea, they need a break, but for every ESP for most of the year??? and u being a cadet know that no upperclassmen would even come close to reporting a cadet for watching a DVD, ever. also, religious officers are not in the cadet's academic chain of command. do i really have to prove to you how i am a cadet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.183.224 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 June 2006
Actually I got in trouble several times, as well as my classmates when we were knobs for doing ANYTHING other than studying during ESP, whether it be being on AIM, watching a movie, or just goofing off and not studying. I dont know what company you "were" in but it seems as though if you didnt like the fact that knobs were watching movies, you should have stepped up and done something about it. I was a SGT last year and I never caught any of my knobs watching movies during ESP. I also think you missed the whole point of the religious officer being mentioned. The comment above yours was not proposing that someone use the religious officer for academic help, but rather was advising that religious officers can sometimes talk to one and get them to understand the real meaning of college and what that particular person is doing there so that they might reach their full potential. In closing I say to you goodluck with your studies elsewhere, the Citadel is not a place for everybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.7.128 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 July 2006
Big surprise, another kid who couldn't cut it badmouths the Citadel. This kind of thing gets really really old. I don't know what company this kid was in, but even the most lax companies at the Citadel are ten times what this kid claims. Oh well
Yea, seriously. Badmouthing the school without even being able to handle knob year? That really says a lot about why you quit. If you don't even have the discipline or determination to finish what wold have been, in retrospect, one of the best things that could have possibly ever happened to you. What right do you have to judge? And as or proof of me being a cadet, why would I need to prove anything to someone who quit. Quitters are worse than knobs this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.225.150.185 ( talk) 04:07, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
The number of generals and admirals grads is 239 as of September 18, 2007. http://www.citadel.edu/alumni/resources/gen_list.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.193.193 ( talk) 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
All information has been verified and reviewed by The Citadel Office of Public affairs as of 3/5/05, edits on this day submitted via VP Public Relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw your edits, look good however the introduction still seems to hit civilian side versus cadet’s right up front. While the CGPS is a key part of The Citadel and the low country I think it should be reworded as my changes indicated. Interested in your thoughts? {Drive 23} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to get grad in put on adding Sword Drill, http://www.sworddrill.com/ , to the fictional depiction section. I know this might be something some of the members might comment on so treading lightly and testing the waters. V/R {Drive 23} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.217.57.101 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Fictional depictions? Apparently taken down.--Buckboard 11:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This claim is nonsense. It may have been ranked the number two regional university in the south (It's hard for me to tell, because the linked article seems to be a list of all regional/"master's" universities in the south, and I'm not sure how many of the six schools ahead of The Citadel are public), but the "master's" universities rank below the national universities, meaning that, in order, Virginia, North Carolina, William and Mary, Georgia Tech, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida State, and South Carolina are all superior to the Citadel in the US News rankings. john k 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
YOUR AN IDIOT...DO YOU READ THE THINGS YOU RIGHT DOWN?? what do you mean it may have been ranked the # 2 regional university in the south...the south IS THE REGION. The things that you are typing are NONSENSE!
Fair enough. john k 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of article content that is not cited. I am removing uncited content to The Citadel (military college)/Uncited. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please contribute by providing citations for the information on the Uncited archive, and migrating that information from the Archive to the article page once a citation in provided. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Kabul Compound Renamed in Honor of Fallen Citadel Grad U.S. Army Capt. Daniel W. Eggers Class of 1997
http://www.citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/war/eggers_memorial.html
Camp Udari, located in northern Kuwait, has been renamed Camp Buehring in honor of Lt. Col. Chad Buehring, Class of 1985. Buehring was killed in an Oct. 26, attack on the Al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. Buehring was assigned to Army Central Command Headquarters, Fort McPherson, Ga.
Dan was a great person and a good friend....Looking for some votes to add this info.. V/R {Drive 23} 65.217.57.101 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
http://citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/war/buehring_memorial.htm
I added a little more emphasis on the graduation rate and gave appropriate citations. I'm sure readers would like to know specifically what ranking the Citadel holds in this area, and because I know how defensive others might get when it comes to one college saying it is #1 in something, I wrote verbatim what the source has, and cited that source. If there are any problems with this, please feel free to verify.
