Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Educational background

The general question is "how much detail should biographies include of the subject's educational background?" The specific case motivating this more general question is the rejection of this edit as WP:UNDUE, and with reference to this sort of information often not being found elsewhere. However there are plenty of examples as well where this sort of detail is included, eg cases relating to Cambridge University. In an effort to distinguish the general question from the specific case it originates with, I will state that this RFC does not apply to Keith Olbermann, where there seems to be a local consensus that political motivations for including the information due to a silly controversy ought to override the simple encyclopedic case for inclusion. So, very general question: how much detail is appropriate about a person's educational background in a reasonably well-developed bio? I'd welcome early comments that would help broaden this discussion, because it's very easy to imagine the specific case it originates with (but seeks to ignore) overwhelming this RFC.

Rd232 talk 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Salient details that are reliably sourced should be welcome. In some instances, the educational background of a subject may be particularly notable and well-covered by reliable sources (example: Barack Obama). In circumstances were the subject is not notable for their educational background, only minimal details should be necessary. In the specific case mentioned above, we are talking about a level of granularity (specific college within a university) that would seem unnecessary; however, there are some universities that have largely independent colleges (example: Colleges of the University of Oxford) where specificity may be preferable. Unnecessary biographical details, particularly those that might be contentious or be used to exploit or further an agenda, should be considered with WP:BLP in mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The only universities I am aware of where colleges may be specified are Oxford, Cambridge and London. In the former two it is really only of interest to fellow alumni. In the latter, the university is composed of many different institutions which really have remarkably little to do with each other. US editors have expressed the view that specification of college is not at all the norm in the US. Fainites barley scribs 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this falls under a couple of the exceptions that Scjessey mentioned. The official name for the college he went to is actually the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and while Cornell is a private university, the Ag college was established by the NY state legislature in an unusual agreement with Cornell, so it's somewhat of a different case. This isn't like accusing Obama of being a Muslim or something else like that. No one denies that Olbermann did attend the college in question, least of all Olbermann. Olbermann's detractors have accused him of not attending the "real" Cornell, and it's a big enough issue that Olbermann himself addressed it on his show. All these facts could easily be written into the article without having to give undue credence to whether the Ag school is part of the "real" Cornell or not. BuboTitan (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that this RfC is not specifically about Keith Olbermann for a moment, the "exceptions" you mention are basically trumped by the obvious fact that the issue isn't a notable biographical detail. There is no logical reason why the specific college within Cornell is of any importance to anyone (except perhaps Cornell alums and Olbermann's detractors). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently Olbermann and others believe it is notable - judging from the fact that it's been addressed by the person in question and in the media (not to mention a huge amount of space on the article's talk pages, FWIW). But point taken - I missed that this was a general question, and not about him specifically. BuboTitan (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Olbermann did not think it was notable at all. It was Ann Coulter who made a big deal out of it in an attempt to smear Olbermann, and Olbermann simply defended himself as more of his detractors chimed in. The "huge amount of space on the article's talk page" you refer to is simply a consequence of Olbermann detractors and POV pushers determined to attack Olbermann laying the article under siege for a while. Presumably, it is Olbermann's recent "suspension" that has caused this Coulter-inspired issue to crop up once more. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like to nitpick, but you are factually wrong on two counts. The reason why Coulter brought it up was in response to Olbermann often referring to his "Ivy league education" in interviews and on the air (I'll be glad to give you quotes if you want - there are plenty). And I can't speak to anyone else's motives, but the recent dust up on the Olbermann talk page started before this suspension thing. Look at the dates. BuboTitan (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cornell is an Ivy League university, so I am not sure what your point is there. As for the dates, it was you who brought this issue back up again after it had previously been dealt with, although I concede this was 24 hours before the donations story came to light. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never denied that Cornell is an Ivy league school. BuboTitan (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Scjessey -- the only time we need to make a distinction is when it is (1a) reliably sourced and (1b) part of the subjects general notability, or (2) not part of the traditional understanding of the University system. In the Olbermann incident specifically, I don't see how that distinction is at all necessary unless one is trying to give credibility to Coulter's much-debunked claims.  I can't think of a better way to say this, so I'm going to quote Scjessey directly:  "Unnecessary biographical details, particularly those that might be contentious or be used to exploit or further an agenda, should be considered with presumption of privacy in mind."  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)