Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 4

New article proposal
Please see this proposed content for this J.D. article. The present article contains much irrelevant content, very little historical information, little detail on the J.D. in other countries, a horrible entry paragraph, and very little citations. The proposed article is a result of a month or two of finding verifiable sources and careful drafting. I look forward to your comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Your proposed page had all the information I was looking for. The information in the current article is absolute rubbish. Cheers for the page (please keep it online even if, for whatever stupid wiki reason it cannot be implemented as the official page). Cheers. StefanG Alum (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, this proposal is intended to provide a venue for opinions about the validity of the degree, and is a kind of proposal to resolve disputes about the content. Therefore, please provide your opinions there on that proposed content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When do we change to the new article? The current one is a complete mess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to draft a new section. See "debate" on discussion page of proposed article.  Without new section on "debate" problems may arise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of previous discussion
Please post summary of what you think is most important from previous discussions here.

There has been much discussion about this page, the most recent of which can be found in Archive 3. Please read that content in the archives before editing or posting comments. Opinion has been posted about this article and the J.D. for the past few years. Addressing specific content, citations and use of citations is more useful than expounding opinion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Juris Doctor(ate)
This article seems to use the word "Juris Doctorate" several times. The degree is not called a Juris Doctorate; it is called "Juris Doctor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first part of your statement is incorrect. Some universities (e.g. Loyola College of Law) use the term Juris Doctorate.  Doctor of Jurisprudence (e.g. University of Texas) is also used.  —Preceding comment added by 67.101.7.93 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment is idiotic. The degree is named in Latin. "Juris doctor" means "teacher of law," juris being the Latin genitive singular, doctor being the nominative singular. "Doctorate" is an English, not a Latin, term -- "juris" is not English, there is no discipline "juris" in academics in English. To claim that "juris doctorate" is correct would be like saying, "He has a baccalaureate degree in Artibus" is OK, or "He has a doctorate in Sacrae Theologiae."24.164.152.155 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am placing a dispute tag to direct users to read this debate.

A Juris Doctor degree is merely a rebranding of the old bachelor of laws (LL.B.) degree. It is nothing more, nothing less. It merely means "Law Degree." This article is factually inaccurate. The references used to make the case that it is a doctorate are simply erroneous and non authoritative.


 * Absolutely not true. If the degree is called "Doctor", it is a doctoral degree.  That is all that has ever been required in the history of academia.  The JD only appears to be a re-branding of the LL.B. because the American LL.B. was not a true baccalaureate degree.  In England, Ireland, South Africa, and every other country where the LL.B. is offered - except Canada - the LL.B. is straight undergraduate degree like any other undergraduate degree, but you major in law and you get a specialised degree name (like "Bachelor of Music" or "Bachelor of Fine Arts").  Canada has evolved to the position formerly seen in the United States, where the LL.B. was elevated to the graduate school curriculum - you had to have a first bachelor's degree to take the LL.B. as a second bachelor's degree.  American legal education has since elevated the American law degree to doctoral level.  One may argue whether prospective attorneys have the necessary brain power to truly qualify as students enroled in a professional doctoral programme; or, indeed, whether lawyers as an infra-sub-species of human -- homo sapiens sapiens stupidis -- truly merit a doctoral designation after their names (assuming they  have the necessary intellectual capacity to spell them).  But one cannot argue with a thousand years of Western academic tradition, under which any degree lawfully conferred with the word "Doctor" in the title is a doctoral degree.  Now, go pedal the rest of your inferiority complex somewhere else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.168.158 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First reference: This reference refers to answers.com as a reference, which republishes what is written in Wikipedia. Circular reasoning at best.

Second reference: I have contacted the webmaster to point out the factual inaccuracy.

Third reference: This is merely a non binding OPINION written by a representative of one state's bar association.

Fourth reference: A mere categorical listing is a WEAK reference. I have notified the webmaster of their factual error.

Fifth reference: First, this is a bogus reference. This is the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia, not German. Germany is hardly an authority on an American academic degree. This is most likely something missed in translation. Obviously, many English speaking people see Juris Doctor and don't get that it isn't a doctorate.

Sixth reference: This is merely a career guide. Career centers aren't very factually oriented and they are definitely not authoritative. They have two factual errors under "Doctoral Programs," one being the listing of the JD degree, the other stating that the MD is "required" to practice medicine. I have notified them of their factual errors.

The JD is merely a bachelor's degree and is merely the BASIC degree necessary to practice law. The progression of law education is ANY bachelor's degree -> JD -> LLM -> LLD or PhD or SJD. What other doctorate offers a master's degree and doctorate beyond the earning of the doctorate?

Dentistry "offers a master's degree... beyond the earning of the doctorate."

What other doctorate requires NO SPECIFIC UNDERGRADUATE STUDY in order to matriculate?

Dentistry and medicine require the completion of some science courses, but require no particular undergraduate degree or major.

What other doctorate can one complete in just three years beyond ANY bachelor's degree?

Dentistry, like law, can be completed in seven years of higher education. Veterinary medicine can be completed in six years of higher education.

Don't confuse "graduate entry" with "graduate program."

References:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academic.html http://www.kinsellalaw.com/archive/2002_04_01_archive.php http://web.archive.org/web/20050207005109/http://law.slu.edu/prospective_student.html http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juris%20doctor http://www.legaltutors.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20an%20LL.B http://law.wfu.edu/llm/about/what/ http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Our%20Organisation%2FBusiness%2FSchools%20and%20Groups%2FSchool%20of%20Accounting%20and%20Law%2FAcademic%20Programs%2FJuris%20Doctor/ http://www.law.indiana.edu/curriculum/programs/degree_explained.shtml http://law.missouri.edu/jd/ http://www.law.wayne.edu/current/academic_programs.html http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html

Jkhamlin (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute tag is inappropriate because your comments are already represented in the article ("debate" section at end), and because you offer no source which directly contradicts the content of the article.


 * It is clear that you have not studied the article in its entirety and are kind of just throwing out comments from your armchair without really researching the matter. I do wish you would read the article closely, but as a starter, I think you would find this source particularly insightful: Hall, James Parker, [American Law School Degrees], Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.  Particularly page 2 (pg. 114).  It is cited in the wiki article.  It was written by one of the creators of the J.D. around the time of its implementation.


 * Other references used in this wiki article include peer reviewed scholarly works published by prestigious universities such as Oxford (a U.K. university of course), and written by some of the very individuals who played a hand in developing the degree, who are world reknown scholars of law.


 * There are no authoritative references which support your point of view, and all of the best references directly contradict it. Googling on the internet is no substitute for research in the library--I encourage you to do so.


 * I'm not sure which references you are discussing when you state: 1st, 2nd, etc. Based on the context of your comments, I've guessed.


 * First reference: does not cite answers.com as authority, but merely for more information. Other definitions do not use any authority.  The Association of American Universities Data Exchange is an authoritative source in and of itself.
 * Second reference: don't know to what website you are referring. But if it is the U of Melbourne, USC, Berkeley or the National Science Foundation (the only other citations in that range), I'd love to see their reply to you, if they reply at all--I'm sure it would be entertaining.
 * Third reference: Whose bar association? It is merely representative of an opinion expressed by other bar associations in the U.S., after research by that entity.  Even though they are a professional organization and might represent a vested interest, their official opinion is not irrelevant and represents common knowledge in the profession.
 * Fourth reference: Again it is unclear to what website you are referring, but I hope you'll share their response (see note to second reference in this comment).
 * Fifth reference: The german article is the result of research and cites authoritative sources published in the U.S. One of the reasons imperfect sources such as this have been used is because they are one of the few that can be viewed on the internet.  It is useful because it cites to other useful sources.  Ignorance of German is no excuse (no offense intended in the tone, just a play on a common latin phrase).
 * Sixth reference: Again, imperfect sources were sometimes used because of their availability on the internet. I'd like to learn more from you about the M.D. not being a requirement to practice medicine.


 * I'm not sure if you are familiar with the discussion in the archives, which thoroughly discuss all the points you have raised here. An attempt to represent all of those arguments (plus others made in other fora) was made in including the section of this article titled "Debate about Academic Status."  Please explain why this is not sufficient.


 * Examples of a professional doctorates offering degrees after the doctorate include the D.D.S. and the M.D. Again, this has already been discussed, with citations to sources, in previous discussions (see the archives).


 * Arguably, it is possible to pursue a doctorate in almost any field without a certain undergraduate major--it is the discretion of the department to admit such students. Some common examples include: history, political science, sociology, etc.


 * The J.D. is in fact a unique degree that was carefully engineered to fit the needs of the field. Comparing degrees across disciplines is problematic and not useful.  There are some graduate degrees that do not require four years.  Please see the archives for discussion.


 * The term "graduate entry" is not a universally understood term and it is not used in U.S. institutions.


