Jump to content

Talk:List of animals awarded human credentials

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

Picture

[edit]

I just looked at that article that had the cat's picture on it. I now have two questions.
A. How did they get the cat to wear that cap?
B. How did they manage to get the cat to stand still long enough for them to take the picture?
JesseG 06:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a really smart cat... A.J.A. 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It better be; it's got a college diploma! 70.178.93.149 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put a photo request tag here. Preferably of the cat with the cap. Totnesmartin 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney King

[edit]

Why is this the same as Sydney King? 132.156.106.77 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a speedy deletion template on Sydney King. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb Article

[edit]

This article is non-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.147.114 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You and JBSupreme can cry me a river. Vodello (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a "list of cats with fraudulent diplomas" is a little odd and jokey, although the content is reasonable and cited. The significant aspect is not that a series of cats have been awarded fradulent diplomas — it's that people working to expose diploma mills sometimes use cats as funny newsworthy hooks. Maybe this material should instead be included in a section within diploma mill about efforts to expose fradulent diplomas. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make a difference whether it's a cat, dog, or fictitious person. The issue is that the diploma is a fraud. If this information belongs anyplace, it is in the article for the company issuing the diploma. I agree this list is unencyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think how much worse Wikipedia would be without a list of cats with diplomas. Lighten up a little! In any case, keeping this information grouped is useful, but it might be more appropriately grouped in a more general category, i.e. animals awarded human formal recognitions. Registering a pet is not an uncommon way of demonstrating the out-of-touchness of a system, and there should be records of that somewhere; cats with diplomas is just a particularly amusing example. --Nonsensicality (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of this list too, but I believe that if we want Wikipedia to be a reasonably reliable source of information, it's important for us to think twice about maintaining articles that lean toward being amusing rather than meaningful. This list covers a real pattern, it involves a significant issue, and there's some reliable news coverage, but focusing on the cats isn't appropriate. It's playing along with the joke. Instead, the diploma mill article might benefit from a serious section about techniques that people use to expose them, including registering imaginary people and cats. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article is amusing doesn't mean it isn't also informative. It is, of course, niche useful information, but so is 99% of wikipedia. It's funny and it's well cited. It should be kept as is. rek (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this list is informative and cute, but it's not framed in the most useful way. There are no cats with fraudulent diplomas who aren't part of efforts to expose diploma mills. I believe this list would have an opportunity to grow and be more useful in the right context, and of course we could add a redirect from this title to the relevant sub-section in a larger article. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this article can't be merged in to the "larger picture" of diploma mills, however I also see no reason why the pointer of 'cats with diplomas' can't be kept available, and re-directed to the larger article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.208.111 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most with this comment. And don't forget the dog or dogs as well! Klueless (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article was merged it would dilute the treatment of diploma mills. However, there is serious value in this kind of approach for testing diploma mills, and that doesn't easily come across without detailing what was done in each case. I think this list should stay, though perhaps under a less jokey heading like "List of fake diploma mill registrations". DanPope (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my suggestion is no expert suggestion, so I welcome arguments for why merging into diploma mill is a bad idea, but I'm not sure what you mean by "dilute the treatment of diploma mills". I'm picturing a section at the end of the article called "Efforts to expose diploma mills", which would include a discussion of cats (condensed from this list) and other efforts, in chronological order. I'm also OK with the idea of renaming the list to be less jokey (and linking it from diploma mill), but "List of fake diploma mill registrations" sounds like it could cover both notable efforts to expose fraud and notable instances of people who have been caught with fake diplomas. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. It has value as a historic reference, the incidences are cited, and do a reasonably good job of conveying that the issue has been ongoing for many decades. I agree the heading could be changed, but don't feel it is critical. Overall it is a brief, lighthearted, and yet informative piece. Please keep it. --RedIsaac (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list would be better included in the Diploma mill article, where it can go with dogs or other pets that have fraudulent diplomas, or cats that have legitimately obtained but otherwise dubious diplomas. The fact that there are references for the information in an article does not prove the article itself has an encyclopedic purpose. At least let's have a proper merge proposal and a vote. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that people presume to determine what information has "encyclopedic purpose," especially given Wikipedia's supposed mission. Wikipedia has other pages using the "List of..." format (including "sovereign states"), so perhaps the proper way to edit this is to give each cat a particular page which this page references. Because of the use-value of these cats with fake diplomas, they do have cultural and intellectual value. Plus, Wikipedia will never be considered a credible source, but that does not mean that it can't be a great source for information of all kinds--if you want to recreate the Encyclopedia Britannica, work for Encyclopedia Britannica.Gramsci3000 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this article is in list format and other information that belongs on WP is in list format, it does not follow that this information deserves its own article in WP. Secondly, if the content were moved into another article, it would not cease to have use-value, to be lighthearted or to be informative. If you think that WP policy is on your side, by all means cite the policy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP+redirect. The article is useful in that it points up fraud without being "bone dry" as so many articles are. A redirect to,fraud and diploma mills. Personally I have five undegreed cats one of whom is sleeping with his head half over the keyboard. This is an opportunity to redundantly point examples of fraud. Perhaps one will become a Doctor of Medicine. I would like to see a list of animals that have received degrees and what degree they have received. I am certain I could put a fur child in Who's Who of something or other and let it benefit from the offered "value". Wikipedia is a part of the soul of The Internet along with a ton of other folklore. While being useful it should not be bone dry throughout. edw Edw (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "keep+redirect" mean? Does it mean you'd be happy with either keeping the article as is, or replacing it with a redirect? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They';re noteworthy though not necessarily notable examples, though I would expand to animals other than cats. When things are not notable enough for an article, they can and should be a section of a more general article. That's the sort of list it is here, and it's highly appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you strip out the mess of subheaders and flesh out the descriptions of some of the specific cats, you might have a half-decent article. Also, if it isn't merged, I'd suggest changing the title to just "Cats with fraudulent diplomas", or something along those lines without the phrase "List of". It's not a straight list, and the prose makes up the majority of the article. So I don't believe it's technically a "list", although I don't know if there is a strict definition of what a list is on Wikipedia. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the merge template. I see no consensus to merge and the template merge discussion was incomplete anyhow as Diploma mill has no such merge discuss about this merge. SunCreator (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge

[edit]

Although a "list of cats with fraudulent diplomas" may not be an entirely appropriate Wikipedia article in its own right, the topic, in my opinion, would be an important addition to the 'diploma mills' entry. That cats have indeed been awarded diplomas is interesting and verifiable evidence of shenanigans.

I use Wikipedia quite a bit, especially as a starting point to whatever I wish to research. If I wanted to prove a point, or verify my claims about 'diploma mill' shenanigans, the "list of cats with fraudulent diplomas" would be wonderfully helpful proof - it is outlandish, and outlandish is the best kind of immediate evidence!

Yowmoon (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


List of cats with fraudulent diplomas → List of animals with fraudulent diplomas — The suggestion to rename this article to reflect a broader topic had some support at the deletion discussion. Does it have consensus?  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's what I said there: renaming to "Animals with fraudulent diplomas" sounds better to me, since this isn't just a list. The article provides detailed information for each item, and the events would make sense in chronological order rather than alphabetical order (because each diploma cat in the news may have influenced the occurence of later diploma cats). The article could also offer a much better introduction, with more of a summary of the contents and more contextualization about efforts to expose diploma mills. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The potential also exists for some joker to register something inanimate for one of these diplomas, so it may make sense to be even more general than just "Animals". I can't really think of any title that would sound good for that though, off the top of my head. In any case, for now I support the name change to Animals with fraudulent diplomas. GreyWyvern⚒ 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sure, we shouldn't discriminate against other animals ;-) If dead cats can get phony credentials, and phoney alternative medical practitioners can get the same ones, why not live dogs and other animals? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like Dreamyshade's proposal, although I agree with GreyWyvern that we should come up with something a bit more general. I'm all out of inspiration though: "Animals with false identities"? "Diploma mill exposes"? Nothing really rolls off the tongue. -- Gaurav (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Currently I would oppose the move proposal. It appears that the vast majority of such fake diplomas are awarded to cats at this point, and the "other animals" subsection serves as the redirect for the dog cases. Part of my opinion, however, is based on my pure admiration for the current article title.--Milowent (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sonny