Is there a better seal of the university beside a boy scout patch? ArchonMeld 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a very good photo of cadets in a dress parade (2001) for your site if you would be interested
17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)2003 grad
In 2007, The Citadel was listed among the "Best Values in the South" Really? Last I checked it was still 2006... Js farrar 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to the Citadel next year, when do we select which ROTC program we will do. Also how often are you alowed to go off campus?
I believe the alumni/notbale people page should be seperate from the main article...in accordance with similar situations for education institutions with incredible numbers of graduates. The alumni section of the main article is way too long to keep. Suggest keeping the current List of Citadel alumni page and expand Category:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina to encompass all notable alumni. Thoughts, concerns??? Wrightchr 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be going next year, and on the list of items to bring it says one pair millitary boots. Can any one tell me what color, brand and type and/or a link to a website where I can purchase some. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.22.119 ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 January 2007
When do we decide wether or not to accept commision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.22.119 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 January 2007
Don't worry about it Pre-Knob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not really the place to ask these questions. (72.150.22.119). Contact your pre-knob host or the College. Discuss the article HERE. {{radams89| 10:21 AM, 02 April 2007 |}}
Image:Citadelcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:CitadelBulldogs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that under the ranking headline, the Engineering program is said to have been ranked with college's that offer up to a master's degree. This is incorrect, as the Engineering program is actually ranked 32nd with all undergraduate Engineering programs nationwide. I will leave it up to whoever usually edits the article to make the changes. 162.39.117.30 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:CollegiateCitadel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Padgettthomasbarracks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcampusview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In the women at The Citadel section of the article, it states that Ms. Faulkner was housed in the infirmary because she was not quartered with the rest of the male cadets. That is not a correct statement. It was also my knob year and we were in the same battalion. She had her own room with in her company area. After our first PT session as a class she went to the infirmary and resigned not too long after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugee1977 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The following was added to the main article by User:TVPH1220. I've moved it here for further discussion. Rillian ( talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"The reference to the Harvard review is a dead link. The cadets celebrations were taken completely out of context. Around noon that day it had rained. When it rained, the cadets would plug the drains in the quadrangle and cause it to flood. Cadets were seen "playing" in the rain. CNN cameras filmed this celebrating prior to any news of Faulkner's withdrawal. Aroung 4 pm the news came down that Faulkner was quitting. The cadets were given strict instructions to "act as gentlemen" and not celebrate her demise or grant any interveiws. The footage was aired later to make it appear the cadets were celebrating Faulkner's leaving, which was not the case."
Shannon Faulkner was in India Company. The first 2 days of the Class of 1999 matriculation was spent on Academic Indoctrination which she attended. The following morning, "Hell Week" began with a Army Physical Fitness Test (PT Test in Citadel jargon.) which Faulkner either did not complete or was unable to complete. She was then taken to the Infirmary where she remained until the following afternoon when she returned and attended afternoon chow, but left in the middle of the meal with escorts. The announcement that she had been dis-enrolled was made to the Class of 1999 that evening by Lt Gen. Claudius E. "Bud" Watts. 138.162.128.54 ( talk) 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC) J.L. Carter, '99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.53 ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcadets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Citadel new seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Treason
