Jump to content

Talk:The Citadel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Recent edits

Would both of you please include sources that clearly support your edits rather than simply warring back and forth about wording changes - some of which are incredibly minor and most of which have no support from external sources? This really needs to stop. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Completely understand--thanks Bill. Re-entered the referenced material regarding two missions: cadets and growing civilian programs. Can let Bob's other reversals remain, however, dual mission statement is noteworthy and properly referenced. Strgzr1 (talk)
Billcasey905, do you have any idea why Bob80q is deleting this (aside from the numbers needing to be updated). I'm about to block him if he continues without discussing. --NeilN talk to me 22:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I can see reasonable objections to both versions, but neither side seems willing to actually engage in a discussion. That's why other than demonstrably untrue things (such as numbers), I've stepped away from this dispute. I actually wrote the dual missions sentence myself, trying to find some common ground. It wasn't intended to be an end-all, but a starting point for dealing with the reality of (mostly) separate military and civilian programs. From my perspective, most of what is being fought over is not only tangential, but completely unsourced. Billcasey905 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This still hasn't stopped. Would you please discuss your edits here, rather than simply undoing each other edits? This edit war has chased off just about every other editor interested in working on this page. Billcasey905 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree Bill. The information is referenced and noteworthy, yet Bob keeps deleting it. Looking back at the history, Bob was also the one vehemently denying there were any other programs at the school aside from cadets and veterans. Definitely biased and emotional in his edits. I'm open to suggestions and comments--and thanks for your help.Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Two week block for Bob80q. Strgzr1, this, of course, does not allow you free reign over the article during this time. If you're going to edit, please edit carefully. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Understand Neil, and will comply completely. Thanks again for the assist! Strgzr1 (talk)

Inaccurate edits

I corrected the entry on Tommy Baker, he was a veteran student not a “graduate of the night school” – reference provided. I also deleted the mention of “16% commissioning rate” because its wrong and also redundant; its noted in 2 other places in the article that roughly a third of cadets enter the military and additionally that figure includes CGC students who do not take ROTC and are not eligible for commissioning; this issue has also been addressed by BillCasey. Strgzr claims to be “concerned with accuracy” yet he routinely and apparently knowingly inserts false information to include the entry on Baker, the commissioning rate, claims of “evening undergraduate students take ROTC” and “cadets who complete 2 years may opt to continue as civilians”; the list go on. He also injects personal opinion most notably the comment about “robust and growing civilian programs”; not supported by fact or reference and this violates the policy on neutral tone and using exaggerated wording. Bob80q (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to focus on positive ways we can increase the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and work together. Can we get past the divisiveness here, Bob?
And just to to clarify:
1. Many evening students and non-cadets take ROTC at the Citadel, including many 5th year students who live downtown; please call the following numbers if you wish to verify: Air Force 843-953-5005, Army 843-953-5224, Marines 843-953-5193, Navy 843-953-5193. Information is also available on their website.
2. Many cadets do transfer to the Citadel's civilian programs. Cadets who finish 2 years may receive a cadet ring and the others can opt to receive the Citadel's non-cadet ring. Many graduates of the veteran or night programs also wear the Citadel ring but were not cadets... again suggest you call the school to verify. This information can also be found at: www.citadelalumni.org/s/1674/alumni/index.aspx?sid=1674&gid=1&pgid=391

Where is says, "In 1985, approval was granted for purchase [of the Citadel ring] by all non-Cadets including master’s degree graduates."

Hope this helps, and I hope we can look forward to working with you in a fair and balanced manner, Bob.
CheersStrgzr1 (talk)
First, I want to thank both of you for discussing your points here.
Second, would both of you please read this before continuing further down the paths which you outline above. When facts are in dispute, we need published sources in order to verify information. Phone numbers to call and vague referrals to a website (without a specific page) do not constitute published sources.
Finally, the source which you cite needs to actually support your point. I'm not entirely sure what is being argued by pointing out that non-cadets are authorized to buy a ring called the non-cadet ring. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Bill--used phone numbers as form of further verification because ROTC officials at school will confirm facts--included ring info as Bob has disputed that in the past. Points taken and appreciate your time. Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