[edit]

Is it the intent of this article to include fictional and/or imaginary cats in this list? The referenced cat "Sonny" is a "character" on an Australian TV show, and the source is a link to YouTube. Any opinion before I jettison this? Seduisant (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Seduisant (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have objected, had I been given the chance. He is a real dog, owned by a real person (Chas Licciardello, the one who organized the stunt in the entry and a member of the show) and is not a "fictional character". This show is also not fiction as it is made up of the people on the show pranking real people (mostly politicians and the like). It is relevant, as it exposes some of the silliness of animals getting these degrees and since many of the entries here are reporters and other organizations attempting to do the same this ought to be included. Seriously, did you even watch the link? And maybe wait a bit longer then a day next time before removing things. 134.117.181.221 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can briefly read about the stunt here, is this reputable Canadian newspaper, so I suggest the entry be returned. Sorry for not including it in the original entry. http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/488313 134.117.181.221 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are welcome it put Sonny back in the article if it means that much to you. Please try to come up with some source other than a YouTube link to put Sonny in context. Seduisant (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“most often cats”

[edit]

Unless there is either a “reliable” source that claims that most recipient beasts are cats, or at least a “reliable” source that claims to be a comprehensive list of all cases, the claim that most recipient beasts are cats cannot stand. In fact, neither claim is likely from any “reliable” source, though there is some chance of a “reliable” source that notes the number of such recipients who have been reported in newspapers &c. —SlamDiego←T 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already a bit of a WP:IAR. There is no reliable source I am aware of to prove the claim; it is only verifiable via the work done to create the article to date. When this was up for AfD a few days ago, i looked for articles on the subject, and added two of the felines now mentioned. Of the two dogs currently listed, the 2nd will probably go soon because I understand its a fictional story. I suppose the fact that cats are the faux-degreed of choice is not as apparent as the fact that the sky is blue, yet I believe it to be true.--Milowent (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said until some of us are nauseated from reading it, Wikipedia is about “verifiable” claims, rather than about truth. (I hope that my repeating that didn't cause anyone to puke.) —SlamDiego←T 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great article

[edit]

I am putting this message here, so that if the article goes up for deletion, as a participant in this article, I can be notified. Thanks for the great article! Ikip (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, this is a highly imaginative and informative article. Thanks to everyone who worked on it! Robofish (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to add it to WP:Unusual articles. If someone can think up a witty tag line please do change it from the current one. -- Ϫ 10:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who scam?

[edit]

Smashing article, but I wondered why this entry appears in the See also section, as it appears entirely irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article order

[edit]

Within each main section, should the entries be in date order, oldest to newest? Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it should remain the way it is. This article is a list of animals so the focus is on them and the emphasis should be on their names. -- Ϫ 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. The dogs are ordered by first name - we'll try that for the cats. (I personally prefer date order - seems more encyclopedic. But not all certification years are clearly stated, and hey, alphabetical is better than nothing.)--Lexein (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over pun

[edit]

It's silly, but this happened. WP isn't a repository of jokes, as far as I know. The fact that animals have degrees is funny enough. Puns aren't needed - any reader who peruses the references can see the pun for themselves. Moreover the User:Blufftonu seems to have been specifically created to force this particular pun into this particular article - see Special:Contributions/Blufftonu. I throw the diiscussion open to interested editors. --Lexein (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least it is a quote from an actual source. I don't feel strongly either way.--Milowent (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for real degrees

[edit]

I mean, they're already on campus. Life experience: Kinsey studies. --Lexein (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive link to marvelous photo of rampaging rabbits on campus: [1]. --Lexein (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse article

[edit]

A more interesting article might be the list of animals with real, earned, degrees.Bill (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source(s)

[edit]

There was a concern raised in the deletion discussion that each item was singly-sourced. So I've added 2nd, independent sources where there were none. Kitty O'Malley and Chester Ludlow are problematic, as they seem to be singly-sourced. Help? --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of singly- and dubiously- sourced item

[edit]

In this edit the entry about Chester Ludlow was deleted due to the dubiousness of the source, GetEducated.com. There was no news, magazine, or book support for the claim, but the company has issued press releases here and here. --Lexein (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks's Barnfield

[edit]

Moving/editing here for discussion.

