Talk:The Citadel

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)

• /Archive 1: June 2004 – May 2005.

Does this school grant degrees?

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)

largest all-gold college ring in the United States

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)

My guess is that they are referring to the fact that Citadel rings have no stone. It's still going to be damned near impossible to find a reliable third party source to back up this claim.--Vidkun (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting and Citing

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)

inaccuracy

"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...

I have a feeling "spirit run" and "voluntary upperclassmen" are euphemisms 198.6.46.11 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Other inaccuracy

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)

Response to 2

Sir, this is not an error.

Lowcountry Graduate Center In an effort to meet the needs of graduate education in the Lowcountry, The Citadel, the College of Charleston, and the Medical Univeristy of South Carolina formed in 2001 the Lowcountry Graduate Center (LGC). The Center is located in North Charleston near the Charleston International Airport. Visit the Lowcountry Graduate Center and view Citadel courses offered at the LGC. Hope that helps http://citadel.edu/cgps/

Yes, and once again you folks have stretched the truth. Being a part of the LGC is vastly different from simple cross-registration with those colleges. How cheeezy it would be if West Point, Annapolis, or VMI graduates wore a ring and could say, "Yes, I'm a graduate, but I was never a cadet..." And there are citadel folks out there claiming their school is tough. You guys need a good dose of reality.Bullhog 17:21, 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!

Get a life and unless you have substantial info go away. It is double sad because one of the people who graduated as a non cadet was Marine First Lieutenant Therrel Shane Childers reported as the first American causality in the war in Iraq. If as you say "Yes, I'm a graduate, but I was never a cadet..." is cheesy…. I will take it. But take a look in your own back yard before you step in ours.…… [Drive23]

Now step back and read the below for real info about what you are talking about

http://citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/war/therel_childers.html

To Drive 23 who said "get a life and unless you have more substantial info go away:" Here's more substantial info: Read some of the entries in the archived talk pages here and you'll agree that you guys need a reality check. You had a citadel supporter claim in your archived talk pages, among other things, that your school had "the most grads killed in the war on terror..." That was a dumb thing and a sad thing to say in the first place, but more importantly, it was completely FALSE. Here's some more "substantial info:" You guys have graduated only one active duty four star general in your history, no rhodes scholars, and ZERO Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. Tell me again how tough you guys are.....Bulloh 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not challenge the facts on the CMH, Rhodes. Have a lot of respect for and friends from your school. I have taken a look at the one issue and our facts jive as well (from what I read), but agree it is an inappropriate discussion given where our classmates are right now from both our institutions. However, you are wrong in a few areas hence my last post. The Citadel does have cross registration as noted for example see below. As for the other points, you do not seem to understand the MECEP and Navy day students and hence the last posting. I have also taken a look at the info you reference and see no mistakes or misinformation seems like a lot of people for some reason do not understand the CGPS and night class available on campus for grad students. I would say the people mudding the waters are more on the outside end and hence my last heated posting which in hind sight was not right. But read the MECEP info provided above and understand that these are a great asset to both cadet training and the Citadel community not something that is cheese. V/R[Drive 23]

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

So you're a cadet huh?? I think it very interesting that you use the repeated phrase "they" instead of "we". You are a cadet and all this talk about how cadets are so tough disgusts me. THEY march...maybe you do not belong at the Citadel if you do not even include yourself into the stereotype you are trying to establish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.142.212 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 April 2006

Actually, it just sounds like he was trying to differentiate the behavior of himself compared to some of these guys. Maybe you're right, maybe you don't belong at the Citadel if you're not a sheep who tows the line because you're told to. I have no knowledge of this college I don't really care to, but it seems that he has a good point. Part of being a good student is being able to think for yourself, and if you don't like the way others act, why should you include yourself in their actions just because you both happen to be cadets at the same college? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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...".

Also, There are some fine points to the above comments that you can point to which make me say this person is not a cadet. Example: How are they seeing the movies?? You can not have a TV until your 1st Class year, and to get caught during mandatory Evening Study Period (ESP) is a significant blue book issue. The right thing here is to ensure he/she reports the issue to make sure they are getting good book time in. Do not pull anyone but try to help your company mates out……It is of course college and I am sure some of them need a break, but as we all know they patrol to make sure the underclassman are at the books during ESP. Also, this person is missing the point of what they are doing and needs help. Please talk to some of the religious officers or some alumni to help you realize the full benefits of what you are doing. V/R Drive23 65.217.57.101 18:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Content Review

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)

All editors are welcome on wikipedia, and those with special knowledge and insight are especially so. Please keep in mind, however, that wikipedia policy and guidelines center around the idea that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that all aspects of this historical institution - the good, the bad, and the ugly - must be included, even though they may offend graduates or the worthies in Public Relations. All information included must be verifiable with publicly-accessible references, and all entries relating to people must conform to the guidelines established in Biographies of Living People. I would usually not make such a strong statement to a newcomer - we are all encouraged to be civil and Assume Good Faith in this space, but when you present yourself as an agent of the Citidel, you suggest editorial authority over content that does not exist in this space. Should objections to included material exist, those objections must be directed here following the procedures outlined. Thanks. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Question to Rillian

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)

The opening paragraph should be short and to the point, more detail is then provided in the body of the article. I agree that military Corps should be emphasized and have made some edits to do that. Rillian 12:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Add Sword Drill To Fictional Depictions?