BillCasey-as you have already seen this is SOP for strgzr, throw out vague and unsubstantiated claims with no reference or facts cited in a vain attempt to defend his nonstop disinformation. I don't need to call any phone numbers because I happen to be a friend of the PNS Col Neil Schuehle as well as the Executive Director of the Alumni Association COL Lawrence Hutto who is the former PMS,they both confirm what is already well known; only cadets and a few veteran students take ROTC, fifth year senior athletes attending as grad students do not take ROTC because its only a 4 year program open to full time undergrads, EUP students are part time and cannot take ROTC because its only offered during the day and they only attend at night. Cadets cannot transfer to the EUP because its only open to those who have received an Associate Degree from a state community college - per the school website. Purchase of the ring for non-cadets is for GRADUATES of the EUP, veterans and active duty military students. Lastly someone has again removed rank from the school officials, as previously discussed on this page military officers both active and retired are addressed by rank, its not a 'title' its an official designation conferred by the President or Governor of South Carolina, see articles for the service academies and VMI. Surely strgzr/NAS/repatriot has better things to do than continue these silly games.Bob80q (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

C'mon Bob, enough. Let's keep things accurate and there will be no issues. Remember, you were editing to give impression that the civilian programs at the school were very small and limited in scope. We know that not to be the case and the facts are better portrayed in the present edit. However, we are still missing the online student numbers.

To your point above, I am not referring to graduate students. 5th year Citadel undergrad students are allowed to live off campus and finish their undergraduate coursework if they've done the requisite time as a cadet. Understand that graduate students are sometimes called "5th years" by the Citadel if they were previously cadets for public affairs purposes. At the Citadel, undergraduate "5th year" students can and DO take ROTC if they are pursuing a commission (Lawrence and confirm with the PAS). To ensure accuracy and correct information, private message me and I'll be happy to discuss further, if you can remain civil...Strgzr1 (talk)