When his feline twin, Boodles, was killed by a car, Brooks's was ordained online in 2002 as a minister of the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California. (by whom?) Ordained, Brooks's lived a long life until he was euthanized by a veterinarian in December 2011. He was the longest-lived of a litter of 6; his 5 siblings met assorted unpleasant deaths.[1]
  1. ^ "Cat has a dog-collar". Alton Herald, February 14, 2003.

The Alton Herald exists, and has archives including Feb 14, 2003, but not of this story. Also, a minister's license has not so far been considered a fraudulent educational degree or medical license, and so may not qualify as a fraudulent diploma. Worthy of discussion, if supported by a reliable source or two. --Lexein (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fake item

[edit]

I have deleted the fake entry "Dave Catermanus" added by IP user 96.49.121.200 on Dec 22 2011, with ever-changing details, including addition of a false source. User warned. --Lexein (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP User 50.72.187.105 added it back in February 2012, and it was correctly deleted again by user:Secret. Looks like a perennial. There are no independent RS for the cat, its owner, and no mention at the York University Excalibur archives, only echoes of the Wikipedia article where the bogus item persisted for a while. --Lexein (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

I've conformed the section names to those stated in the sources. We can, as readers, fairly assume that the pet's name + the owner's surname was used to register on the various applications, but as editors, we should not state what the sources do not. --Lexein (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

By way of explanation, the lead is written to support the WP:LIST requirement that inclusion criteria be stated, while simultaneously not mentioning Wikipedia policies, per something. --Lexein (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for further research

[edit]

Florida Senate bill 93 (1988) legislated credentials required for dieticians or nutritionists.

" 'Before', said Gail Kauwell, outgoing president of the Florida Dietetic Association, 'one "diploma mill," had a dog, a cat and a gerbil as members of its dietetic organization.' "

Looking for the FL Senate hearing transcripts about the dog, the cat, and the gerbil. You can help! --Lexein (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

[edit]
The Web site is down, but they are back to the business again , in Argentina: http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/oregon_north_dakota/trinity_southern_university/aboutus.html

Does STU's new location matter in this article? Is Gollin RS for this? He seems not to discuss it, but only mirror its website. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very old news. George Gollin is a diploma-mill detective by avocation (a good one, too). He seems to have made an archive copy of the old Trinity Southern website, which he apparently displays for educational purposes. That version of the website is similar to what was quoted in an online forum in 2003. The domain name belongs to a reseller, and it's for sale.[2] Nothing needs to be done here. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Lexein (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not

[edit]

I've removed the following, for lacking a citation that the animal obtained a fraudulent diploma. Also, the animal in the song is a fictional drummer, presumably human, and so is out of scope for this article.

==Worms==
===Doctor Worm===
The eponymous character from They Might Be Giants' 1998 song "Doctor Worm" is not a real doctor, but he is a real worm.

--Lexein (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the song lyrics, Dr Worm states: "I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." This is the only source of information on Doctor Worm and it remains unclear both how he is able to play the drums and the identity of the diploma awarding institution (if any).
67.180.77.129 (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) sillypog[reply]
Correct. --Lexein (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about...

[edit]

...an article on pets that have received credit cards? I love this stuff! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't breathe....

[edit]

I am laughing so hard!

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall...