 * Your citations (in order):
 * Georgetown: why did you cite this? Relevant content is not apperant.
 * Kinsella: Just the unsupported opinion of one attorney. But if we examine it, we note the following: the principle problem with "juris doctorate" is that it's grammatically incorrect.  This lawyer is, as he admits in the last sentence of his entry, ignorant of the history of the J.D., and his comments contradict sources cited in this wikipedia article (see article).  This opinion is represented and discussed in the "debate" section of this wiki article.
 * LSU: great use of archive.org. Not sure why you've cited it, however.
 * dictionary.com: not an authoritative source, and it's wrong. No edition of webster's has such a definition.  However, if Webster's did state this, it is understandable, given the history of the LL.B. and the J.D. in the U.S. (see "creation" and "debate" sections of the wiki article).
 * Legaltutors.com: not an authoritative source, and contradicts authoritative citations in the wiki article. There are no academic or historical sources which support the claims made re: J.D. compared to LL.B.  It's citation of the dictionary is not a direct quote and misleading.  It's even wrong about the LL.B. "[meeting] the legal education requirements," as in nearly every country that has the LL.B. (particularly the U.K.) additional classroom education, and often a pupillage, are required before becoming licensed.  This is unlike the J.D., and the reasons can be understood by reading the sources cited in this wiki article.
 * Wake Forest: An obscure school. It does state that the degree in the U.S. changed from the LL.B. to the J.D., however it does not provide the historical context of this change, which has been beautifully summarized for you in this wiki article (complete with sources, which I encourage you to study).
 * RMIT: School of Accounting AND Law?! (snicker snicker)  Ok... Yes, this does represent the policy in Australia, which is discussed in the wiki article already.  But thanks for this cite--I will add it to the article among the others.
 * Indiana: Not sure why you cited. Yes, the article is full of such discussion already.
 * Missouri: Ok, same as others above. Also note that it states that the J.D. implements skills based courses--a characteristic traditionally unique to the J.D., but slowly being implemented in other law degrees in other jurisdictions.  Please read the wiki article for more about this.
 * Wayne: ditto from above.
 * Bond: I believe this is already in the article. See comment to RMIT above.
 * Monash: ditto from above. and, just what the hell is a Master of Laws (Juris Doctor) anyways?!  Those silly aussies :P


 * Thanks for your input, and for the RMIT citation. We look forward to your contributions to this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read Pearls & Pinstripes by Judith Richards Hope, you will notice that the Harvard class of 1963 graduated with a L.L.B degree, not a J.D. Maybe a more specific date should be used instead of "By the 1960s every law school except Yale offered a J.D. as its sole professional law degree" as this is not true.

On another note, a J.D. is not a rebranding of the L.L.B. degree. At the time of the introduction of the J.D. you would receive higher pay having a J.D. versus an L.L.B. degree as it was considered a Masters degree, and an L.L.B. considered a Bachelors degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorath (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * True. http://www.wc.com/attorney.cfm?attorney_id=151  Will edit. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side note, there was a lengthy article in the Chicago Tribune today about a two (calendar) year J.D. to be offered at Northwestern U. . JJL (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The ABA requires that all J.D. programs last three years, and that even with excellerated study, a student cannot graduate before 2 1/2 years of study (through summer school, extra units, etc). I'm sorry that I don't have the cite for that, but it should not be too hard to find.


 * I agree with the following statement from the article you cite:


 * "University of Chicago professor and former dean Geoffrey Stone called the two-year program "irresponsible" and said it risked producing inferior lawyers who haven't had time to develop intellectual and analytical skills.


 * "My sense is that compressing the educational process is likely to seriously derogate from the quality," he said. "What is lost is likely to be much more than anything that is gained by hustling the students through more quickly."


 * Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LL.M.
This article states "It is immaterial to the pursuit of a Master of Laws, whether or not the aspirant holds a J.D., as a prerequisite." This is incorrect. Although I have heard of a few CPA's being able to earn LL.M.'s, the vast majority of programs require an earned law degree before matriculating in an LL.M. program. Thus, to say that a prior law degree is immaterial - based on a handful of exceptions - is inaccurate, or in the least, misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments should be listed in temporal order. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

new content/organization introduced May 3
There are so many grammatical and factual errors in the new content, I don't even know where to start. I'm not sure why someone would make so many edits without signing in. I'm not sure why they would avoid discussion as well. I created a new article (the text of which is linked below), because in trying to edit the article that has existed here, there was just too much that needed fixing. Some users have been engaging in editing wars, not using valid account names, not signing in, etc. I'm not sure why such an innocuous issue should attract so much bad faith editing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

--This article really is pretty much crap right now. I think someone with a high school diploma wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.45.95 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic Inflation?
I wonder whether the change from Bachelor of Laws to Doctor of Law as the initial qualification for legal practice is a form of "grade inflation," as seen in other professions in the USA? Pharmacists, physiotherapists, optometrists, etc, all qualify as doctors nowadays. Most fields where a master's degree used to be customary now seem to require a doctorate. Does everybody get an alpha grade or first class degree now?

There is a curious inversion of the European cursus honorum, where a JD may now be followed by an LLM, or an MD by an MS or MPH.

It could, of course, mean that higher standards of academic preparation are required now than in the past, but if that is the case it is strange that the American JD, as compared with the non-American LLB, eschews "academic" and "scholarly" content and does not require any sort of thesis or dissertation.

Similarly, most tertiary level academics seem to be Professors of one sort or another in the US, unlike the UK where most teaching is done by lecturers and senior lecturers (and a few readers). Private institutions in India tend now to appoint Assistant Professors rather than Lecturers and Associate Professors rather than Senior Lecturers.

Could these be examples of Gresham's Law in action? NRPanikker (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you see the treatment of this in the "debate" section at the end of the article? Feel free to add to that, if you wish.  I think that if US attorneys with a JD referred to themselves as "Dr." that would make the case, but luckily such professionals have more social sense than to engage in such behavior... after all, if a shark isn't at least a little subtle, it will never eat. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One point to consider is that while in other fields it is the scholars and such that are at the forefront as far as producing content, authority in law is largely based around the courts. In a rather simplistic example, a scholar in a science field can sometimes be viewed as an ultimate authority on a subject, but a legal scholar rarely (if ever) gets this distinction as their opinions on the matter are largely just interesting (or incredibly boring) reading unless the courts agree. So in reality, the only ones making actual contributions to the legal field with true authoritative weight are the courts. I think it's also important to remember that Doctor just means "teacher" in latin, which is the foundational meaning in JD. A holder of a JD should be qualified to "teach" law. I think this is underscored a great deal in the legal education system since they (largely) teach you how to analyze and think rather than just cram your heads full of facts (that's what bar review courses are for). Also, law school exams are largely miniature dissertations where you are required to analyze, present and defend a viewpoint, and as such are much more akin to "research" than bachelor's level education. However, it certainly isn't in-depth original research/ideas, which is why the title Dr shouldn't be applied to JDs (tisk tisk on those few that use it). Just some thoughts... Cquan (after the beep...) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about J.D. holding attorney working in a country where it is typical for an attorney (who only holds one university degree) to use the title of doctor? (such as in S. America) Should that J.D. holder avoid using a title to which she is entitled? Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I meant in the US where the title has certain assumptions and it is unusual for a lawyer to use the title. If it is local convention, then there's no problem. Cquan (after the beep...) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Spanish language materials (marketing, website, letterhead, etc) of attorneys working in communities in the U.S. of people from those countries (such as in L.A. and Miami)? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I think that's another special case. If in Spanish it's common and not confusing usage, then sure. But those same people shouldn't use the title where it's not considered common or appropriate usage. Since the terms in both English and Spanish are related, the distinction due to language isn't especially evident. As an example, I haven't met a Japanese lawyer (and I know a good few) that goes by "Dr." in English, even though the equivalent title Hakushi means just that. In general, in U.S. English at least, Dr. immediately identifies a medical profession doctor or a PhD-type degree. Someone would have to think through it a bit to think a lawyer and meeting a lawyer that goes by Dr. would probably make someone think that they have another degree. Just my take on the subject. My mother has a PhD and JD so she never had to change her title one way or the other, which she was happy about:-P. Cquan (after the beep...) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Combined LLB/JD programs
The list of programs has been moved under the Canadian list. However, there is not only a US/Canadian venture. There is also at least one program I am aware of that is between Columbia and the University of London. Why was this one deleted? Can we please also list this one and any others like it. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As described in my edit, this content was moved to another section of the article, since a combined program is not really a different kind of J.D. The York/NYU program is not related to the J.D. at all, since it's a LL.B./LL.M. program (see citation in article).  The UofLondon program you mention is the one at LSE, which is already mentioned, I believe in the debate section.  It's hard to put that section anywhere else.  The programs you have mentioned are the only ones I have found.  If you find others, please feel free to add them.  I removed the section because it was misplaced, and because there are so few such programs.  If there are more, I hope we can find them. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong edits
An unidentified user incorrectly edited sections on Hong Kong, possibly to push the POV of raising the status of the Hong Kong J.D. No citations were provided. The following citations will be added, since this user has created contention on these points: The Hong Kong J.D. only takes two years for a normal course of study (CUHK: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/prospectiveStudents/jd03.html ; CityU http://www.cityu.edu.hk/slw/english/programmes/courses/jd.htm ). In addition, no citations have been provided for the claim that the J.D. in Hong Kong is officially considered at the LL.M. level (or at one time was), or that the J.D. is any different than the LL.B. in content or level of instruction. If citations for any of the content proposed by the user is available, please add them to the article. If the user who made the edits reads this: please read the wiki article on verifiability. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to have changed so many edits, as I don't want to discourage contributions. Therefore, here is my explanation to my changes:

The table:
 * removed incorrect reference to Hong Kong J.D. being more than 2 years. Removed unsupported claim that level of study any different.

The Hong Kong section: Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "main" changed to "undergraduate". move "undergraduate" and add "primary" where "main" was. Justification: The J.D. is a new and rare degree in Hong Kong.  Almost all licensed practitioners educated in Hong Kong hold a LL.B., not a J.D.  Therefore, "primary" more descriptive of the professional environment.
 * Removed statement that Hong Kong LL.B. requires four years of study, because many UK LL.B. programs also require the same, and therefore is not a point of distinction.
 * Removed all reference to the J.D. being more than two years (since it's not true), and added citations.
 * Removed reference to U.S. and Australian schools, since it's not relevant to the section.
 * Removed unsupported reference to J.D. classification.
 * Removed content re: J.D. requiring 3x more courses than LL.M. because unsupported.
 * Restored cited material about the J.D. not being a doctorate in Hong Kong.
 * Removed content about increases in enrollment because unsupported.