Read this: Enough with the "this is correct because I know this" back and forth. Follow Wikipedia guidelines. If it's not published in a reliable source then it shouldn't be in the article, no matter who you call or who you're friends with. For example, I don't see 367 non-cadets, 69 evening undergraduates, or 298 masters program students in the source. What I do see is "367 graduates from The Citadel Graduate College’s masters and evening undergraduate programs". Follow that wording. --NeilN talk to me 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – Bob80q and others: Ranks/Titles need to be removed from the infobox per WP:HONORIFIC. Not only is it a Wikipedia guideline, but it is a set standard for Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, as well. The ones in VMI have been removed, and The Citadel is not anymore important than other university articles on Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend you take the leaders' titles to the WikiProject for a larger consensus. We're not going to do one thing in one article and something in the others. It doesn't work that way. Besides, the titles are listed further down in the article in a box, so why do they need to be in the infobox? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I concur 100% with the comments above from NeilN and Corkythehornetfan. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually Neil the referenced article does give a breakdown of the number of grads in the various programs, since someone felt it was necessary to give an accounting of last years class best to be precise.
Military Officers are entitled to be addressed and referred to by rank, its not a title its an official designation conferred by the President of the United States, the wiki rules state that professional and occupational titles like Doctor or Professor are not to be used, it does not address military rank therefore if its not specifically prohibited it is acceptable and suddenly deciding they are inappropriate would appear to be a questionable interpretation of the rules as well as inconsistent and selective enforcement. This and other articles have used ranks for years so why the sudden change, and BTW you will have to remove rank from the articles on the federal service academies and every article that lists a military officer.
stgzr there is no point in further discussion because your mind is closed and you will continue as before answering inaccuracy with inaccuracy, as directed provide referenced fact or don't edit.Bob80q (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Where does the source say, "69 Evening Undergraduates" and "298 masters program students"? I'm searching on those numbers. --NeilN talk to me 22:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bob, the very first sentence reads: In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. Just because it doesn't list military ranks, doesn't mean the guideline doesn't apply here. There are simply too many titles for the guidelines to list. The main reason I'm against including the titles in the infobox is: though in different ways, the officers "earn" their title just like those in the academia and medical worlds... the key word is earn. It's not just given to them, they have to earn it. Doctors and professors have to earn their titles as well. Had they been born with the title, I might accept it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You are expressing a personal opinion and the fact that changes are suddenly being made after so many years further indicates an arbitrary, capricious and possibly vindictive decision. Key phrase here is "in general" but common sense has to be used also, military rank is not a "style or honorific"; also unless specifically prohibited there is no reason to exclude just because one editor disagrees. Not to worry, this is being taken up with the editorial board.Bob80q (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Also concur with comments and edits by NeilN and Corkythehornetfan. Billcasey, appreciate your help in keeping this article as accurate as possible despite challenges. --Thanks to all! Distinction/separation of non-cadet/civilian student v cadet programs at the citadel are clearly referenced and properly placed in the article to show that the school provides many civilian student degree programs and offerings. Present edit is accurate and shows the importance of the civilian programs at the school which are utilized by many traditional and non-traditional civilian students in the lowcountry. Only missing piece now is enrollment numbers, both graduate and undergraduate, in the online distance degree programs at the citadel. Thanks again! Strgzr1 (talk)
I would like to chime in regarding the use of military ranks in the info box. The wiki article on the Joint Chiefs of Staff does include ranks in the info box, but the United States Naval Academy article does not. Neither do the articles on the United States Military Academy, the United States Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Air Force Academy. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that rank is included only where that rank is the individual's job title. In other words, at a formal gathering he would most likely be introduced as "John Rosa, dean of the Citadel" not "General Rosa". I think (accordingly) that the article on the JCS needs to be edited as well to reflect the Chairman's position. I think I'm about to be deported. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relieved to be reminded that the Chairman of the JCS is an active-duty General as part of his position. He would, therefore, be introduced as "General so-and-so, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff". There is some inconsistency here, though, maybe. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
the ranks for senior officers of the service academies was just removed in the past week, as I pointed out this is a sudden and unjustified change. ALL military officers whether active are retired are entitled to be addressed by rank, military rank is NOT a position description so its a highly questionable interpretation of rules to suddenly change in the middle of the game but apparently will have to be addressed to the editorial board.Bob80q (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Understand and agree that active or retired military officers are entitled to be addressed by rank. Certainly, VMI's General Peay, as a former Vice Chief of Staff for the United States Army and retired 4-star general, is entitled to be addressed as such. An item of interest in this regard might be the case where the citadel's dean and provost, Dr. Connie Book, is given ceremonial rank in the south Carolina militia to "blend in" in a pseudo military setting. As she has never served in the military in any capacity, it could be that she is addressed as Dr. not Brigadier General... Understand how this could "muddy" the waters. Possible suggestion: use rank where appropriate, correct, AND earned: ie. the officer is retired or active duty, but omit rank where it is ceremonial or honorific such as SC Militia, etc. Just one honest opinion and input, for what it's worth...Strgzr1 (talk)
"given ceremonial rank...to blend in with a pseudo military setting"; yeah, kinda like how 80% of the VMI faculty is given rank in the Virginia Militia to blend in, and many other professors who are civilians with no rank at all. You certainly have a talent for slinging insults and telling bold faced lies to satisfy whatever twisted agenda you have, the only thing worse than your conduct is the people who let you get away with it.Bob80q (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I would go with the "It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that rank is included only where that rank is the individual's job title" interpretation, I think. I also agree with: "Dr. Connie Book ... is given ceremonial rank in the South Carolina militia to 'blend in' in a pseudo[-]military setting ... she has never served in the military in any capacity". As WP does not use "Dr.", "Prof.", and other such titles, we would not use "Brigadier General" even aside from the "not really military personnel" argument. This shouldn't be in the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the article is more accurate and precise, does anyone have any input on how we can find the enrollment numbers for online/distance degree programs at the Citadel?Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Upon further review and investigation, military ranks are specifically allowed per MOS:MILTERMS and are NOT considered 'honorific'. Maybe I should be an editor and not some of you.Bob80q (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who edits Wikipedia is an "editor", and almost anyone can edit, including you. No one here is paid for doing this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Class of 2017

The Class of 2017 is not notable, and therefore the it does not need to be included in the article. If the class is notable, it would be backed up by reliable secondary or third-party sources, not a source from the Citadel's website like Bob80q keeps adding. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

wasn't me. So far as I know it was the vandal in chief, strgzrBob80q (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You both have something to do with it. On another note, let's stay away from name calling. It will get you blocked. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A college website isn't considered a reliable reference??? I mean, where else would you find that kind of information??? Must be more of those funky rule interpretations some wiki editors keep coming up with.Bob80q (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017

Several books that were written by Citadel graduates were recently removed from the Citadel in Literature section. Please add the following to the end of that section as it is especially applicable when describing books about The Citadel:

  • Through Their Eyes: What really happened in the world's toughest plebe system ... at least to these guys. (ASIN B00N340XAW, ISBN 978-1-312-49190-8), a narrative by George Steffner (Citadel Class of 1979), details the intricacies of the plebe, or knob, year at The Citadel. The book's tagline reads: "When General Mark W. Clark became president of The Citadel he determined to make the military college's plebe year the toughest in the world. This is an account of how thorough a job he did and a description of the lives of some of the cadets who endured what he created." Don the hamster (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The "in literature" section is for fictional depictions of The Citadel. This is non-fictional and may be a possible source for other edits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That said, some sort of Bibliography section might be an idea? No self-published works, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Don the hamster if he´s interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There's already a bibliography, called "References". If Don the hamster feels that there is something in that book that is important to the article and missing, he can request that it be added with the book being used as the reference. Then it will show up. Alternatively, he can make the edits required to become autoconfirmed and do it himself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of a bibliography like [1]. It seems likely there are a (non-fiction) book or two written about this place. Don, that´s WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Only a few more edits to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a comparable bibliography on The Citadel's website but it doesn't include the proposed book. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That´s funny, according to WorldCat [2] the Daniel Library is the one library that´s supposed to have a copy, maybe someone stole it. Anyway, I think this is a selfpublished book, so unless the author is considered a reliable source on some topic, it doesn´t fit on WP, unless there´s some good coverage of it I missed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding information to The Citadel in Literature section

Please do NOT add "Through Their Eyes" to The Citadel in Literature section. It is a book of literature about the college and it was written by a graduate, who incidentally wrote a sequel afterwards. This book should not be in the Citadel in Literature section because it is a book about The Citadel. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don the hamster (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So a book about the topic shouldn't be included in the article? "It is a book of literature about the college and it was written by a graduate..." is not a very good reason to remove it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed it (them) a few days ago because they were unsourced and I couldn´t find a good source. Just existing is not enough for inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corky... Since I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, I'm relying on some of you more experienced posters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång said that the only books about The Citadel that could be placed in that section are fiction books. This is not a fiction book. I'm simply going on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång, from Sweden stated must be done. Thank you. Don the hamster (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this [3] edit, including the renaming of the section to squeeze in non-fiction. Don the hamster, Are these books selfpublished? Are there any thirdparty published sources about them? Generally we don´t add selfpublished stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I, too, disagree with the edit... as I said on my talk page. I did recommend, however, to create a "Further reading" list underneath the references sort of like at the Harvard University article... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Corkythehornetfan. The continued attempts to squeeze this book in, in some way, shape or form, are not improving the article. Drop Kick Publishing is (at best) a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no sign whatsoever that any reliable, independent source has reviewed or even noticed this book. Including it is a violation of the policy on verifiability. Even The Citadel's own librarians fail to mention it as a book about the college (see above). The article should be reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Or like Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a bibliography section. Still, no selfpublished stuff unless there´s good WP-reasons like very good independent sources. I reverted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Since there is so much confusion, I've contacted The Citadel to let them decide which books should and should not be listed on this page. After all, they have four copies of Through Their Eyes in their library as well as a number of others that have been removed from this page. We should let the military experts there decide rather than leaving it to those of us who don't understand American military colleges as well as they do. Let them decide. Thanks! Don the hamster (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Pat Conroy self-published his extremely famous book, The Boo, and possibly another, before using a large publisher. The Citadel itself will make the decision. Don the hamster (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)Hi Don, sorry if I come across as a bit of an asshole, but my intentions are good, like I believe yours are. I do think I have a better understanding of what "fits" in a WP-article than you currently do. But The Citadel will not decide which books should and should not be listed on this page. WP:s editors (who may or may not have some connection with the subject), policies and guidelines will. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
However, this [4] may very well be a good source for books to include/use as sources in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For the policy about selfpublished sources, see WP:SPS. And selfpublished books can have great success like The Joy of Cooking. When that happens, "better" sources cover them and that coverage we can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, You don't come across as an ... well, what you said. It's just that this is not a black and white area. If you go to The Citadel's sister page (Virginia Military Institute), you will see that their literature page is quite similar to the changes I made. That's where I got the idea. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Military_Institute#In_popular_culture Apparently, Wikipedia agrees with this set-up. Anyway, as stated, The Citadel has been contacted. Thanks! Don the hamster (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And as you can see, that section is fiction-only as well, so a VMI-Through Their Eyes wouldn´t fit there either (though as have been noted on this talkpage, some sort of select list of relevant non-fiction could be quite doable). That section also needs better sourcing, and/or trimming. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that the book in question would be added to this article even if there was a section for non-fiction. There just isn't any benefit to the reader to list every single mention of every topic. I'm sure that the book is very interesting and I wish the author good luck with it, but he shouldn't expect to use Wikipedia to promote it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I re-checked that section and couldn't find anywhere that it was a fiction only section in the way that The Citadel's section is listed. There are fictional works there but it's not listed as "only fiction". Both fiction and non-fiction would fit there very well. By the way, I just heard back from The Citadel. They will be making the changes to include both fiction and non-fiction that are written about their school. Better for them to do what I tried to do." Thanks! Don the hamster (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on how to set this up, other than keeping it consistent with other colleges and universities. I'd prefer to see a survey of a number of articles, rather than just one, and focus on those that have reached WP:GA or WP:FA recognition. Second, The Citadel's role in this discussion must be extremely circumspect in order to comply with WP:COI. Subjects of articles are strongly discouraged from editing those articles, and so I don't believe it to be appropriate for official representatives of the school to make edits without first discussing them here. I categorically reject the idea of ceding control of any portion of this or any other article to the subject of the article, as suggested above. Billcasey905 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Citadel Online