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bulldog citadel Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Citadelcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have corrected the root cause of the repeated addition of non-english language Half-Life2 links. My guess is that because the non-english language wiki pages for the Half Life2 Citadel pages linked to this page, bots following pywiki protocols continued to re-add the links here. I have gone to the various non-english HL2 Citadel pages, and removed the links to this article, but I'm not sure if I got all of them, so, if any of you see more, please fix, thanks!-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently in the civilian program at The Citadel. I am an undergraduate student. I am working on my bachelors degree in civil engineering. So the cadets are not the only students that can earn an undergraduate degree from The Citadel. Those of us in the civilian program ARE Citadel students and do not cross-register through other colleges. We take classes in the evening while the cadets take classes during the day. We still participate in school organizations and other activities WITH the cadets. We attend meetings and go on school related trips with the cadets. I myself have been to several conferences and competed in academic related competitions side by side with the cadets. I am currently an officer of one of the school organizations. So to say that we, as non-cadet undergraduate students, are not a part of The Citadel, but a separate school, is FALSE. Our diplomas are Citadel diplomas. The only difference is ours do not say "Corp of Cadets". This is similar to the situation with the class rings. We DO get the "band of gold". The non-cadet rings are still the 10k yellow gold and are the same size and weight. Our rings display "The Citadel 1842" while the non-cadet rings display "The Citadel Military College of SC 1842". In addition, the picture of the Lesesne Gate, the Main Gate of The Citadel campus, is closed as opposed to the open gate on the cadets rings. This symbolizes the fact that non-cadet students do not fully understand the tradition and experiences that the cadets gain. So in summary, civilian undergraduate students are part of The Citadel and in most cases, as my own, are NOT affiliated with other colleges. I have a lot of respect for the cadets and all that they go through and the fact that we will never understand what they have experienced. But we do endure the same academic challenges, take classes from the same uniformed professors, pay tuition to The Citadel, and support the schools academic programs and athletic programs. So I think we should be respected, in return, as being a part of The Citadel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldogs04 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Citadel graduates have performed military service for their country in major conflicts. These include World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
I read this paragraph and thought "no kidding." This paragraph is a matter of common sense and it takes away from the paragraph that follows it. The paragraph that follows it actually draws attention to the service of Citadel students, while this paragraph diminishes it. Certainly, the service of Citadel students is noteworthy and a statement such as the one made in the this paragraph actually trivializes it. At most, this statement should be an aside and should form a sentence in another paragraph, stating something to the effect of "Citadel graduates have served the United States in every major armed conflict."
I propose adding that sentence to the end of the following paragraph and removing the aforementioned paragraph: "The entire class of 1944 was inducted into the U.S. armed forces during World War II, and only two members graduated. This was the first instance where an entire class of students was inducted into military service at once since the Texas A&M University class of 1919 entered World War I."
Not a Citadel grad or afficionado, so I'll avoid making the change and leave it to you folks to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.52.13 ( talk) 06:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this a degree granting institution? If so, the article gives no clue as to what one might study at the Citadel. Bachelor degrees? Associate degrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.170.147 ( talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Bob80q has deleted the summer camp section (for at least the second time), presumably because it shows the Citadel in a bad light (he previously deleted this section while editing as an IP). This section is significant because the summer camp program was eliminated follwing a sex abuse scandal. I am restoring the section, and I will begin reviewing the edits made by Bob80q for a possible Conflict of Interest as Bob has previously claimed to be on the alumni history committee. TreacherousWays ( talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This entire section is about people who aren't that notable. This is an article about the school and should be rewritten. Since it is about people who are living I'm deleting it under WP:BLP which requires reliable sources about people who are alive. Buffs ( talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks, I totally agree! I would have deleted it myself but some of the editors seem to be paranoic about people taking anything out. I dont consider the section on Cadet Officer Leadership Program to be very relevant either. Bob80q ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have clarified the verbiage on US News rankings. The old language read "In 2011, The Citadel was ranked as the top public college in the South by U.S. News & World Report and fifth out of all institutions granting up to a Masters Degree." This verbiage could lead a reader to believe The Citadel was ranked ahead of institutions such as UVA and UNC when actually these public Southern institutions are in a different category of US News ranking. Further, The "fifth out of all institutions" verbiage perhaps doesn't make it clear that the ranking is limited to only certain Southern institutions. Finally, the "granting up to a Master's degree" might lead a reader to think US News ranked The Citadel with institutions that do not grant master's degrees.