 * The changes described above have been a continuing issue. It is appearant from the phrases used and the content changed that these changes are made by the same individual.  So far, that individual has not replied to any attempts of discussion, and has even been blocked.  Nonetheless, the user has persisted with various aliases, including: 220.246.130.135, Orielense, 219.79.199.219, 219.77.226.3.  This user has assumed the unexplained right to change content to the HK section by removing verified information with information that directly contradicts verified info.  It appears that this is an attempt to raise the perceived status of the JD in HK. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

scholarly vs. research
An editor stated that it's "incorrect and non-factual" to use the term "scholarly" in this article. It actually was correct useage, which can be verified by cites. Please read John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996. which is cited in the article. As used in this article, the two terms are synonymous, so it's not a content issue. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation comments
I saw this article at WP:GAN. Just a comment based on WP:FN, but using "idem" as a citation is a problem if anyone ever adds a reference between the original and the "idem". Even now, citation 21 probably does not refer to citation 20. Someone should replace all the "idem" with the author name (and year if necessary); I would do it but I can't tell for sure what they refer to. Also consider replacing the bare URLs with author/title/publisher/date. Gimmetrow 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes have been implemented. Thank you for your suggestion.  All citations should now be in correct format. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Executive Juris Doctor
The proposed content for the Executive Juris Doctor contains opinion, non-verified content, misleading information and grammatical errors. Therefore, the section has been edited. Here are comments about the changes:


 * The phrasing of the first sentence is misleading because it insinuates that there are other institutions that are not for-profit institutions which offer the degree.


 * The emphasis of accreditation by placing the clause in the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence structure strange. It is more clear to have it in a separate sentence.


 * Witkin is at the university, not vice-versa.


 * The last paragraph contained much unsupported opinion drawn from marketing materials of the schools.

I welcome your comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

various edits by 206.205.104.66 re history, etc.
There were numerous edits by 206.205.104.66 to various sections, with comments to the edits.

The user asks what the M.D. has to do with the J.D. There is a connection because it was in the minds of the creators of the J.D. to produce a law equivalent to the M.D. (which is mention specifically in the citations), and because the M.D. was the first American professional doctorate following a new didactic paradigm originating in 19th century U.S., and the J.D. was the second.

It was said in removing content re Roosevelt receiving the J.D. that an honorary doctor is not the same as a J.D., which is true, however that degree was in fact awarded as a J.D., and it is relevant content.

It was said in removing content re history that this article is not about the general history of legal studies. This is also true. However, the content (which could be abbreviated) is important because most of it cannot be found in any other article, and because a misunderstanding of this important information has led to many to misunderstand the J.D. (i.e. thinking that the J.D. is a novel creation by modern U.S. institutions trying to inflate or aggrandize the profession).

Finally, it was said concerning the first degree at universities being a doctorate of law that the statement is an assumption of law not based on fact. However, there are citations for that statement in the following section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles
The Titles section needs a little attention (actually, this whole article is rather poorly written). An attorney is a title given to a person who has been authorized to act in another's stead. Attorney-at-law is the title which indicates licensure to practice law. It is a lot like the certified public accountant (CPA), or professional engineer (PE) designation. 75.68.192.62 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With such a vision of the article, you are obviously the perfect editor to improve it. We look forward to your contributions.  The article is about the J.D. and not attorneys.  Part of the reason for the questionable drafting of the titles and debate section is because it is the product of a long editing war. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Transcluded from Talk:Juris_Doctor/GA2:

JD using Dr title in academic circles
JD users sometimes use the title of Dr in academic circles. The content is supported by citations. This topic was also discussed in archived talk pages. This does not contradict the fact that the JD is a professional degree, because the JD is still awarded by a university. Other professional doctorate holders also use the Dr title in academic circles. Please correct me (with citations) if I'm mistaken. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point here was to correct an apparent contradiction. You've made good arguments that the JD is a professional degree and stressed the difference between a professional degree and an academic degree. But then, you go on to say that the title "Dr." is not used in a professional setting but is used in an academic setting. I'm not seeing how that squares with the aforementioned professional/academic distinction. Wikiant (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the statement in question is cited to an unverifiable source (I checked and couldn't find it online at the site linked), and even if it were available in paper form, it is not a binding authority, only a persuasive one. Furthermore, even if it were, it is only applicable to North Carolina, not the entire country, and the statements in question don't reflect that. Whether or not it is contradictory is not the biggest concern, but the fact that it is failing reliable sources policy and verifiability is.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your inability to check the source is your problem, not the source's. The opinion of a U.S. state bar association is prima facie a reliable source giving evidence that the practice is permitted in some part of the U.S. Gimmetrow 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? It's my fault? The source does not seem to exist. The burden is on you to thoroughly source your outrageous claim. You have failed to do so. Furthermore, your statement does not say "some part of the u.s." It implies the entire US supports the practice. This is very clearly not the case. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you removed a reliable source because you couldn't find it. It does exist. And look at the history carefully before claiming who did what. Gimmetrow 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is not reliable just because you say it is. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. If the source exists, link to it instead of acting like a complete ass and arguing the point. Back it up or back down. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A full citation for the source is "Use of the Title "Doctor" in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007." It exists. I didn't add it, in fact, but I verified that it exists using the directions someone else put in the note. If you can't follow directions, that's not my problem. Gimmetrow 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is precisely your problem. WP:REDFLAG requires excellent sourcing for extraordinary claims. The reference in question says that it exists online. It doesn't. If it does, provide a link to it. Otherwise, you need better sources than just one state bar's position paper which does not have any reflection on the other 49 states. Surely you can find multiple sources to back your statement up. If not, that's prima facie evidence that it does not meet WP:REDFLAG. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What "extraordinary claim" - that someone with a J.D. may in some academic settings in the U.S. use "doctor"? The NC bar text is there, and in the face of an editor (actually two) telling you it's there, you still remove it because you can't find it, that's your problem. Gimmetrow 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The J.D. is a professional degree, but it is still a university degree, and not one granted by a professional body. A university is an academic institution, but the degree is a professional one.  It's a matter of categories.  Also, the J.D. qualifies one to be a full faculty member in any law school, and depending on the university sometimes also in other departments.