[edit]

I seem to remember a dog from a frat at University of Southern Ca who received a degree. I believe the guys would each take a class in their major. Possibly around the late '80's to early '90's. Dropping this here in the hopes someone knows/finds info on it! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename this article "List of nonhuman animals with fraudulent diplomas"

[edit]

Humans are also animals, and this article specifically does not include humans, which means that the title needs further specification for the sake of accuracy.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. 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) 07:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. 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) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomas versus membership certificates

[edit]

Although this article is entitled "List of animals with fraudulent diplomas", a good number of the examples on this list do not involve diplomas (which require coursework, exams, papers, etc.), but instead certificates of memberships (which often involve only sending in an application and a payment). The two really aren't comparable. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Piledhigheranddeeper; the second example has to do with registration and accreditation, not a diploma. What might be a better title to encompass all of these? List of animals with fraudulent credentials? Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better one. Another might be ".. animals with fraudulent credentials and accolades", but I (for one) think the titles of these articles should not be very long. So perhaps "credentials" in the title, with the intro explaining that these are non-humans with phony diplomas, credentials, certificates, memberships, accolades, or other honors (or maybe "indicia of achievement", as honors can be real, if intended as jokes, etc.). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The article doesn't seem to be too active but there might still be some watchers so I'll start a move discussion to see if anyone objects. Schazjmd (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"despite not achieving academic success"

[edit]

Surely it's a silly phrasing! Animals obviously can't achieve academic success and this implies that some animals can achieve academic success, and it just so happens the ones featured in this article haven't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DA34:B400:89DB:768E:6267:4A5D (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've removed that and also the bit about not attending classes. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2021

[edit]
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: Move to List of animals awarded human credentials - jc37 03:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


List of animals with fraudulent diplomas → List of animals with fraudulent credentials edited to add for closer: discussion suggested that a better target name is "List of animals awarded human credentials" (end added note)– As the list has developed, its scope has expanded beyond "diplomas" to include "things like diplomas", such as registration, memberships, accreditation, certificates, and so on. "Credentials", being less specific than "diploma", seems appropriate as an umbrella term for the entries. Schazjmd (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the other hand, after reading the article, it appears that although the animals' owners were not committing fraud, the described incidents seem to have involved institutions that issued degrees that were outright fraudulent (or at least completely unverified). There could hypothetically be other cases that were less clear, such as dogs that became Kentucky Colonels. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree a change is appropriate and the "fraudulent" is the wrong adjective for a lot of the qualifications discussed here: they're useless, bogus or fake, but not necessarily committing the crime of fraud. I struggle for an accurate title though. "Qualifications" strikes me as a better word then "credentials" or "accreditation" etc., but maybe that's a British English thing? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with "false credentials" (or similar) is that the term includes probably the most important false or fraudulent credential for esp. dogs, horses, and cat: breeding papers / certifications / kennel club registries. Considering the minor media coverage this article has received in a humorous vein, perhaps List of animals with humorous false credentials (or similar)?
  • Another common "false credential" thing I came across searching is Service animal. Argh, this is aggravating...what about List of animals awarded human credentials? Are there valid instances that would get caught by that? Schazjmd (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a good suggestion. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, that would require changing the article to include the "dogtorate" mentioned in the lead section (but specifically excluded from the article). Is that the intention of the rename? That's fine if the rename intends on slightly changing the inclusion/exclusion criteria, but if not, "List of animals awarded human credentials" is probably not accurate. Agreed, argh, this is aggravating. sbb (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • A 'dogtorate' is not a human credential, so it would continue to be excluded from a List of animals awarded human credentials. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          True, but a 'dogtorate' isn't really a thing anyways. It's clearly a pun on "doctorate", which is a human credential. The spirit of the award is that it's at least like a human credential. On the balance, if the article's name is changed to "List of animals awarded human credentials", the 'dogtorate' should be included because of the intention of the name of the award. sbb (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I think the dogtorate is handled well already. It is mentioned, but not discussed in the article, but it is not listed as one of the cases of improper granting of human credentials to animals. The article is not primarily about cases where the granting institution is aware that it is granting an award to an animal. Anyhow, this is bordering on becoming a discussion of article content rather than the article title. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I agree with BarrelProof that the intro covers dogtorate nicely. And the more I think on it, the more it seems like awarded human credentials gets to the real point of the list. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I also support "List of animals awarded human credentials", which gets across that these awards are dodgy but not necessarily fraudulent, and that the awarding institutions didn't realise they were making the award to an animal. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's general agreement on List of animals awarded human credentials and discussion has tapered off, so I'm going to request a formal closure at WP:ANC. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Henrietta

[edit]
Membership certificate awarded to science writer Ben Goldacre's dead cat Hettie, by the American Association of Nutritional Consultants

I suggest that we remove the case of "Henrietta". In that case, all that was obtained was membership in a professional society, which should not be considered as any sort of certification or diploma.