The fault for the potential confusion lies, IMHO, with US News for the strange catergization it uses: national universities, national liberal arts colleges, regional universities, and regional colleges. But, these are the categories US News chose for its rankings, and I think it is important that wikipedia clearly reflect what US News says. Attempting to achieve this end, I wrote the following: "In 2012, The Citadel was ranked fifth amongst regional universities in the South by U.S. News & World Report and the top rated public institution in that category." My attempt to make sense out of US News' nonsensical categories and to reflect the deservedly high ranking of The Citadel. Ocalafla ( talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)\
Ocalafla ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
and actually I agree, this phrasing uses the exact terminology from USNWR so there is no confusion as to what is being rated. Bob80q ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q, do you have any source to back up your contention that The Citadel currently ranks first in graduation rate for colleges with students having an average SAT score of 1000-1200? If so can you add it? If not, I'd suggest that with 8 year old data, we'd be on shaky ground to use the present tense. Ocalafla ( talk) 22:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. The original Citadel press release from 2005 cited College Results Online. I found the latest data from that site and updated the article to reflect the most recent info. Ocalafla ( talk) 13:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, by replacing the Citadel press release with original source, brought article close to complying with Wikipedia:Third-party sources:"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources" Ocalafla ( talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the section on "no lock tradition". This is of questionable relevance; no other college articles discuss such mundane issues as campus security or room locks, I also question the large quotation marks on the statement by the president and the motivation for putting it in. At a minimum it should be rewritten into the section on campus life. Bob80q ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
you people really kill me. you revert things without explanation or discussion just so you can throw your weight around and its of dubious relevance to begin with. then you want a reference for a mention of the honor code without realizing it was quoted in the section above it. if its full of unsourced information and no one can give a logical reason for it to be there why do you insist on keeping it? Bob80q ( talk) 02:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, all mention of Shannon Faulkner has disappeared from this article. Perhaps someone knows what happened there? TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This section, deleted by Bob80q, was properly referenced and addressed specifically by the college president as behaviour that would not be tolerated. How an institution responds to issues such as discrimination, harassment, and other crimes, especially as the military undergoes significant social changes, is certainly relevent to the core values of the institution. TreacherousWays ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
First, who decided to make it a seperate section? This is not a decision to be made by editors and it is NOT YOUR JOB TO DICTATE WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AN ARTICLE. I add a section about admission of women and someone immediately adds a derogatory mention about sexual harrassment; I delete it and someone promptly makes it a seperate section, how convenient and suspicious. Somebody has a real hangup about insisting on including things about faulkner and sexual harassment, the motives of people are highly suspect and the editors are abusing their authority. Second it was an informal survey not a study and the stated results are highly questionable; it was well known that some cadets admitted to fabricating their answers and just "telling people what they wanted to hear". The president was severely criticized by alumni for releasing something that was not scientific or adequately validated.
Treacherous, your name is appropriate and well deserved. You and some of your comrades seem intent on throwing around their power and dictating to people what they should and should not put in articles rather than having a logical and civil discussion; also your obsession with including references to Faulkner, sexual harassment and other questionable information makes me highly suspicious of your motives and the motives of those who have put in certain references. Then when writers complain about the actions of the editors or make edits they dont like they get threatened with being banned for "bias" and "conflict of interest". For all I know you are a VMI grad intent on finding ways of disrupting and discouraging my efforts to improve this page. For the record the references to Faulkner and minority cadets was deleted by Buffs and I concured but I reinserted a reference for accuracies sake; there was no discussion or justification on your part over my deletion of the no lock section, you just automatically revert all deletions without explanation. Your tone and approach are not acceptable, unfortunately I find it necessary to request you no longer edit this article or I will file a complaint. Buffs and Ocala seem more reasonable to work with and threes a crowd. Bob80q ( talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I've edited the info on the sexual harassment study. First, I corrected the source link to The Citadel website. Second, I removed data on sexual harrasment rates nationwide that was not supported by the source. The language I removed appeared to suggest that there is a 20-25% rate of "sexual assault." But, the source actually states that there is a 20-25% rate of "rape or attempted rape". The source does not provide a national number for "sexual assault". So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. I attempted to locate some comparable date, but found none. FInally, I removed the "informal and unscientific" description of the survey because the description on The Citadel's website makes the survey seem far from "informal". Further, there is no evidence that it was "unscientific." I added in the info about the survey's usage at the federal service academies because it seems to make clear the survey's "formality." I think it is important to be clear that the data was obtained by a survey of cadets and not other methodology. The use of the word "survey" seems to accomplish this, but I encourage others to have a go at something better. Ocalafla ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