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)

Certainly appears to be a fictional depiction of life at the Citadel or a school like the Citadel. Be bold and add it. Rillian 12:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fictional depictions? Apparently taken down.--Buckboard 11:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Number 2 public university in the South?

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!

here is the link you are looking for http://www.citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/sy05-06/US_News_2006.html. This is the article I think the info was pulled from. Enjoyed going to UPENN for a game this year. Great atmosphere V/R{Drive 23}65.217.57.101 15:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

65.217.57.101 is correct. Based on the rankings, the Citadel was seventh out of 64 universities in the American South that offer up to a Master's degree. Counting only public universities in that group of 64 places the Citadel at second out of 24. I'ved edited the article to clarify we are referring only to schools that offer only up a Master's degree. The other schools you list offer Bachelors, Master's and Doctoral degrees. Rillian 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. john k 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "YOUR AN IDIOT" response you wrote the conjunction you are (you're) as "your"...not such a good case for #2 in the South. ArchonMeld 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this guy goes to the Citadel?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.142.212 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 April 2006

Removal of Uncited content

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)

We Should Add The Following=

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

Graduation Rate

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.

Seal

Is there a better seal of the university beside a boy scout patch? ArchonMeld 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I will take a look. V/R Drive2365.217.57.101 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Photo of dress parade

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

Best Values

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)

Citadel ROTC

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?

Welcome. You will select you ROTC program either prior to getting on campus or during your registration period. You will be able to leave campus during open weekends or general leave once the school year starts. V/R Drive2365.217.57.101 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alumni page

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)

The list of alumni was getting too long, mostly because it was being extended to included non-notable entries such as VP from a moderately well-known company in the 1950s. The list should be trimmed to notable only entries but left in the article per the example of many college articles. The alumni category is interesting. Are there examples of this for other colleges? Rillian 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Alumni Section should mention a few notables on the main Citadel page with a see also link to a separate alumni page. See some examples List of University of Florida people and List of Pennsylvania State University people. --Flyguy33 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Boots to bring to the Citadel

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

Commissions

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)

In Response

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. Template:Radams89

Fair use rationale for Image:Citadelcrest.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:CitadelBulldogs.jpg

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)

Engineering Ranking Inaccuracy

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:CollegiateCitadel.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Padgettthomasbarracks.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citadelcampusview.jpg

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)

Shannon Faulkner Inaccuracy

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)

• Which company was she in and exactly how long after matriculation was it that she resigned? I've heard everything from a few hours to a few days. I ask because there were a lot of people in my class who wanted to know and I was hoping that you could clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 October 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citadelcadets.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citadel new seal.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bulldog citadel Logo.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citadelcrest.jpg

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)

Bot problems

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)

Civilian Program

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)

Remove Paragraph?

"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)

 Done --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION

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)

Summer Camp

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)

The Minority and female students section needs to go

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)

Rankings

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)\

First, they are in the COLLEGE category, not UNIVERSITY. I think USNWR is clear on the various categories; I dont think anyone will confuse a small school like The Citadel with a major university like UVA, Michigan or Texas. I changed the wording back to what it was originally which was written by someone unknown, it is in fact accurate to say we are the top PUBLIC college since the four aheadof us are private schools and this is how the school advertises it since it is of course a PR thing and everybody wants to make themselves look as good as possible. Of course schools also want to use these articles as a PR tool aswell so it stands to reason that I would prefer the original wording, I do make it clear about the fact we are fifth out of all schools in that category so no intent to be deceptive.71.16.197.221 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that The Citadel is now in the "Regional University South". I hope my comments didn't sound like I was accusing anyone of deceptive intent; just trying to clarify what USNWR says. I agree that USNWR makes its categories clear and that is why I decided to use the USNWR terminology in my edit, so as to avoid any confusion over what USNWR says. The college website may be intended to be a PR tool so PR things may be appropriate there, but wikipedia is not intended to be a PR tool. Thoughts?

Ocalafla (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I rephrased it. It seems to me that the problem lied with the prepositional phrase placement. I've altered it accordingly to make the full meaning more clear. Without this move, it gives the impression that they are #1 in the entire South (with no qualification given) and also #5 out of those giving Masters Degrees in the South, not nationwide. If I'm misreading this, let me know. Buffs (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Buffs, I tweaked it a bit and tried to preserve your good edit. I think we might be headed on the same track. Ocalafla (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the most recent version (Ocalafla's 19:47 edit on 3 April, 2012) and support it as is. Billcasey905 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good/clear. We could add part of the description to a note, but I'm open to either option.