 * The citation is valid and can be found at that website. The opinion is from a professional body located in North Carolina, but it discusses general practice in academic institutions nation-wide.  The citation, meets the wiki requirements of verifiability, which are not the same requirements in law (binding authority), or even in peer-reviewed articles.  If you have further contentions I invite you to initiate a dispute resolution process. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re forum That link was not submitted as "authority" or as a reliable source, which is why it is included in the descriptive part of the footnote and is not in the standard citation format. It is useful, though, as it enriches the content for the benefit of the readers, and it is relevant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is precisely what is bothering me about the title argument. Zoticogrillo, your original solution for this page seemed reasonable in that you made a clear distinction between academic and professional degrees. Since then, your arguments are appearing to shift ground -- citing sometimes academic and sometimes professional authorities as the need arises. For example, the original claim was that the state bar's opinion on using the title was relevant because the JD was a professional degree. Fine. But, then you say that the title is not used in professional circles though it can be used in academic circles. But, the source you cited (the NC bar) isn't academic -- it is professional. To claim that the bar is "discussing general practice in academic institutions" makes the source hearsay. I haven't seen an *academic* source stating that the JD is a doctorate (apart from the circular reasoning that "JD is a doctorate because the D stands for "doctor"), and many sources (you've seen the citations) that suggest that the JD is not, academically, a doctoral-level degree. Wikiant (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you're trying to argue semantics, but you are confusing categories. I don't know how to respond to your comments without repeating myself.  There are numerous citations which state the facts as asserted in this article, and the article is well supported.  Your attempt to label some citations as academic and others as professional is tenuous.  Again, the type of organization and the type of the degree are different, and your attempt to cross them is confusing.  I think it would be most useful to rely on the wiki standards of verifiability, instead of attempting to attack the sources the way you have. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's exactly the categorization of the sources that's required. An opinion from the NC bar matters when it comes to how the JD is regarded in professional circles because the NC bar is a professional authority. The bar, however, has no source authority when it comes to how the JD is regarded in academic circles because the NC bar is not a degree-granting institution. Thus, what sources are cited for what passages matters greatly. Wikiant (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But we are in wiki land, and not a peer-reviewed article. The citation is not "primary" and it is not "authoritative," but it is reliable, supportive and relevant.  The content is logical, and the connection with the citation is direct and clear.  I'm sorry that you don't like it, but there's no reason that obligates removing it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ABA permits the title "doctor" to JD holders in circumstances that are not "misleading". cites quite a few state bar opinions. The NC opinion in particular says that in all contexts except post-secondary education, a JD holder may not use the title "doctor"; this is among the more restrictive opinions. Other states allow more liberal use of the title. What's the problem? Gimmetrow 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's policy is: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..." The NC bar is not a reliable source for use of the title "Dr." in academia because the bar is a professional, not an academic, institution. This is no different from using a Ph.D. in chemistry as a source for critiquing the works of Thomas Hardy. Wikiant (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any source denying its use in academia? Can you demonstrate that the title may not be used in any academic circumstances in NC? Gimmetrow 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The NC bar is completely reliable since it is a nationally recognized professional body trusted with the competence to regulate the practice of law in a major US state. The wiki article says that the source must be reliable.  Although it might not be authoritative on this particular topic (academic practice nationally), it does have a degree of general reliability.  Wiki policy does not state to what degree of reliability.  A clearly unreliable source would be a forum or blog from joe blow.  A Bar Association is an official organization with a modicum of reliability (i.e. we know that they don't lie and that they don't just pull things out of their ears).  Arguably more than many local newspapers and some poorly managed academic publications.  If it is this important to you, why don't you help us find an alternative citation, and if you can't find one (like me), then why not just accept this as the best we can do?  Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First: Wiki policy puts the onus of finding a source on the editor who writes the text (that's you). I attempted to side-step the issue by including wording to the effect that the NC bar was authoritative insofar as use of the title in professional circles is concerned. I left academic circles unaddressed. You removed that edit in an attempt to expand the NC bar opinion to an area in which it has no competence. Second: No, wiki policy does not state the required degree of reliability. But this question is not about the degree of reliability. It is about the scope of reliability. Following your logic, one might quote Jesus who admonished people to avoid titles. Like the NC bar, he is not authoritative in this particular topic, but does have a degree of general reliability (he doesn't lie and doesn't pull things out of his ear). Wikiant (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to change in the article? Because it's not really clear what you want. Unless a particular college has contrary rules, JD holders in the U.S. working in academia can follow their state opinion and may use the "Dr" title if that's allowed. Whatever dispute you're making about (which isn't clear to me), it applies to a fairly narrow situation: academics with only a JD (no research doctorate where the title would presumably not be disputed by you), and not using the academic title "Professor". Gimmetrow 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What I sought (my change was reverted) was removal of the following passage:
 * "On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context."
 * My rationale is that the appropriateness of using the title "Dr." in an academic setting should either (a) be left unaddressed (which was the intent of my edit), or (b) cite an academic authority as the NC bar (being a professional authority) is not an authority within the scope of academia. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to beat the issue up, and at the risk of sounding aggressive (but in hopes of adding clarity): in response to (a), the content is relevant, interesting, and enriches the content of the article for the benefit of the readers, (b) the wiki standards are not "authority" but "reliability," and we should not remove content just because we can't find a hypothetical ideal citation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We appear to be at an impasse concerning the WP policy on what constitutes an acceptable authority. I suggest we submit this for third party arbitration. The point of contention, as I see it, is this: NC bar is being cited as an authority within the scope of academic activities. The arguments, as I see them are: (1) All parties agree that NC bar is a reliable authority. WP policy states that reliable authorities can be cited, hence NC bar can be cited, versus (2) All parties agree that NC bar is an authority within the scope of professional activities, but not within the scope of academic activities, hence NC bar should not be cited. Wikiant (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting framing. Why is authority an issue?  Are you saying that if something is not authoritative, it is not true?  Are you saying that authority and reliability are synonyms?  Are you saying that wiki policy does not state that reliability is the test of a valid citation?  The NC bar has a degree of authority regarding academic activities, as compared to other possible sources.  Why must the scope of subject matter from an organization be limited in such an absolute way?  If we are children and know nothing of astro-physics, and an expert in botany makes a statement about the sun, must we dismiss what that expert says?


 * The issue is possibly more simple: Is the truth of the content supported by a verifiable third party source? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, am I correct that your argument boils down to the following: A valid citation is one that comes from a verifiable and reliable third party source *regardless of whether or not that source is an authority on the subject being quoted?* Wikiant (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some might view your repeated attempts to frame the argument as manipulative. I disagree with your characterization of this particular citation being completely non-authoritative, I disagree with your statement that something must either be authoritative or not, I disagree with your attempt to generalize and force a logical conclusion which is ignorant of the relevant facts, I disagree with your attempt to create new rules beyond those determined by wiki consensus, and I disagree with the implication that there is an authoritative source which contradicts the content we are discussing.  Please just let my own statements stand as they are.  The citation is verifiable. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you *disagree* with. I'm attempting to clarify what we *agree* with. Again: am I correct that your argument boils down to the following: A valid citation is one that comes from a verifiable and reliable third party source *regardless of whether or not that source is an authority on the subject being quoted?* If not, please state what you *do* agree with. Wikiant (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are incorrect. That is, your phrasing of the argument is incorrect.  Furthermore, re-phrasing of the argument at all is unnecessary and misleading.
 * It appears that you have tired of my postings. If you understood my thinking, why would you be asking for another clarification?  By re-phrasing the argument, you are trying to force me to chose between things that you have selected, and I'm saying the game is rigged.  It's a kind of straw man.  I believe you understand this.  It appears that you are trying to clarify and simplify things, but it's possible that you don't understand the consequences or implications.  Which could be why you don't understand WHY I say the game is rigged.  And this could be why my responses have seemed to you prolix and redundant.  If this is the case, I invite you to re-read them, because I believe they fully respond to your postings.
 * It is not necessary for us to argue about wiki policies in this discussion. They are clearly stated [Wikipedia:Verifiability|here].
 * Again, the citation which is the subject of this conversation meets all wiki standards of verifiability. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this "framing" is still odd. The JD in the U.S. is a professional doctorate, the ABA said it's OK for JD holders to use "Dr" (within limitations), and some JD holders in U.S. academia use the title. So, unless there is a reliable source saying current academic and ABA-sanctioned practice is wrong, what's the dispute? Gimmetrow 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the dispute is that Wikiant believes that the content is untrue, and that the citation used to assert its truth does not carry the weight required to prove the content. We are both waiting for Wikiant to find a citation that states that the content is untrue.  I don't believe that the citation need carry any such probative weight, but that it merely provide a minimal degree of relevance and reliability, giving the reader an outside reference, or verifiable source.  Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that the source lies, or is incompetent as to the subject matter.  Although the source is not from an academic organization, both the state and national bar associations regulate professional legal education within the state, therefore those organizations are familiar with academic practice and the connection between them and academia is possibly not so far removed as is claimed.  Therefore I believe that Wikiant's argument is tenuous, even if we assume his approach to be correct.  And the approach is certainly different than wiki standards.  Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Zoticogrillo understands my argument. WP puts the onus on you, not me, to find the source. I thought my original solution quite reasonable (rephrase to apply the NC bar statement to professional use and leave academic use unaddressed). From my perspective, you believe that the content is true and are attempting to extend a citation beyond its appropriate scope in an attempt to bolster your position. That, I find tenuous. I suggest we submit this issue for third party arbitration. Wikiant (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And the citation has been found. The citation provided actually states the exact thing which it is provided to support.  You have not provided any citations which contradict it, and have not proven the citation unreliable.  Arbitration is a jump in the dispute resolution process, and can subject this forum to an arbitrary decision by an individual, which is not consensus.  One of the many alternatives is to submit the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been submitted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comment. here Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've studied the issue anew, and I've changed my mind. I was distracted by the argumentation of this discussion, and had perhaps forgotten about the content of the source. I recommend that the content be altered, as recommended here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The J.D article states:


 * The existence of the S.J.D. has sometimes caused confusion. For example, it is claimed that since a doctorate is the highest degree in a university,[119] and the J.D. is not a terminal degree,[120][121] the J.D. is therefore not a doctorate. Some of the reasons cited for stating that the J.D. is not a terminal degree are that the LL.M. and S.J.D. both require the J.D. for admission, and that the J.D. is a first professional degree in law, just like the LL.B.[122] It has also been stated that since the S.J.D. is the doctorate equivalent of the Ph.D., and the J.D. is not, the J.D. is not a doctorate. However, the S.J.D. and J.D. are completely different kinds of degrees—the S.J.D. is a research doctorate and the J.D. is a professional doctorate'"


 * I cannot see though how the "However"-clause above is logically connected to the previous sentences in the paragraph or somehow contradicts them. One point is very clear: academic degrees have an inherent hierarchy determined by the fact that earning a "lower" degree is a pre-requisite for admission into a course of study leading to a "higher" one. In the United States, one cannot be normally awarded a master's degree (LL.M) or a research doctorate (S.J.D) in Law without previously earning a first professional degree (J.D or foreign equivalent) first. Likewise, in British universities, an UK LLB/BA or an American J.D are deemed equivalent for the purpose of admission to a program leading to a first postgraduate degree (normaly LLM or, in the case of Oxford, the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law). Holding an LLM or equivalent on the other hand is normally required to pursue a PhD degree in Law (American J.D's for example are not automatically admitted to a PhD program in Oxford or Cambridge without earning a master's degree first !).


 * There is no doubt then that, in terms of academic standing, a J.D is hierarchically inferior to an LLM/LL.M, BCL (Oxon.), PhD/Ph.D, or S.J.D. American universities, for some bizarre reason, have chosen to follow the (continental European, though not English) medieval practice of naming the first degree awarded by the "higher" faculties (medicine and law) "doctorates". Oxford University on the contrary still refers to the initial degrees in the higher faculties as bachelor's degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, or Bachelor of Civil Law, both of which are of graduate-entry level), while using the more recent terminology of "Doctor of Philosophy" (DPhil) to refer indistinctively to all research doctorates, both in the "higher faculties" and the "lower" ones (i.e arts and sciences). In the US, "Ph.D" or, more rarely, "Sc.D" are also used as titles for research doctorates in arts and sciences (including engineering in the latter category), whereas the "S.J.D" has been introduced as the equivalent research doctorate in the Faculty of Law. In fact, a quick look at the S.J.D sitefrom the Harvard Law School suggests that the S.J.D program is structured exactly like a typical U.S Ph.D program, i.e. an initial stage consisting of advanced course work and an oral qualifying exam, followed by a research stage (including seminars) culminating in the submission of an original dissertation and an oral defense.