all mentions regarding participation at firing on Fort Sumter and battle streamers are well referenced on The Citadel website under school history. There is some debate but a review of references on google shows that they all give credit to 2Lt Farley having fired the first shot so I reverted back to the original statement. Information on award of battle streamers is referenced through the websites of the other schools so honored (VMI, FLA ST, U/MISS, William&Mary, Merchant Marine Acad.) and clearly indicates The Citadel as being the only one to have recieved multiple awards. Changed the reference on Tulifinny to indicate it is the ONLY time an entire student body fought as a unit in battle, no other school makes this claim except VMI and theirs is disproven by references in thier own school archives that indicate at least 25-30 cadets remained on campus. I have properly referenced all these issues in the article. Bob80q ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q, do you have a source for the 8% figure? If so, do you mind adding it in? I'd say its probably a good idea when changing properly sourced text to make sure the replacement text is also properly sourced. Also, was there any reason for also deleting the cost of the tuition? 11:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla ( talk • contribs)
It was the only reference I could find, I have heard our President mention this figure on at least 3 occasions but of course that isnt good enough for wiki. I was not the one who deleted the tuition costs. Bob80q ( talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
obviously what wiki and I consider minor are different animals, semantics Bob80q ( talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Shannon Faulkner's place in the history secition is warranted, but I am not sure that it is prominent enough. Her legal battle was nationally-covered, her depature was fairly sensational, and her brief tenure at the Citadel raised national awareness (and congressional attention) as to the military academies lagged behind their civilian counterparts in gender equality. Media coverage of a female "battling to defeat the patriarchy" brings out the buzzards, but does this give reasonable prominence? Certainly female applicants reading this article might like to know what adjustments the institution has made; for instance (as I recall), when Faulker arrived there were no bathroom facilities available, and it was her presence that brought the "no locked doors" policy into question. I am not adamant about this issue, just wondering how other editors feel. TreacherousWays ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q: I have undone your restoration of the statement "The cadet corps is the largest in the nation outside the service academies and annually ranks first or second in the number of military officers commissioned among colleges with ROTC programs. " in your edit summary you said no reason was given for Buffs' deletion. Please review his edit summary where his reasoning was stated.
However, I will elaborate here. The statement in question was tagged as needing a citation to a reliable source several months ago. Note that unsourced statements on Wikipedia are subject to removal at any time, but the best practice is to tag them as needing a citation to allow a reasonable amount of time for the author of the statement or others to find a reliable source. After several months passed without a reliable source emerging (during which time I actively searched for such a source) I removed the statement. You recently reinserted the statement still lacking a reliable source. That is when Buffs again removed the statement.
As Buffs noted, this does not mean the statement isn't true, just that it needs to be verifiable if it is to appear in a Wikipedia article. If a reliable source can be found, the statement would be appropriate for inclusion. Ocalafla ( talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
yet another example of a double standard. Wiki articles are full of statements with no sources; there was no reference in the VMI article to the claim that they are the only school whose entire student body fought in a battle and that they are the only cadet corps authorized to march with fixed bayonets - neither is true. The Texas A/M article includes a claim they commission the most officers, the source cited was a speech by President Bush but this is not adequate reference since he was just reading a speech someone else wrote and is not in a position to know this kind of information. If you are going to insist on a reference for every statement in the articles there wont be much left to read. 23.24.109.165 ( talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Billcasey905, great additions on the sources! Thanks also for cleaning up the little format mess I accidentally left. Regarding the no-lock tradition, the CN tag was intended to apply to the "tradition evolved in keeping with the spareness of military life" as opposed to the no-lock tradition's connection to the honor code. Where I placed the tag didn't make this clear at all. I haven't reinserted the tag yet because I don't think it's that big an issue. But, I like your idea of moving towards a featured article, and this is the sort of statement we might like to have a source for. Ocalafla ( talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Bob80q: Please see my note on your talk page regarding Wikipedia's 3 Revert Rule and its applicability to your "cadet corps" edits. Also, please note that, despite your edit summary's statement to the contrary, you added no reference. You merely reverted the edit that Buffs and I had previously made. If you have this source, please add it. If not, I think there is probably consensus that the statement should be removed. Ocalafla ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, make sure you remove the same statement on the Texas A/M wiki article. There is NO attempt to subvert any rules, I probably made some changes without realizing I wasnt signed in and I certainly did not claim a reference that doesnt exist. If you want me to stop reverting deletions at least have enough respect and courtesy to tell me what you did and why you did it; same goes for all the massive changes made to the article recently. Its pretty clear by now that wiki is all about what the editors want and no one elses opinions matter. Bob80q ( talk) 02:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We've gone over this so many times and Bob, you refuse to get it. I've made appropriate changes to make it state what you are trying to show, but at the same time IAW WP:RS. I'll break this down by why what you are trying to input doesn't work:
Because of the above, I've rephrased your claims to match the given sources and our policies/guidelines.