Henrietta (nutrition society membership)
Dr. Ben Goldacre, a UK-based physician and science journalist, wrote in 2004 that his cat Henrietta had obtained a membership in a professional society called the American Association of Nutritional Consultants; Goldacre had been investigating the qualifications claimed by Gillian McKeith, a prominent television nutritionist who had obtained non-accredited PhD and Masters degrees via correspondence courses.[1][2] Goldacre said, "it’s a particular honour since dear, sweet, little Hettie died about a year ago."[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Goldacre, Ben (September 30, 2004). "Dr Gillian McKeith (PhD) continued". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
  2. ^ Walker, Tim (November 27, 2010). "Gillian McKeith: Rumbled in the jungle". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on November 28, 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2010.

— BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Readers are also invited to participate in the article deletion proposal that I have opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Nutritional Consultants. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certification = "the action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement" or "an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement". Clearly this is an example of a certification, but not a diploma. If the article is being retitled (see discussion above), then this entry should stay. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is not a certification. It is a (membership) certificate, but not a certification. It doesn't certify anything more than the fact that someone is a member of an organization. It doesn't assert that being a member of the organization requires having any accredited qualifications. There are many organizations that basically have no verified requirements for membership other than the payment of dues. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same issue applies to "Sassafras Herbert", which is also about a certificate obtained from a predecessor of the same organization (the American Association of Nutritional Consultants). Although a brief piece in Time refers to Herbert's certificate as a diploma, it should be clear by reading the content of the article and the Quackwatch source that it was merely a certificate of membership, only entitling the member to "a listing in the Official Directory of Nutrition and Dietary Consultants and special rates for malpractice insurance." Quackwatch says only that Herbert "became a professional member". I think it is the same as other cases of animal membership in the AANC (several of which are listed in the article about the organization). — BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we restore Henrietta's section (membership of AANC)?

[edit]

As noted in the discussion^ about renaming the page "As the list has developed, its scope has expanded beyond "diplomas" to include "things like diplomas", such as registration, memberships, accreditation, certificates, and so on". Henrietta's membership-not-diploma was removed but the List was renamed and its current name would seem to cover membership 'accreditation'. Are there any objections to me re-adding it? (^I'm cross with myself for missing that, I liked the word fraudulent and it did the work of pointing out that the things applied for were largely nonsense while acknowledging the sneakiness used in acquiring them (by the owners too)). JoBrodie (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be re-added. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Membership in a professional society is not a credential. It is not like a diploma. It is simply something somene gets when they fill out a form and pay dues. In most cases, membership is not a certification of any kind. Anyone thinking otherwise is simply misunderstanding what it is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Widening the scope

[edit]

Stumbling on this article made me think of the Roman emperor who (alledgedly) made his horse a senator. A quick google search revealed there's already a WP-article about the horse. (see Incitatus) I believe this article should be expanded to include (historical) cases where animals have been put in positions clearly meant for humans. Dutchy45 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are accredited institutions omitted from this list?

[edit]

This article focuses on animals who received a diploma from schools that aren't accredited or are otherwise seen as diploma mills. Despite the new-ish title of this article implying that this list encompasses all noteworthy animals who have received human credentials from both (for lack of better terms) legitimate and illegitimate sources, it only focuses on the latter and says the former is not in scope. But why? Do we have a list of animals receiving honorary/mock degrees from accredited institutions on Wikipedia? And if so, why can't we merge them? MooseMike (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily vandalized

[edit]

This article has clearly been vandalized at several points, with many sections having absurd inserts. A. Rosenberg (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty well cleaned up over the years, and all of the present entries appear to be reliably sourced. Are there any specific sections you believe are not reliably sourced? Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_animals_awarded_human_credentials&oldid=1223110816"