Should this question be answered, or closed as unclear?

@EliahKagan It doesn't seem unclear. The OP is setting paths in /etc/profile or ~/.profile.

No hang on. Csh won't read those, will it?

No, it can't. Completely different syntax. Never mind me.

Well I think it's not really a problem that csh doesn't read them, so long as they were sourced at login. They'll be passed to csh, unless csh is the login shell.

Or, I guess, that the paths are passed to csh is their problem, because they don't want those environment variables set there.

@terdon So it sounds like what you've said about /etc/profile and ~/.profile is actually the answer. Environment variables that that exist before tcsh is run are inherited by tcsh, so if the OP needs to run tcsh without them (or with different values) then they will have to do that before tcsh runs (e.g., PATH=... tcsh in a Bourne-style shell) or in tcsh. Should I post an answer? Do you want to?

I think the real (specific) solution will depend on the missing information chepner requested, though.

@EliahKagan Ah, yes, inheritance would explain it!

@terdon It's funny because you know biology and you call environmental factors "inheritance" :-)

Maybe I shouldn't try mix terminology between biology and Unix...

@terdon A good answer has been posted. Taking another look, I'm glad I didn't flag it for closure.

Oddly, this answer to a different question claims tcsh sources .profile when it runs as a login shell. That doens't look right to me. The tcsh manpage doesn't mention it, plus the syntax is wrong for tcsh, as you say. Also, I just checked, and at least on Ubuntu 16.04 it doesn't.

What to do in the reopen queue if you think a question should stay closed (after a revision), but for a different reason?

"skip" could leave it closed as a not-good-enough reason; "leave closed" is a proactive version of the same thing, but "reopen" isn't what I want, either.

for now, I've left a comment with the only hopefuly (reopening) direction I see, and will Skip.

IMO it depends if the wrong reason shown is causing harm. Usually a comment is enough, but sometimes it makes sense to reopen and reclose. Sometimes a close reason is so blatantly wrong it badly misinforms users about site policy. Also, dupes without any other close reasons, if closed, might be considered for reopening and duping, since the linking it provides is way clearer than from a comment, and because the system won't automatically delete duplicates as readily as other closed questions.

(You may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt, though: having less than 3k rep on Unix & Linux, I've never cast or reviewed a reopen vote on this site.)

@EliahKagan Well, I've commented about it.

Anyone familiar with Satellite? I'm having an issue deleting an organization, it's saying "This action is not meant to be finalized" in the Errors section but the organization isn't even used at all

at least that I'm aware of