Now, I don't want to discourage you. You clearly have a love for your school (THAT'S A GOOD THING!!!), but you need to make edits IAW WP:Policy. If you need help, ask. We will help. Buffs ( talk) 04:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the recent edit adding info on Shannon Faulkner. Some of the edit was unsourced; the one source given did not support the info in the edit. Per
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I also checked the source Bob80q added for the pipe band statement. I did not find anywhere where it said there were only 21 college pipe bands in the country. Sorry if I missed it.
Regarding the issue on number of commissions, I'm going to re-read Wikipedia:No original research to see how it applies to what we are all trying to say here. Ocalafla ( talk) 10:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Buffs: you are being anal and obsessive and clearly singling out this article for excessive scrutiny because some of the claims dont jive with those of your alma mater, as stated before you have a conflict of interest and a formal complaint will be made; you should recuse yourself from any further editing or I will force wiki to do it.
Bob, I am being neither anal nor obsessive...so let's keep this out of the insult realm, shall we? I don't want to seek a block with you, but edits like these are leading down that path rapidly. FYI: this is simply the only major issue right I think is worth my time. I think you have a viable place within Wikipedia and you make good faith edits, but those edits have to conform with certain rules.
I'm gonna side with Bob on this one (for the most part). The Faulkner issue should be kept. A dead link should also be kept. At the time of that input, the information was available and a lookback may be able to be performed and add an undying link...but only if it is there. If you cite a source from a handwritten book and that book is later destroyed, it's a curiosity/oddity, not "unsourced". The second sentence should be re-added, but with a source (and I've done so). Bob, there's no reason to take this personally. It isn't personal. These are the rules that everyone has to follow. Likewise, removing the information about Faulkner is a case of whitewashing history. It needs to be in there (though the specific phrasing/details included) can certainly be changed.
The claim of "one of the largest cadet corps" is indeed correct, but it includes weasel words which are not permitted (please read the previous link). These types of phrases are almost always found in instances involving boosterism. I too had to remove such phrases in the A&M article. A&M also started the school year with a had a recent-history record class of 950-1200 freshman cadets (started this week, but the specific numbers haven't been announced. These numbers are based upon projections. If these class sizes hold, it's possible we could end up being larger than the service academies). I would go so far as to say that we could call it a tie between the two as the differences on a day-by-day basis, but the issue would be with the phrasing. Collaborative editing is part of the WP process, so how about a compromise?
In short, Bob, this isn't personal, so don't take it as such. This is a collaborative project and we can work together. Buffs ( talk) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I added this tag to the "the South Carolina Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed bodies in the United States" language. Is the intended meaning that the Corps of Cadets is one of the largest bodies of cadets at a military school? If so, then clarification is needed and also see "Corps size" above on the issue of whether or not "one of the largest" is the best choice. If, on the other hand, the intended meaning is that the Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed bodies of any organization in the US, then I suspect there are several Army & Marine divisions that might beg to differ. Ocalafla ( talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The bit about Shannon Faulkner in this article seems incomplete. It does not explain why she went to the infirmary in the first place, why she stayed their, or why she "quit." I mean, unless she really went straight to the infirmary as soon as she arrived on campus, stayed there for unknown reasons, and left for unknown reasons (all highly unlikely), I think more is needed. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
CIDHIST and Bob80q, would you please discuss your concerns with this section here, rather than constantly reverting each other's edits? It will be much more productive and allow you to focus your energies more effectively. Billcasey905 ( talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Appologies Billcasey905
Bob80q for your edification
"Landmark" is defined as 1. An object or feature of a landscape or town that enables someone to establish their location. 2. An event, discovery, or change marking an important stage or turning point in something.
A "Monument" is defined as statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event. 2.A statue or other structure placed by or over a grave in memory of the dead.
The Citadel refers to these various items around campus as monuments in its own literature. Therefore "Campus Monuments" is the correct and proper designation.
Also, one should use the complete names of monuments to individuals. It is the "Thomas Dry Howie Memorial Carillon and Tower" and not the merely the "Howie Bell Tower."
