Talk:List of animals awarded human credentials

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

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

message: This article is non-encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.147.114 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You and JBSupreme can cry me a river. Vodello (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dumb Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed. Seduisant (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sonny 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  “most often cats” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What a great article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who's Who scam? 

message: Within each main section, should the entries be in date order, oldest to newest?    Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -- œ™ 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Article order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war over pun 

message: I mean, they're already on campus. Life experience:  Kinsey studies. --Lexein (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive link to marvelous photo of rampaging rabbits on campus: . --Lexein (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates for real degrees 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source(s)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent removal of singly- and dubiously- sourced item 

message: 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. "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)
thread_title:  Brooks's Barnfield 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of fake item 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems sensible. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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.' " 
:*"Nutrition bill passed". Gainesville Sun. July 7, 1988. (via Google News Archive)
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)
thread_title:  Grounds for further research 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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. Nothing needs to be done here. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Lexein (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

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

message: I am laughing so hard!
:  Bfpage |leave a message  12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't breathe....

message: 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)
thread_title:  I recall... 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtsp.com/includes/tools/print.aspx?storyid=111489
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7005260.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108181011/http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html to http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210225846/http://www.khou.com/news/ITeamDiplomasPartOne-138874309.html to http://www.khou.com/news/ITeamDiplomasPartOne-138874309.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027204524/http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/pete_the_lurcher.html to http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/pete_the_lurcher.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point, ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diplomas versus membership certificates 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, I've removed that and also the bit about not attending classes. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "despite not achieving academic success" 

message: :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)
replies: text: List of animals with fraudulent diplomas →  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)

text: *Good point. How about ? Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 March 2021 

message: 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. Goldacre said, "it’s a particular honour since dear, sweet, little Hettie died about a year ago."
— BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Henrietta 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that it should be re-added. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can we restore Henrietta's section (membership of AANC)? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Widening the scope 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why are accredited institutions omitted from this list?  

message: This article has clearly been vandalized at several points, with many sections having absurd inserts. A. Rosenberg (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heavily vandalized