Does anyone have the numbers of how many online/distance degrees the Citadel awarded this year? Cant find numbers listed anywhere. This week will call the Citadel Graduate College and see what they say. Open to thoughts or suggestions...Strgzr1 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

good god man, give it an effing rest. You need to get off this page and get a freakin life, even the editors and administrators are tired of putting up with your constant vandalism and bias. Oh and congrats for getting kicked off the USASAF page yet again; what does this make, 7 or 8 times now under at least 4 or 5 aliases? The moderators of that page are tired of you too. Take a hint and stay away from where you don't belong and aren't wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know 'USASAF' and other jargon, and don't think your approach (name-calling, etc.) is within the spirit of wiki guidelines. Suggest you register and try to contribute positively here. To the point, does that mean you don't have the numbers for the online programs?Strgzr1 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Did we ever get the numbers for the Citadel Online enrollment? Would be good to add the exact numbers and reference to the article...Strgzr1 (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

Editors how much longer are we going to allow strgzr free rein to continue his campaign of disinformation and obsession with "The Citadel isn't a real military college because it has civilian students"? (1) removed the image of the cadet ring and replaced it with a picture of the civilian ring (2) inserted incorrect statement claiming that civilian students attend the cadet ring ceremony (3) changed the reference on the 2+2 program to make it appear that any student can apply (4) inserted the aforementioned section on the Class of 2016 in order to highlight graduates of the civilian programs (5) Inserted a duplicate statement under athletics stating that all students cadet and civilian are eligible to participate in sports (6) went on the article for "Military Classic of the South" and inserted misleading statement that 'The Citadel team includes cadets and civilian students while VMI has only cadets'. (7) violated the rule of neutral tone and uses personal opinion by inserting statement describing "robust and growing civilian programs".
He claims a desire to have "accuracy" yet routinely includes misleading or false information and does not provide references; claims to "not care a whit about The Citadel or VMI" but clearly has a bias and some vendetta. This is wholly inexcusable and not in keeping with wiki policies, somebody please do their job and put an end to this sick game he is playing.Bob80q (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bob, you have a long history of this type of behavior on Wiki and of edit warring with others. I've asked you numerous times to be civil, collaborative instead of combative, and most importantly, accurate. Unfortunately, you routinely eliminate accurate, relevant and referenced info on multiple articles concerning your alma mater. You have been repeatedly warned and were even recently temporarily banned for your outbursts and poor behavior here... Looking at the edit history on multiple articles, it seems you are now editing without logging in. Regarding your alma mater, I am very familiar with the school, think very highly of several cadet and civilian graduates who are friends, and I try to include factual/referenced material at all times. To be clear, I never removed the picture of the Cadet Ring. In fact, I think it should be in the article (Check edit history). Regarding the Military Classic of the South, BillCasey and I, along with other editors, worked in a collaborative effort (check the talk page) to ensure accuracy because the Citadel does field both cadet and civilian players on its teams (just one recent example: Mariel Cooper). Regarding the Citadel Rings, there are two, yet looking back at the edit history, you previously deleted all edits that referenced that fact. And to be clear, civilian and veteran students may attend the ring ceremony. Next time you are on campus, check it out for yourself. Don't know why you are so opposed to the non-cadet civilian programs at the Citadel, but I would encourage you check out: www.citadelalumni.org/s/1674/alumni/index.aspx?sid=1674&gid=1&pgid=391 and read, "the Ring Design Committee said of those who would wear the civilian Citadel ring, 'It should be noted that these Citadel graduates are very often superior persons who should not be treated as second raters or outcasts even though their experience has been different from that of the cadets. They, too, are credits to The Citadel, and fully deserve some proper symbol to represent their group as distinct from the members of the Corps of Cadets.'" In the future, lets communicate on the talk pages where we all might be able to work together collaboratively to ensure correctness and accuracy in all Wiki articles.Strgzr1 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – You're right, enough is enough. Personally, I'd like to see an article ban or even a topic ban placed on you two where you can't edit any Citadel-related and VMI-related articles at all. All you do is edit-war with each other and it is getting to a point where it is time for you both to move on. This is just my opinion of course. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Enough is Enough --Check edit history and the facts--Bob80 has a long history of this type of behavior and he's target-deleting referenced, factual info to include pictures, both here and on other articles regarding his alma mater. I've requested assistance from another administrator and will refrain from any reverts until we get outside light on what is going on. Until then, please take a look at the edit history, what he's deleting and his talk page. Bob80 has a long history...Strgzr1 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the history. You both have a long history... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully Disagree--I've never deleted referenced data/images and I've certainly never resorted to the type of name-calling and combative editing Bob80 routinely undertakes. Until a consensus is reached, I will replace the references/images Bob80 continually deletes but (out of respect for administrators and editors), I will make NO further material changes.Strgzr1 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
so tell us editors, who deleted the image of the cadet ring and added the one of the civilian ring???? Sound familiar???? Totally inappropriate to show the civilian version without the cadet one so until the latter is replaced the former must be removed. And I notice no one asks for references proving his inaccurate claims that "civilian students can attend the ring ceremony" and "the football team has night students and veterans". And anybody yet figured out what his definition of "relevant" is??? And he talks of edit history so obviously he is a wiki editor, this is a clear conflict of interest, if he really wants fairness and accuracy let him recuse himself from these articles and let some unbiased third parties weigh in, time to get a new set of eyes on the situationBob80q (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You BOTH are bias. If you say you're not, then that should be a clue. If you keep this $hit up and I'll take the process of a topic ban and/or article ban for the BOTH of you. And I'm not quite sure how a "wiki editor" is a COI if they're talking edit history... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur completely. Both of the involved parties show a clear bias and continue edit warring to promote their own narrative. We've now seen a total of 3 blocks issued for this behavior on pages related to The Citadel over the past 2 years, yet it still continues. I've stopped watching this page because I'm tired of the back and forth, usually over minutiae only of interest to people who went to schools like The Citadel or VMI. I see it now expanding to other pages, and so would endorse topic bans for both parties. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The cadet ring image (File:Citadel Class Ring II.jpg) was deleted due to copyright issues. A new one can be uploaded, if it complies with copyright rules. Can we stop with the nonsense? Billcasey905 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree--nonsense needs to stop and tired of being rolled up in this situation by striving to ensure article accuracy. (Note: open to any/all suggestions from admin/editors) BTW Bill, Thanks for clarifying why cadet ring image was deleted--(now Bob is trying to get this ring image deleted). From my viewpoint, cadet ring image should be added so article contains both. As stated, will make no substantive changes but will re-insert valid, referenced info/images. Please note Bob80 has taken to tactic of using un-registered/various IP addresses in this edit war. He has a history of this and recommend ban. Check out Bob's tones, history of conflict/controversy with MANY, and his multiple editing wars. Thanks again for assistance.Strgzr1 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
BIG THANKS to those who helped with the Article. In its current form, article appears to adequately cover both the military and civilian aspects at the college. Things seem to have settled down... Thanks again.Strgzr1 (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

I see the edit war on this and related pages has begun again. I caution all editors regarding their actions on this article and those related to it. Please keep in mind WP:3RR and discuss your edits on talk pages rather than simply reverting. I also see some new accounts with edit histories that almost exactly match those of other involved users. Please read WP:Sock and disclose any uses of multiple accounts for legitimate purposes. I will give a short amount of time to comply with these requests, and will then begin requesting administrator review. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point Bill. Appears Ruffnready (or Bob80q) is not aware that this has all been covered before. Re-inserting the two missions statement as it was already discussed in the mediation pages. BTW, thanks for the Virginia Tech heads up on the Military Classic page... I forgot we had covered that one; Thanks.Strgzr1 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There clearly is not a consensus for either version. Please stop reverting each other and discuss your proposed edits. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