It is also not necessary to give a snapshot of General Clark's biographical information prior to his assuming the presidency of The Citadel. Pointing to his wiki article will provide interested persons that detail. In the interest of brevety one can simply note his tenure as President, his major accoplishments while in the job (largest building program since Summerall; codification of the current Honor System, etc) and that he was President emeritus. Otherwise one could just as easily note his near disasters at Salerno; the bombing of the Abbey at Monte Cassino; the questionable race to Rome; the slaughter of the 36th Infantry Division at the crossing of the Rapido river; the controversy over his being nominated by President Truman as U.S. emissary to the Holy See. Those items would be equally noteable about Mark W. Clark, but then again this is an article on The Citadel and not about General Clark.
A closer read of the sources would be beneficial. CIDHIST ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an anal self important type who thinks he knows more than everybody else and has to have the last word on everything. "Landmark" is construed by most as meaning a significant point on a campus, just because the school uses a term doesnt make it necessary or correct. Websters definition includes "A structure of unusual historical and usually aesthetic importance, especially one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation". It is entirely appropriate to include a very brief summary of Clark and why he is important, many people are too lazy to read full bios; same rationale for including background on Howie. If you are so damn smart hows come you didnt think of including this info long before I did? Bob80q ( talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would someone without a direct connection to The Citadel please review the content added here and at The Citadel Bulldogs football (see diff) regarding the Sports Illustrated article from 1992? The article is certainly something that merits discussion on both pages considering the firestorm it created on campus and in the national media, but I and several other editors with direct connections to the school would certainly take issue with how it is currently presented, most likely resulting in COI concerns. Billcasey905 ( talk) 16:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The citation for the following sentence is very unclear: The South Carolina Corps of Cadets is one of the largest uniformed student bodies in the United States and the school is one of only two colleges where all full-time undergraduates are required to be cadets and participate in ROTC[5].
[5] websites for The Citadel, VMI, Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, Norwich and North Georgia Colleg
All those websites are the source? Where on those websites?
Seraphya ( talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
request that this article be write protected due to numerous and frequent malicious edits by anonymous sources. Bob80q ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Citadel, The Military College 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I replaced the military rank for the President, Dean and Commandant; this should not have been removed in the first place. Bob80q ( talk) 14:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It IS most certainly significant; military officers are entitled to be addressed by their rank, especially General and Flag Officers. To tell any military officer (including myself) their rank is not significant is insulting and disrespectful, it is NOT just another title like Professor. It is quite different from a civilian with a Doctorate (who are entitled to be addressed as Dr.) Additionally The Citadel is not just another university, its the MILITARY College of South Carolina and a Senior Military College. The ranks have been on the article for quite a few years so who are you to suddenly deem them inappropriate and "insignificant"? I also suggest you check the articles for VMI and the service academies, they include ranks for senior administrative staff. Kindly move on and find something better to do. Bob80q ( talk) 00:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey dimwit the correct abbreviation for a Navy Captain is CAPT http://www.defense.gov/About-DoD/Insignias/Officers Bob80q ( talk) 15:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the pages for several other Universities, both similar to The Citadel and not so similar, I think it is time to look at a reorganization. The article seems to be losing its focus on the College itself, and moving into other areas which are best handled in standalone articles. Below are the changes I propose, some of which will require fleshing out additional sections. It is my hope that after this reorganization and some additional work, we can begin the process for getting this page rated as a Good Article.