 * In light of the arguments above, I submit that the J.D. article must be throughly re-written to reflect the proper and correct hierarchy of academic degrees and avoid furter misconceptions. 200.177.32.92 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: See also and  for a description of the pyramid of Law degrees in the Oxonian tradition.

What gives?
Zoticogrillo, I don't understand. I thought that this issue was resolved. Specifically, the statement "The North Carolina Bar Association explicitly permits the use of the title in academic contexts as well" should be removed because the NC bar is not a relevant source. You agreed. I removed the passage. Now you've put it back. What's up? Wikiant (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Wikiant, no deception was intended on my part. Like I said, I agree with Metropolitan90, and the use of the citation is the same as his suggestion.  I just further revised the content to conform more narrowly to the citation.  Besides quoting the citation, I don't know how else we could revise it.  Suggestions? Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the current use of this citation ("The North Carolina Bar Association permits the use of the title in post-secondary academic contexts in that state") is acceptable. The N.C. Bar is a relevant source for purposes of discussing what is ethical and proper for attorneys in their state to do. Of course, it only represents the standard for one of the 50 states. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This cites opinions for a number of U.S. states. Gimmetrow 03:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Appears to be not relevant to academic use, right? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To be true to the citation and WP policy, the text should say something like, "The NC bar has not barred recipients of the J.D. degree from using the title "Dr." in academia." Given the "relevance" criterion, NC bar can't be cited for *allowing* the use of "Dr." but can be cited for not preventing the use. Wikiant (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why you would say that, but it's possibly too strict of an interpretation to be required. After researching the issue, I am not aware of any bar association that has stated that use of the title in academic settings is prohibited. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To use the title "Dr." in academia, two conditions must be met: (1) professional bodies that certify lawyers must permit the use, and (2) academic institutions that bestow the degrees must permit the use. The NC bar citation proves the first condition only. While the citation does use words to the effect that "J.D.'s can use the title," when read in the proper context (i.e., keeping in mind the scope of NC bar's authority as a citable source), a proper phrasing for the purpose of the WP article is something like: "The NC bar does not prohibit J.D.'s from using the title in academia." Wikiant (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so, back to that. The J.D. is a doctorate, and a doctorate confers the right to use the Dr. title in academia.  Show me evidence otherwise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is becoming tiresome. If your argument is "J.D. is a doctorate and a doctorate confers the right to use..." then make that statement. At present, you're making a different statement as a means of expanding the NC bar citation beyond the scope of its authority. Wikiant (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Wikiant wrote:


 * "To use the title "Dr." in academia, two conditions must be met: (1) professional bodies that certify lawyers must permit the use, and (2) academic institutions that bestow the degrees must permit the use."


 * To me, the question is not really whether U.S lawyers are (legally) allowed to use the "Dr." title, but rather whether it would be appropriate and/or socially acceptable for them to do so. On that last point, despite the odd US practice of referring to several first professional degrees as "doctorates", the most commonly held opinion in academic circles (outside the Faculties of Law and Medicine ?) is to identify the term "doctorate" with the modern research degree introduced by German universities in the 19th century and nowadays referred to in most US/UK universities as a PhD or DPhil degree. Thus, most academics outside the legal profession would probably resent the use of the Dr. title by a lawyer who does not hold a research doctorate (for example, a SJD degree). Conversely, academics and the broader population in general are far more acceptant of the use of the Dr. title by physicians/surgeons, not only because of the official designation of their degree in the U.S ("Doctor of Medicine" or MD), but also because, in the vernacular English language, "doctor", among other meanings, also came to be viewed as a synonym for "a person who has been trained in medical science", as registered by the Oxford English Dictionary. Toeplitz (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: Let me just add that I was looking today at the Admissions Site of the London School of Economics (Zoticogrillo's "favo(u)rite" school in England) and it struck me that the American B.A., B.S. and J.D. are listed together as U.S academic degrees that the LSE deems acceptable as a requirement for admission into one of its master's program(me)s. That seems to reinforce the idea that, outside the U.S, the J.D. is viewed as a bachelor's level degree even though it is actually a graduate degree. That was quite surprising to me and, I believe, is worth mentioning in the Wiki article. Toeplitz (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please add it to the "Debate about Academic Status" section. Years of edits on this page have shown editors to be in agreement only that there is disagreement, so the more information that is brought to the fore, the better. Wikiant (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikiant: there shouldn't be any controversy. The best authority to settle this matter is the U.S. Department of Education, which, in its own site (referenced by Zoticogrillo), refers to the J.D. as a "first professional degree", not as a "professional doctorate". In other words, the term "professional doctorate" doesn't appear to be sanctioned by the U.S. federal government. In any case, whatever the U.S practice is, the term "professional doctorate" does not appear to be used elsewhere in the world; in fact, most universities overseas rank the American J.D as a bachelor's or a master's degree, not as a doctorate. Since the Wikipedia is universal, not US-centric, I don't see why U.S usage should prevail over international convention.


 * I'm afraid the J.D and other related articles (Doctorate, academic degree, etc.) have been hijacked by editors who are not academics themselves and do not really understand how different degrees are ranked/classified in academia.


 * PS: Note that, in the UK, there are now degrees like the EngD which are sometimes called "vocational doctorates" or "professional doctorates", but they are completely diifferent from a J.D. in the sense that: (a) they are terminal degrees, and (b) they are research-based.


 * Toeplitz (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There in fact isn't any real controversy at all. Innumerable exceptionally credible sources, from both in and outside the U.S., have clearly stated that the J.D. is a doctorate, and not a single source with any degree of relevance or credibility has ever stated that "the J.D. is not a doctorate." Therefore, the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a fringe theory with no verifiability or basis in fact. The claim that this so called controversial idea is uninformed or ignorant is odd and incongruous, as this article is replete with numerous quality citations for nearly every sentence it contains. Therefore, any complaint as to the content of this article does not take issue with so called hijacking editors (a conspiracy theory), but takes issue with the sources the article cites (such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, books published by Oxford University Press, the University of Melbourne, etc.). Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, that isn't a fair assessment. There is plenty of controversy, with accompanying documentation, in the "academic status" section of the article. As far as I can see, there are only two points on which all editors agree: (1) that the JD is *called* a doctorate, and (2) that the JD is a first-professional degree. Wikiant (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * True only without any qualifying punctuation or emphasis around the word, "except."
 * While some editors might have those opinions, it doesn't mean that those opinions are based on logic or truth. Evidence for the marginal nature of those opinions is found in the fact that the article is supported by credible sources, and those with the marginal opinion has no credible support whatsoever. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a "fringe theory with no verifiability". Yet, as we have seen, the U.S. Department of Education, in the site you yourself quoted, never uses the term "professional doctorate", referring to the J.D. as a "first-professional degree" instead. In fact, if you search for "professional doctorate" for example in the NCES (National Center of Education Statistics) Report on Postgraduate Education, you will get, surprise, surprise, zero returns ! Throughout the document, including all tables and texts, the NCES, which is linked to the U.S. DOE, always mantains the distinction between "master's", "doctoral", and "first-professional" students as 3 separate categories.


 * In fact, with the exception of one NSF site you quoted, where there was only a tangential reference to "professional doctorate" in an explanatory note, most other "authoritative sources" in your J.D. article appear to come from U.S universities (or associations of U.S. universities) themselves. One of those references, the so-called "glossary of academic terms" backs its own definition of "professional doctorate" by referring to a webpage at http://www.answers.com, which, in turn, is actually the English Wikipedia Doctorate article (talking about circular references, I couldn't find a better textbook example !!).


 * In reality, it is hardly surprising that some U.S. universities (but not all) would insist on using the terminology "professional doctorate" given that they were the ones who decided in the first place to call first-professional degrees doctorates! However, as Wikiant pointed out, the fact that some first-professional degrees in America are called "doctorates" by some people do not make them doctorates in the modern universal interpretation of the term, nor is the J.D. for example ranked at a doctoral level in academic circles, as shown by the example I provided from the LSE graduate admission sites or the Degree Programs site at the Harvard Law School itself.