The minute write protection ends and strgzr campaign of vandalism picks right up where it left off, I'm shocked.Ruffnready (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


I note that stargzr1 has returned to his vandalism; he was previously blocked by admins for his edit warring and campaign of disinformation and false posts but the block apparently expired. Its obvious he has no intention of stopping so request that the block be made permanent, I have posted a note on the administrators talk page. Additonally I request that a new set of editors and admins be assigned to monitor this page since the previous ones failed to recognize or stop this vandalism.2601:149:8100:B951:21FD:A504:4FDC:36FD (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Strgzr1 appears to be moving now to sockpuppetry to push whatever agenda he/she has and avoid blocks. I think it's worth considering a ban at this point. WP:DEADHORSE applies in spades here. Buffs (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Overview

I merged what used to be called "College Overview" into the lede in line with the lede section of other articles regarding colleges and universities, such as Texas A&M University, United States Military Academy, and so on. If there is a good reason to change it back, I'm open to it, but haven't seen one yet. If we can get to a stable version, my intent is to submit for a peer review in order to move this towards a Good Article. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

use of "civilian"

In one case, this usage makes sense, where there is a distinction drawn between the active-duty military evening-class students and their classmates that are not in the military. However, as Citadel cadets are not active-duty military, I believe "civilian" is the wrong term to apply to the non-cadet students. Furthermore, some of the non-cadet evening-class students are active-duty military, so "civilian" certainly doesn't apply to them. I replaced those uses of the term with "non-cadet". Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Good call! Buffs (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

I serve as the brand manager for The Citadel and would like to offer the following suggested changes:

The appropriate format of the college's name is "The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina." The second "the" is not capitalized. See here: https://brand.citadel.edu/strategy/editorial/nomenclature/

The college logo is incorrect. See here: https://brand.citadel.edu/identity/logo-system/signature/

The seal used at the top of the sidebar is not the official seal of the college--the artwork has been altered. The seal is also not the college's primary brand asset and it should be replaced in this article with the college's stacked brand signature (noted above). See here: https://brand.citadel.edu/identity/official-seal/

The wordmark used at the bottom of the sidebar was retired in the summer of 2018.

The US News and World Report rankings are dated. See here for newer data: https://today.citadel.edu/eighth-year-as-top-public-college-in-south-by-u-s-news-world-report/

The proper name for the School of Business is the "Tommy and Victoria Baker School of Business" See here: http://www.citadel.edu/root/bsb Stantonadams (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this. I (and I'm sure others) will take a look through the new brand identity, and so far as in keeping with Fair Use policies, make updates. One note: Wikipedia uses the Common Name to refer to people, organizations, and places. The proper name of the School of Business is cited on the school's own page, but press reports and even many items from The Citadel refer to it using the shortened name of Baker School of Business. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Stantonadams, please feel free to upload the proper graphics and we will do our best to incorporate them. Links to them here would be helpful. Please keep in mind that Wikimedia takes copyright and trademark protections seriously and we want to make sure to do it right. Please send me a message upon completion of the uploads and I'll be happy to help merge them in properly. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I've updated the US News and World Report rankings, but have made no changes to seals, logos, or wordmarks due to copyright protections. I'm still examining if we can make those changes without a representative from The Citadel uploading the images themselves and granting license to Wikipedia. I know we've done so without that action in the past, but as noted above we want to do this correctly. As for naming, in keeping with WP:Common Name, I have not made any changes as media use seems varied. I found many sources that use the school name as the branding guidelines prefer, but others (including the hometown newspaper, the Post and Courier) which use the existing title. As this has been the page title for some time, I think many other sources have adopted this styling, but it needs more review. I think some more input would be helpful here. Billcasey905 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No Reference Support for Claim

the Battle of Tulifinny, the only occasion when the entire student body of an American college fought in combat.