Please share any thoughts or alternative ideas, or voice your support or opposition to this proposal. Billcasey905 ( talk) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and think it is very inappropriate to make random changes out of the blue. Numerous alumni worked together to write the original article and agreed on its content, no one else has suggested that it needs changes and it is fine the way it is, if it aint broke dont fix it. In addition the random malicious changes are continuing, this article clearly needs write protection. Bob80q ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Bill I will qualify and modify my comments. The only thing I have heartburn with is moving the section on history to a summary and putting in a link to a seperate article; its a significant aspect of the school that I feel should remain wit the main article, also I note in looking at articles for many other colleges particularly the federal service acadamies and SMCs that they contain much lengthier histories. Otherwise I like the changes and agree that it makes sense to put some of the sections in a higher order. And thanks for arranging for the write protection, unfortunate that one idiot made it necessary but this should hopefully negate any further vandalism. Bob80q ( talk) 00:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Bill I have rewritten the history section on the main page and welcome any feedback you have. I think a paragraph on the Fourth Class System needs to be added to the section on Student Life and I will next start working on a draft of that. Bob80q ( talk) 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Billcasey come in please
Bob80q (
talk)
02:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The Citadel Graduate College is not independently notable enough for an article, and I have doubts about the other colleges as well. I can see the justification for keeping these separate from the much more famous cadet program, but we usually do not make these splits except for largest and most famous universities. The School of Business might be an ecception, as these often do have separate entries. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Bob80q and Strgzr1: Can we discuss the recent edits over the past 10 days or so? I see a number of instances of changes to properly sourced content without a more recent or better citation (particularly covering the makeup of the student body) and I think we've gotten a bit too detailed in the now missing College overview section. If necessary, let's break this into a few parts and discuss and see if we can come to an agreement. As always, I'd ask that we Assume good faith and remember that anything without a citation is subject to challenge and removal. It would also be helpful if we can be sure we're logged in when making edits, so we can clearly attribute to the appropriate editor. Billcasey905 ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Bill just who is this stargzr? His tone is snarkey and hostile, clearly has some issue with The Citadel; a VMI grad for all we know and obviously a conflict of interest for him to be involved with this page. I wont even dignify his comments with a response because they are way off base. As is evident from the exchange about ranks some editors are clearly intrusive and don't have their facts straight. On other issues since you are one who can have a polite and sensible conversation; I have provided a reference on Tulifinny (which was a BATTLE not a SKIRMISH), there is ample evidence that aside from The Citadel and VMI the only colleges to have their students fight as a unit in combat are William and Mary, Florida State and U. of Mississippi; none claim it was their ENTIRE student body. On enrollment figures, so far as I know they are only published in the fall after the new year starts, can be updated when info available. I note that all the photos have suddenly been removed from the article, don't know if this was malicious on someones part but can they be restored? Lastly is the article still write protected? I have noticed frequent edits recently that seem to be malicious and similar in tone to the person who was vandalizing the article repeatedly for a time. If its this stargzr he needs to stop immediately or I will file a complaint, how about we get some other editors who are neutral and unbiased to assist in monitoring this page. Bob80q ( talk) 15:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
And let me add that stargzrs comments sound suspiciously similar to some nasty and demeaning posts left by an anonymous person on several talk pages including my own and this one, see the archived posts as reference. He also sounds like an infamous VMI grad who has been making demeaning comments and spreading gross disinformation about The Citadel on a military college website. His tone and comments show a clear bias and agenda which disqualify him from any further involvement with this article, cannot do your job properly without fairness, neutrality and objectivity. Bob80q ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And again, just who are you? Are you a wiki editor? If so someone else who is more fair and objective needs to evaluate the article; just who are you to decide what should and should not be in it? You do not have your facts straight and clearly have not done any research on Tulifinny, there are no references or articles that classify it as a 'skirmish' instead of a 'battle'; VMI is the only other college to have claimed their entire student body fought in combat (New Market) but this is disproved in their own archives. You sound like NAS or someone else with an agenda, Bill I request that other unbiased editors be brought into the discussion and provide their view, stargzr clearly has a closed mind on the subject. Bob80q ( talk) 13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
( talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
====Bill now you can see why its necessary to continue the write protection and maybe now you can understand just what a sick and twisted ahole this guy is. He has a pathological hatred of The Citadel and will not stop his sad little game but that's OK, as fast as he vandalizes the article I can just change it right back. No point in trying to have a rational dialogue with him, just chop him off at the knees and be rid of him. Bob80q ( talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) NAS if you have issues with this article take it up with the editorial board, otherwise as the Brits say, sod off. 50.59.106.156 ( talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Trying again to re-engage constructively. I see a lot of disagreement over the commissioning rate. It seems that we have dueling percentages which are being calculated offline rather than using a citation. The Citadel is claiming 29% - see here on the right side under Academic Year Facts: Corps of Cadets. Given that Wikipedia operates on citations and we have a disputed number, this seems like the best one. I assume The Citadel is not counting those ineligible for a commission (such as graduate students) but I haven't dug into the numbers. Billcasey905 ( talk) 15:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Citadel, The Military College 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)