Sure is nice to work with people towards a common goal Buffs (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the system works how its supposed to! Ocalafla (talk) 17:39, 4 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)

section deleted

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)

I reverted your deletion. This has been discussed previously, deleted previously, and reverted previously. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:42, 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)

Shannon Faulkner

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)

Sexual harassment

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)

I concur that the section seemed to be properly referenced and that the information is relevant. It would be a problem if the sexual harrassment info dominated the article, but that it far from the case here. I would suggest one change, however. The article currently refers to a "study" while the source material refers to a "survey." I think the article would be clearer if it used similar terminology. Ocalafla (talk) 21:14, 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)

Bob80q, I'm really not sure what to say here. I am not your enemy, and I am not trying to goad you. Wikipedia has rules, and it's as if you didn't read them and refuse to follow them even when they're pointed out to you. You don't like or trust me. Fine. Grab a willing mentor at this link: WP:Mentorship and prove me wrong. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, I will be replacing the properly-referenced and relevent section on sexual harassment. I will hold off on doing that for a period of two days so that we can avoid an edit war while you get in touch with a mentor. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • never mind, since someone is so insistent and hung up on including it I inserted mention in previously added paragraph about coeducation along with a clarification about faulkner being the first female cadet. Can we politely discuss removal of the "no lock" section? I personally dont consider it relevant or worth of a seperate section, should at least be inserted into the student life section***Bob80q (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Bob80q, one of the principles of wikipedia is to assume good faith. So, I don't know if it helps to accuse someone of being "hung up" on an issue like this when it is one that has apparently been taken seriously by the school's administration. I do think it is relevant and appropriate to include well-sourced info on sexual harassment at the school. That said, I agree with you that a discussion of the "no lock" section makes sense. If the article is going to include the info on respect and values program as a response to the survey, then I'm not sure if there is a need to include the "no lock" section. Ocalafla (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the properly-referenced and relevant section on sexual harassment should be restored. Bob80q raises some questions about the validity of the survey. I think these questions, IF adequately sourced, would be appropriate to include in the article, also. Ocalafla (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Bob80q, I've already covered this on your talk page, but wanted to add that you should please read Godwins Law. And I strongly recommend you don't make that reference again. TreacherousWays's idea of mentoring is an excellent one. Please consider going to mentorship, where you can get some assistance from an editor not involved in this discussion. It will really help you, and you won't be disappointed. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

after due consideration I removed the reference shortly after posting it, I regret any offense taken. I do not mean to seem unreasonable, just stating my feelings as is my right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob80q (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Part and parcel, the no-lock tradition, the Shannon Faulkner controversy, and the sexual harassment claims all relate to how the Citadel as an institution is adapting to changes in society and the US military. As far as I am concerned, there is no "right" or "wrong" in these matters. The military and every military academy has been forced to make changes to accommodate an expanded role for women. How each institution responds to those changing requirements is significant, especially so when how the institution defines itself is altered. When squadbays are traded for three-man BEQ rooms, only a fool would argue that nothing has changed. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:21, 19 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)

history section on Civil War and battle streamers

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, Note that you marked several of your edits as "minor." I don't think they count as minor. You might read [WP:MINOR]. No big deal.

Here are a few thoughts on your edits:

1) Farley: the source on Farley you previously cited is a page on The Citadel website that doesn't seem to mention Farley at all. I apologize if I missed it. Since, as you acknowledge, there is some debate over Farley it is appropriate that the article reflect this. The source I added (from a 3d party source as opposed to the subject of the article) only states that many historians believe Farley was the first. Certainly, feel free to cite to any source (particularly outside of the subject of the article) that says for certain Farley was the first. But, I think the article should still reflect that there is a debate. I've gone back to the language I had before, but welcome any other language that reflects the existence of a debate.

2) Battle streamers on Citadel flag: Thanks for adding the source. Would be best to have an outside source, but, IMHO, it looks good.

3) Battle streamers of other schools: WP:RELIABLE says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." You haven't cited any source that directly supports the statement "The Citadel is one of only 6 colleges in the nation to have received a battle streamer for wartime service." You just cited six schools that make such a claim and cite no source that says there are ONLY 6. Your sources support a claim that "At least 6 schools have received a battle for wartime service." I went back to the language I had, but certainly welcome any appropriate alternatives.

Note your sources also do not support the statement that The Citadel is "the only one to have received multiple awards. I've cn'd where needed instead of reverting.

4 "only known occasion when the entire student body of a U.S. college fought as a unit in battle.": There is nothing on the websites you cite that directly (or really even indirectly supports this assertion. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, just that it needs a reliable source if the article is going to include it. I've cn'd where needed instead of reverting.

The Citadel has a history to be proud of. Many of my ancestors are, in fact, part of it, including one KIA. But, history is an imprecise thing and it is important to acknowledge what is certain and what is not. And, it is important to provide good sources. In my mind, this is the best way to honor the fine tradition and history of a great institution. Ocalafla (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

State aid/tuition

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)

Saw you added in a blog as source. Any reason you are aware of for the conflicting numbers? Ocalafla (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Also wanted to remind you again about the use of the "minor edit" box. Take a look at wp:me which says, among other things, "Adding or removing references or external links in an article" and "Adding or removing content in an article" are not minor edits. Ocalafla (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC

obviously what wiki and I consider minor are different animals, semanticsBob80q (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Faulkner redux

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)

Reliable sources

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)