 * By referring to the J.D. as "doctorate", or including the J.D. in the separate Doctorate article, you are introducing a partial, controversial, and U.S-centric POV that may be misleading to many Wiki readers. All that on top of an abundant use in your articles, as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, of non-encyclopedic language full of inappropriate qualifiers such as "revolutionary approach" to describe the push for creation of the modern American Law degrees. Toeplitz (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is natural that this article discuss the situation in the U.S. so much (giving it a U.S. centric flavor), because the J.D. is a U.S. degree. The first doctorate in the U.S. was the M.D.  The J.D. showed up just a bit after the first Ph.D. in the U.S.  Therefore it is the Ph.D. that is the modern novelty in the U.S.  Yes, you are right, it is the universities that have called the degree a professional doctorate.  Please explicate the argument that the universities are not the primary authority on academia.  Furthermore, with research you will find many articles discussing the bias and influence of scholars from certain backgrounds (Ph.D.s in sociology, polisci, etc.) dominating bureaucratic offices and having undue influence on those governmental offices.  Therefore, who cares what the government says?  The source which you state causes circular reasoning in its use does not use citations anywhere, but only provides links to websites for more detailed information, therefore that is obviously the case for the mentioned entry as well.  This dominant fact still remains: There is no credible source that has ever said, "the J.D. is not a doctorate," and many credible sources that explicitly state that it is. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FranklinFields August 26th edits
FranklinFields added a bunch of content to this article without providing any citations, and the added content directly contradicted verifiable content in this article and in other articles. Some editors have argued that this was a valid questioning of the content. However, it was clearly in error, and based on wiki policy it warranted immediate removal. One of the statements, that the J.D. is the only 3 year program, cannot be directly cited because it would require the citation of information on every single doctorate degree, therefore a demand for a citation in that case is unreasonable. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but let's apply the same standard of rigor to all statements in the article. There are other statements in the article that are phrased in absolute terms yet cite a single example. For example:
 * "In countries where holders of the first law degree use the title of doctor, J.D. holders who are attorneys will often use the title of doctor as well." (Implication is that the statement is true for multiple countries, but the source describes the US only and then, only when the Spanish language is used.)
 * It seems that a more even-handed solution would have been to introduce a qualifier into the sentence (example, "...*at some institutions* the J.D. is the only 3 year program...") rather than to delete the edit. Zoticogrillo you've done a marvelous job cleaning up this article, but more frequently your protection of this article gives the appearance of violating WP:OWN policy. Wikiant (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere in the article it is shown in great detail that the "standard" J.D. program is three years, and that is the case for ALL schools in all jurisdictions except for Hong Kong and the Philippines.
 * The citation about the use of the title of doctor states that such is the custom in Spanish speaking countries, doesn't it? It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken about a citation's content.
 * Thanks again for your compliment. I've been endeavoring to avoid "owning" the article, and I believe I have succeeded, in that I only object to edits that are clearly in error or vandalism.  This article has the misfortune to the a regular victim to such edits, and no one else seems to really address it.  I have appreciated your challenges to improve the citations in the article, as they give me a bit of a puzzle to work out as a passtime.  But I'm lazy, so I fight you on it when I can.  And, I'm getting sick of this topic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3 year dental degree
The recent edit eliminating content stating that the J.D. is the only 3 year doctorate was in error, and was "undone." The edit summary stated that a simple web search would reveal that many DDS degrees are also three years. The advertisements of those dental schools (such as the University of Pacific in San Francisco) are misleading. It's 3 years because there is no summer break. J.D. programs, like other programs, have a summer break. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "unique" justified though? Unless a source actually says there is no other 3-year professional doctorate, the text should probably just say something like "unusual". Gimmetrow 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After more than two years of people saying on this discussion page that the J.D. is not a doctorate because it's only 3 years (and that it's the only such degree), I can't believe this conversation is really happening. Yes, it's justified and true.  It's easy to search the other doctorate degree articles on wikipedia to confirm.  Have fun :)  Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:75.117.50.65 claims that there is an inconsistency in the following statement: "It is the only professional doctorate in law, and is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program in most jurisdictions (many doctorates are four years or longer)." It is claimed that there is a logical inconsistency between "unique" and "most." There are no doctorates that are 3 years long in any jurisdiction, therefore the degree is indeed unique. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be due to equivocation. You start off talking about doctorates in law, then switch to talking about doctorates. By the time you get to "most jurisdictions," I don't know whether you're talking about doctorates in general or doctorates in law. Wikiant (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The logic of grammar is helpful here. "It" is the subject of the sentence.  In order for the subject to change, the grammar would be completely incorrect.  It is reasonable to assume that the author intended to use correct grammar. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if one follows the grammar exactly then I believe that Gimmetrow is correct. The statement in question says, "(The JD) is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program..." The DDS degree is three years, hence the JD is not unique among doctorate programs. (Also, I know of some people -- they are few -- who have done Ph.D.'s in three years.) Wikiant (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? The DDS is not three years, it's four. See the archives.  Maybe you can have some of the people you know write in and say hi? :P  Citations are always an improvement to the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one US school (UOP) that grants the DDS degree in 3 years. Also, there are a few medical schools in Canada (also LCME accredited) that grant MD degrees in only 3 years. (Calgary, McMaster, etc.) The MD and DDS degrees are considered "undergraduate degrees" in Canada as well. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anyone read before writing? I'd rather dig my eyeball out with my thumbs that talk about UOP program again.  All DDS programs in the US have the same number of semesters.  Interesting stuff about the MD in Canada.  I wonder if they have summer breaks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It appears that we have a choice. Either (1) insert the single word "professional" into the sentence "It is unique among (professional) doctorate programs..." or (2) attempt to show that *no* doctoral program other than the JD is 3 years. Stick in the word and let's move on. Wikiant (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The M.D. is Canada is 4 years long. Two universities offer a program that has no breaks, and is therefore 3 years long, but has the same number of semesters as the 4 year programs. wiki article. The UOP DDS program is the same. UOP DDS program. Therefore are no doctorates, other than the J.D., that can be completed within 6 semesters. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For both Canada and the U.S., M.D. programs must have at least 130 weeks of instruction. Accreditation Requirements on LCME website And since a semester normally has about 15 weeks of instruction, it's not possible to acquire an M.D. in any less than 8 semesters (or 4 years in a normal program with breaks). Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And all DDS programs "must include at least four academic years of instruction or its equivalent." DEP Standards 2-5 (page 12) Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've given evidence of two professional doctorates that require more than three years. That isn't even adequate for saying, "unique among professional doctorate programs," let alone "unique among doctorate programs." Wikiant (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't those your posts in the archive complaining that the J.D. can't be a valid doctorate because it's only 3 years long, and no other doctorates are three years long? I could be mistaken, but that issue has been often raised nonetheless.
 * The original issue still stands: I can't find any other doctorates that are as short as the J.D. Can you?
 * Those postings were merely addressing posts saying that the MD and DDS are.
 * The article already has one citation about the duration of doctorate programs. Can you find others?  If not, it appears that the content is supported by the citation, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are posing an argument from ignorance. Wikiant (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a citation. I'm asking for your help in finding another, or challenging you to find one that supports your as of yet unfounded contention. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't made a contention. You claimed that the "JD is unique in that it's the only three year doctorate." That statement requires either (a) a reliable citation saying that "the JD is the only 3 year doctorate", or (b) N citations (where N = number of doctorates that exist) stating that such-and-such doctorate is more than three years. You haven't provided (a), and you've provided 2 entries for (b). As N > 2, you haven't supported your use of the word "unique." Again, as you insist on using the word "unique," it is your responsibility to provide evidence for its use, not mine to provide evidence against. Wikiant (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation provided states that doctorates are 4 years or more. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there are other doctorates that are three years long, why don't you mention this? Your strict stance on the required citation, which is in addition to wiki policies, without mentioning your belief that any such doctorates exist make your edits appear to be in bad faith.  I know that's probably not your intent, but come on, "where's the beef?" Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The D.P.T. degree is three academic years long. This is comparable to a M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S.W., etc. But the M.D./D.O., D.D.S./D.M.D., D.C., O.D., PharmD., N.D., etc., are all four academic years in length, even though many schools will try to put them into fewer calendar years. The situation is more complicated in some cases, where a previous master's degree can be counted against the time for a doctoral degree (e.g. the transition D.P.T., or a DNP, and possibly the Doctor of Architecture). The 22 June 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article that criticizes the D.P.T. and its ilk for, among other things, watering down the meaning of 'doctorate'. JJL (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The second citation in Footnote 7 says that some doctorates are beginning to require many years (many = more than 5) to complete. Nowhere does it say that *all* doctorates with the exception of the JD require more than 3 years. "Unique" means "only one." You can't say that the JD is unique in being three years in duration unless you can show that it is the *only* doctorate that is three years in duration. You haven't done that, so "unique" must be stricken. Wikiant (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The DPT is replacing the two-year MPT as a professional requirement. Although it is designed to take three years, the DPT is (as far as I know) a full-time program and takes 8 or 9 semesters. The three-year professional doctorate in psychology is also, as I understand it, a full-time three-year program. Even if the JD's 6-semester curriculum isn't unique and there is some other 6-semester professional doctorate, it sure appears difficult to locate. Gimmetrow 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The citations provided sufficiently meet the wiki standards of verifiability in supporting the content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) edited Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they don't. The verifiability standard states, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." You have provided a source, but no where in the source does it say that the JD is the only 3 year doctorate. The claim that editors cannot find other 3 year doctorates is, at best, original research. At worst, it is a logical fallacy. Wikiant (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, and which fallacy would that be?
 * As you have quoted, the source must support the content. It does not need to prove it.  Particularly when, as it appears you would admit, finding any better source is impossible. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you not reading the posts here? The fallacy is argument from ignorance. Your sources don't support the content. They fail to refute the content. For that matter, the book "Pat the Bunny" fails to refute the content. That doesn't constitute support for the content. Wikiant (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Doctor of Physical Therapy degree is 3 years long. Is someone contesting that there are other 3-year "doctorates"? JJL (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The DPT takes 8-9 semesters; it's a 3-year program because it's full time. The JD is a 6 semester program - it could be done in 2 years if full time. Gimmetrow 03:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If another person posts here without reading the other posts, I'm going to put fluids in my pants and mail a piece to each of you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Something wrong with the explanation? Gimmetrow 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, your JJL's post re DPT. Again, please read previous posts. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The degree is invariably described as being three years (or occasionally 3.5) in duration, and is as few as 90 semester credits at some schools. (Here's one requiring 96 credits .) The summers are often clinical experiences for little credit. Some schools describe it as a 8 or 9 semester program and others don't count the summers that way. The PT's website doesn't proscribe a minimum number of semesters. Indeed, the DPT programs need only meet the same requirements as the MPT programs (per http://www.apta.org and the Chronicle article cited above, pg. A12). That's why some are as short as three (academic) years--it need only be as strong as the 2 year MPT degree. The occupational therapy degree is similar. JJL (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the DPT is replacing the MPT, but it's supposed to be an upgrade on the MPT and I think the clinical experience is required. The JD in most cases has no legal intern requirements - just classwork for 6 semesters. But the existence of degrees like the DPT suggests there is probably some clinical doctorate out there that is not much more than a master's degree with clinical experience, and that would only take 2 years full-time. The Doctor of Occupational Therapy (OTD) might be close. Gimmetrow 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read your posts Wikiant. The article cited provides support for the content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then please identify specifically where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." Neither this statement nor any logically equivalent statement exists in your citation. Wikiant (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, ignoring my argument makes yours more valid or true? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm simply asking you to point out where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." Where does it say this? Wikiant (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already responded to this question. Please read all of the posts above. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't. You have given a citation. So, for the third time, I ask you: Point out where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." If you can't do this, then delete the word "unique." Wikiant (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I wish that I could devote a ton of my free time to really break this terrible article down piece by piece, but I can't. I'll start small. Comparing the length of time (as phrased) to completion among doctoral degrees of different disciplines is ridiculous. A professional degree is structured so that a time to completion is inherent. A "learned" or "academic" doctorate (e.g., Ph.D) is not so structured, and therefore generally has only an "outside" and "inside" boundary for time to completion (e.g. "candidates for the Ph.D must spend a minimum of two years in residency" (inside); "all Ph.D programs must be completed no later than seven years after they begin" (outside)). Debating this (and a host of other issues) further with Zoticogrillo is pointless, for me anyway, for several reasons. First, Zoticogrillo it seems will rarely concede, even after totally irrefutable evidence contradicting his/her point is presented, that the position taken is wrong. Second, I have noticed a correlation between articles where Zoticogrillo has a large presence, and the quality, stability and ranking of those articles. Third, and forgive me for overlapping here, my first contention's manifestation makes the entire process of reading, editing, or revising any issue, in any process which Zoticogrillo participates, a pain in the butt. Maybe Zoticogrillo thinks adherence to his/her principles is beneficial, but I contend otherwise. Zoticogrillo, for the sake of all projects within Wikipedia--get real, get better at defending your assertions and actions, or GET OUT OF THE WAY! I have no problem with critical editing but it seems like every time I start reading a ridiculously verbose, redundant, illogically constructed article on the legal profession, Zoticogrillo is there. Just wondering, what makes Zoticogrillo an authority on everything legal? I think a coup is in order!69.254.182.195 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Here, here... I told him/her this about a year ago! The assumption of self- assertion, arrogance, and absolute self- righteousness on Zoticogrillo part's is truly incredible. It lacks true academic discipline... I finally gave-up! Within days all my comments were erased from this site. Interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.102.19 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * oh me oh my =:O Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "coup" remark was made in, what I hope was obvious, jest--but real questions remain Zoticogrillo. What makes you an authoritative source?  I can conjure dozens of "citations" that you say are acceptable, credible, and sufficient that are in fact none of the above.  Every time someone tells you that you are incorrectly attributing an idea to a source, or improperly stating what you think is a neutral POV, or some other such editorial infraction, you argue about it, and eventually decide to "compromise" (I guess) including your contention with the correct one in the article...rendering the article a disaster. Why?  Accept defeat and move on.  This article could be a good, general knowledge encyclopaedic entry if you would allow it to be trimmed and EDITED!  As it sits, this, like many of the WikiLaw articles you are involved with is a disaster.  How does one become an editor?  What power do you have over this article in reality?  I'm not trying to just make an ad hominem attack here.  I truly think that you are a poor editor.   Convince me otherwise, please.  I appreciate the time you put into this.  In fact, that is the truly frustrating part of this debacle.  If you spent your time editing and authoring instead fighting facts with opinions this article would be great.  69.254.182.195 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my only response on this topic: This article is well cited with the most credible sources available. Unfortunately this article is frequently the object of vandalism, requiring maintenance of the article.  Your contributions are welcome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The good, bad and the ugly
I like how Zoticogrillo has largely cleaned up this article and added lots of citations. However, the problem is that by focusing too much on the history of the degree itself (in terms of the actual certificate awarded), the article now has even less coverage of the program that goes into the degree. But that is okay since we have too many articles already repeating the same information: Law school, Law school in the United States, and Education of lawyers in the United States. The next problem is figuring out how to merge all these articles. Which I am too busy to deal with personally. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to make generalizations about the different curricula across the globe. The article touches on the point, however, when it analyzes the differences in J.D. programs across jurisdictions.  The other articles about legal education in each of the countries already cover the topic in depth.  References to those articles could be added to paragraphs that discuss each of the countries. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