Please note: there is no reference support for "the only occasion when the entire student body of a U.S. college fought in combat" claim. As such, it is removed. 69.1.8.9 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, yes, there is a source (actually 2). The second source is a blog post with zero editorial control. I've removed that source as it doesn't belong here. The first is the school itself. Likewise, that source (a reputable school) doesn't claim what was written. They state "the engagement at Tulifinny Creek is of historic importance because it involved the deployment of the entire Battalion of State Cadets from the Citadel and Arsenal Academies as an independent military unit engaged in armed combat with Union forces." So it isn't just one school, but two. Likewise, the source doesn't say it was the only time it happened. As such, it can be rephrased, but I concur that it cannot stand as it was phrased. 23:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buffs, thanks for chiming in. This point is one that Bob80q and Strgzr1 and their respective socks have edit-warred over for so long that it is beside the point. This is happening yet again right now. The IP above is a sock of Strgzr1 that has been blocked before, but has yet again returned. The one who restored the sentence was an IP of Bob80q, but one I haven't seen before. I'm tired of reporting them, and I honestly have more important things to do than try to referee their feud any longer. I had really hoped to see this page stable enough to get it reviewed and try to make it a GA, but they make that impossible.
To the substance, I concur that the statement cannot stand as written, but for different reasons. Several schools can claim this distinction, not just The Citadel. At the time, The Arsenal and Citadel Academies constituted the South Carolina Military Academy, under a unified governing board, with cadets completing their first year at The Arsenal before moving to The Citadel for their final three years. Whether it was one school or two then is semantics, but is in line with a narrative used by Strgzr1 to diminish The Citadel vis a vis VMI. In reality, the Battalion was composed of two companies - one of cadets from The Arsenal, and the other with cadets from The Citadel, with NCOs from The Citadel also serving with the Arsenal company.
I appreciate your input and fair review. I've refrained simply to avoid fueling the fight between two individuals who can't stop arguing with each other, no matter the platform. It appears their feud started on message boards before migrating here a couple of years ago. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Requested page protection that will, hopefully, blunt such problems. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "The Citadel", disambiguation page also moved buidhe 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina → The Citadel (college) – WP:COMMONNAME. The article's current title is unrecognizable and a reader may not know the college's formal long name. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Too long? It's no longer than other university article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comprehensive, NOT "Military" College

Suggest reverting to the previous introductory line of "The Citadel is a comprehensive college" instead of "military college" as there are many other programs (undergraduate, day, night, online, etc.) aside from the military program. Indeed, The Citadel is a comprehensive, masters-degree granting college with a "military program." It is distinctly different from the Service Academies or VMI in this regard.69.1.6.176 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to convince editors that "The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina" should not be prominently labeled a military college. The opening paragraph explicitly says that the institution offers non-military programs, including graduate degrees, so I'm not sure what more we can or should do. ElKevbo (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Good Points, ElKevbo. Just a few months ago it was listed as a "public college," and earlier as a "comprehensive college." Recent user edits following block on editing allowed incorrect labeling as "military college." For the purpose of accuracy and correct categorization, it should be listed as a public college with graduate, day, night, online, and military programs... but no biggie either way. Thanks for the assistance! 69.1.6.176 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

NAS you just don't give up do you? Much more disturbed than anyone could ever imagine.

Since you've locked the article . . .

Does anyone have authority to edit this mess?

While all programs make use of The Citadel’s campus and professors, only cadets live on campus (there is no on-campus housing options for the other student populations, as cadets are required to live on campus while they are in the Corps.

My suggestion:

While all programs make use of The Citadel’s campus and professors, only cadets live on campus. (Cadets are required to live on campus while they are in the Corps. There are no on-campus housing options for the other student populations.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.182.112 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make your edit. This article is semi-protected, due to persistent edit wars. Those with an account that meets the requirements at this link are free to edit. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate and out of date info

The statement that Bastin Hall is the 'first academic building constructed since 1974' is wrong, Thompson Hall was rebuilt in 2001 and the last completely new building was Grimsley Hall in 1991. I note that no one has bothered to update information on the article in 2 years.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

Captian Paluso is no longer the commandant of the school. It is now Coloniel Gordon from the USMC. 2600:1004:B0CA:CD2:7C18:B115:412B:A5D (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In the American remake of House of Cards, the primary antagonist Frank Underwood (House of Cards) is a graduate of a military school in South Caroline "The Sentinel," which is the in-universe stand-in for The Citadel.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.164.3 (talk • contribs) 18:43, April 4, 2022 (UTC)

No thanks; this is trivial information. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Mike. "The Political Fact and Fiction behind the NetFlix Series "House of Cards"". The College Today. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Citadel/Archive_2&oldid=1177285118"