recent edits re LLB
Recent vitriolic edits from a person on a mission have stated that the J.D. is rapidly replacing the LL.B., and hasn't provided any citations. This is contrary to the available evidence. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Canada, even though there are 19 law schools in Canada, only 2 have the J.D. and only 3 others "have voted to do the same." 5 out of 19 is a small percentage. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Hong Kong, but it hasn't replaced the degree at all. It has been introduced in two of the law schools very recently, but the only school with a well established law program, HKU, has not been considering the J.D. at all. Finally it was claimed that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Australia. However, out of the 30 Aussie law schools, only 10 have the J.D., and in only 1 of those has the J.D. replaced the LL.B. And those, my friend, are the facts. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the same editor is now out for blood about the statement in the article that the M.D. and D.D.S. are considered graduate programs in the United States. For example, one of the most famous M.D. programs, at the Mayo Clinic, is at a "graduate school."

Picture of Graduation Robe
What is with the picture of the graduation robe on the article page? It is an awful picture, and besides that, what exactly does it add to the article with respect to the degree? I suggest that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsa si elagnewg (talk • contribs) 06:53, September 15, 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about a degree and university academia. The robe is part of the academic tradition.  It adds relevant information about the degree.  If you can find a better picture (which shows the details of the robe), it would be a welcome contribution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, although the robe is part of academic tradition, its worn by all doctorate candidates. It is nothing specific to J.Ds.
 * The Diploma is kind of ridiculous too. But more significantly: The pictures are of poor quality, and of dubious contribution, It would improve the article if they were both removed. But if your shopping for some robes, They are about $300. Mine are all faded and old. PhD, UC Berkeley, 1962. ( just to verify that I was there, no where is it mentioned that JFK spoke! ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most robes have chevrons that are the color of the field of study (which in this case would be purple for law). The J.D. robes have black chevrons.  The best thing you could do is to improve the article, not complain about it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the diploma picture ridiculous as well. I do not understand how it is encylopediac. I recommend removing it, or at minimum be replaced with pictures with qualities comparable with http://www.melezlaw.com/images/legal-diploma.jpg or http://www.universitydegree.com/JD.JPG Z3u2 (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Improvements are always welcome. Attempts to obtain permissions to use the first have been denied, the second is a falsified document from an institution that appears to not exist (hint: "Limasool" is misspelling).  Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirection notice in error.
The notice at the top of the page states that "J.D." redirects to this article. While true at the time, it is no longer the case now; "J.D." now redirects to "JD", which is a disambiguation page. However, I don't know how to correct the notice.

--James-Chin (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took a whack at it. rewinn (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV/Bias in the J.D. article
On top of the controversy surrounding whether the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree or not, another serious problem with the Wiki article is that a few sections therein appear to have an implicit biased point of view, which claims legal education in the US is somehow "superior" to that available in other countries.

Specifically, sections such as "Revolutionary Approach: The Scientific Study of Law (sic)" seem to suggest that American Law degrees were introduced as a way to fix what was perceived at the time as the shortcomings of the apprenticeship-based system, by combining legal theory and practice (clinical training) into one single graduate-level academic degree. The US approach is then heralded by the article's editor as "superior" and "scientific", implying by extension that, in countries like Britain or Germany, where a different model is used (a legal theory bachelor's degree followed by a vocational/apprenticeship stage), legal education would be somehow "inferior" or "unscientific", producing "less qualified lawyers".

I am not a lawyer myself, nor am I British or German, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles should be NPOV and should refrain from subjective qualitative comparisons. The J.D. article also has many factual inaccuracies such as referring to the Oxbridge BA degree in jurisprudence//law as a "liberal arts degree". Personally, considering all the controversy seen on this page, I am inclined to think the J.D. article needs serious review. 201.68.232.189 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps such implications are an interesting commentary on the thinking at the time, because that section is drawn completely from the sources sited therein. However, there are no such qualitative comparisons made explicit in that section itself, and it does not contain the word "superior" at all.  It would be interesting to examine more closely than I have whether any such qualitative comparisons could be implied anywhere in the article, and if so why.  Nonetheless, none such exist explicitly, and perhaps one would have to take an extreme personalized (subjective) defensive view of it in order to imply any such comparisons. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that Americans sometimes seem to get confused about the subtle but important differences between US bachelor's degrees and their counterparts in the UK and some other countries. In the US, as I understand it, the course typically lasts about four years and the student spends the first year or so studying a range of different subjects before focusing on a 'major' subject.  In the UK, the student generally focuses almost entirely on their chosen subject right from the beginning of their first year.  There will usually be a fixed list of core courses the student has to take, and then a list of optional courses in the same subject (or possibly a few suitable courses from another department: for example, mathematics students may have the option of taking a suitably mathematical physics, economics or computer science module).  Some programmes ('joint honours' degrees) may consist of two subjects (for example, Electronic Engineering/Computer Science or Mathematics/Philosophy) but the principle is the same - the courses on the list will usually be carefully arranged so as to complement the core subjects.


 * To describe the Oxford BA in Law as a 'liberal arts degree' isn't really correct. As the programme description shows, the degree consists entirely of lecture courses in law.  (As an aside, I find myself amused and slightly unnerved by the note 'Ethics (not available 2008-2009)'.)  See also the details of the Cambridge BA in Law. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've examined the sources more closely, and have made the appropriate changes. The sources state that Blackstone advocated a liberal arts education, and that the UK LLB programs still retain some of those elements of a more general education.  The sources that I followed up on do not state that the UK LLB is a liberal arts degree.  I strongly recommend that interested editors read those sources, as cited in the relevant parts. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't currently have access to the sources you cite - I'll try to track down a copy when I get a bit of spare time. Regarding the existence of postgraduate bachelor's degrees such as the Oxford BCL and the Cambridge LLB (renamed LLM twenty-odd years ago), this is a historical artifact of the original way things were done at the oldest UK universities from the middle ages onwards (until sometime in the late 18th, early 19th century, I think).  A student would start at university at the age of about fifteen, study the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic) for three or four years, take some exams and (if successful) be granted the status (or 'degree') of baccalaureus in artibus (bachelor of arts).  They'd then study the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music) for a further four years, take some more exams and (if successful) be granted the degree of magister in artibus (master of arts).  They'd usually then be required to teach in the university for a couple of years (as 'regent masters') and then be free to either leave the university and enter the church or some other career, or stay on and study in one of the higher faculties (divinity, canon law, civil law, medicine or music - although strictly speaking one didn't have to be an MA to study music), first for the degree of bachelor (BD, BCanL, BCL, MB, BMus) and subsequently for the degree of doctor (DD, DCanL, DCL, MD, DMus).  So, you had a two-tier system consisting of the faculty of arts (which awarded two degrees, BA and MA) and the higher (specialist) faculties (which also awarded two degrees, Bsomething and Dsomething).
 * Over the centuries, the subject matter of the course in the faculty of arts got taken over by the grammar schools, to the point where students were matriculating at university later (at about 18) and were completing the full MA course in about three or four years (rather than the original seven). This is, incidentally, what's going on with the Oxbridge MA - where it looks to the uninitiated as though graduates are getting free, fake postgrad qualifications, rather than completing a seven-year degree course whose last four years have no study or residence requirements.  It's also why the French school-leaving certificate is called the baccalaureat - because the name went into the grammar schools along with the subject matter.  Anyway, at the time Blackstone was writing (in the middle of the 18th century), the BA was still a general 'liberal arts' style degree.  Over the next century or so, however, more specialisation was introduced.  By, I think, the late 19th century, things had become completely specialised, and you no longer went to university for a general education with a bit of focus on one or two main subjects, you went to study a specific subject course.
 * With the demise of the old, trivium/quadrivium-based liberal arts course, and the rise of specialisation, the old two-tier system was gradually replaced with a single-tier system of degrees. Initially this consisted of the old higher faculties (divinity, law, medicine and music) plus a couple of new ones (letters and sciences) each of which had two degrees (Bwhatever and Dwhatever), but then an intervening degree of Mwhatever was either introduced, or replaced the existing Bwhatever.  Oxford and Cambridge haven't quite completed this process (and show no signs of doing so in the near future) which is why all of its three-year first degree courses lead to the BA/MA regardless of subject, and why you get postgraduate degrees called BMus, BCL, BD, etc (at Cambridge, the BD is a substantial research degree ranking just above PhD in the table of seniority).  For a while during the late 19th century to the mid-late 20th there were also degrees called BLitt, BSc, LLB and BPhil (subsequently renamed as MLitt, etc - except in the case of the philosophy department at Oxford which still awards the BPhil).


 * That went off on a bit of a tangent, I'm afraid, but hopefully it was in some way informative (and, to the best of my knowledge, correct). Anyway, I guess the point I'd like to make is that it's certainly not now the case that the UK first-degree LLB (or the Oxford/Cambridge BA in Law) is a generalised liberal arts degree which includes some law courses, although it was at the time Blackstone was writing.  It doesn't on its own qualify one to practice law, but it provides the necessary grounding for the practical training qualifications which do.  I think it's also unwise to hastily compare US undergraduate degree courses with those in the UK, precisely because of the difference in specialisation.  I (respectfully, and with good faith) take issue with the clause "the English legal education is undergraduate and provides a general education" because all the evidence I've seen (see the Oxford and Cambridge Law BA syllabi, for example, which consist entirely of law courses) indicates that this isn't the case - they're completely specialist degree courses, just like (with a very few exceptions) every other undergraduate course in UK universities. Your sources (which do sound interesting, and which I must try to get hold of at some point) may well say that the UK bachelor's degrees in law provide a general education but the universities themselves seem to disagree.  -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. Thanks.
 * I was going to explain this in my last post, but I edited it out before saving, because I didn't want to complicate things. When you read some of the sources in this article, you will note that it is not just the courses which are different, but the content of the courses as well.  The courses at the UK institutions tend to spend time on the historical development and philosophical approaches of the area of law discussed, while the US universities focus on the rules and the logical reasoning of the case law and leave the history and philosophy out almost entirely.  The difference in the content of the courses is greater than the difference in the title of the courses.  Perhaps if I have time it would be good to go back to the sources and this article to make that more clear in this article.  But it is likely that I will never have such time. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also to make it clearer what Zoticogrillo is getting at, most U.S. law school courses cover only the bare minimum of history needed to understand how the subject matter of the course got to where it is today. For example, standard civil procedure courses only devote one or two classes (if even that much) to common law pleading; I didn't really begin to understand the insanity of traditional common law pleading (in comparison to the code pleading and notice pleading regimes) until I read Lawrence Friedman's books on the history of American law after I graduated from law school.  There are history and philosophy courses at some schools but they're optional.  American legal education is all about learning how to "think like a lawyer" in terms of being able to understand and apply the current legal rules to fact patterns.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctorate/Titles Section- Refrence Dumb?
The first part of the title section states that lawyers are allowed to use a title of doctor.

This seems like it is poorly sourced and probably wrong.

1. The source links to the ABA code of professional responsibility. This is not binding on lawyers- it is advisory everywhere in the US as far as I know- in any case certainly not universaly applicable.

2. The ABA code cited is defunct it appears. It has been superceded. So the citation appears to be to a discontinued advisory opinion. Hard to get much worse than that.

3. The code cited doesn't say lawyers can use doctor as a title, it says they can use any title they have earned. So this doesn't answer the question.

Seems to me the source is poor for showing that a J.D. is considered a doctorate or that lawyers can use that title.

The source isn't authoritative or apparently even valid so the sentence should prolly be changed to say that blah blah.. according to... and list the code.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * American lawyers are refered to as Counselors or Attorney's not doctors. Even my 10 year old niece knows that. Dumaka (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Does she watch the old TV show Friends? Then she knows not all doctors are medical doctors.  Even sit-com writers know that! Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I said nothing about medical doctors. What are you talking about? Everyone knows not all doctors are medical doctors. Where in my post did I even mention medical doctors? Dumaka (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Michigan to schools to first implement J.D.
There is no support in the citation for the claim that Michigan was among the first schools to implement the J.D. degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S Department of Education DOES NOT refer to J.D. as a doctorate
As yet another evidence that the DOE does not endorse the concept of "professional doctorate", I would like to draw your attention to the following link from the Education USA website.

It is worth noting that Education USA refers to the J.D. as a "first professional degree" (not a "professional doctorate"), and has a separate entry for "Graduate Legal Education", including the LLM. The section on "Graduate Legal Education" also mentions that "doctoral programs in Law also exist", referring implicitly to SJD degrees, which "admit only a small number of promising applicants, usually from among those who have completed a master's program at a U.S. law school and who plan to enter a career as a law school faculty member".

It is totally unacceptable that the English Wikipedia continues to spread misinformation in several of its articles by referring to U.S. first professional degrees as "professional doctorates", a title that is neither used nor endorsed by the U.S. government and is not recognized by any university outside the U.S. as a doctoral qualification. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: See also Education USA's glossary of terms, where "doctorate" and "professional degree" are two separate entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I believe this observation is already noted in the article under the "debate" section.  If not, please add it.  I don't believe the article contains the Education USA citation, so the contribution will be appreciated.
 * The citations do not state that the DOE does not endorse the concept of a "professional doctorate," it merely uses different terminology, which is not inconsistent with the concept of a "professional doctorate." In addition, the State Department website you cite is for informational purposes only and is not a statement of DOE regulation or policy.  Nonetheless, even if it were a DOE policy statement, it would merely be an example of a government in contradiction with academia and nothing more, as the government is not (yet?) an authority on academic practice in this area.  This wiki article is full of citations to numerous sources stating that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, which at the very least is a preponderance of evidence showing mainstream conception.
 * There are in fact non-US sources stating that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, such as http://www.blk-bonn.de/papers/hochschulsystem_usa.pdf and Encyclopedia Britannica. (2002). "Encyclopedia Britannica", 3:962:1a. (the J.D. is listed among other doctorate degrees). Nonetheless, the J.D. is a U.S. degree that has only been implemented overseas very recently, therefore non-U.S. sources are irrelevant.
 * This topic is not easy, and there are numerous sources which discuss it in depth. Please let me know if you need any assistance locating the sources cited in the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the significant evidence questioning the categorization of a JD as a doctorate, I suggest that, in the interest of NPOV, we remove the picture of the doctoral robes at the start of the article. I don't see what, apart from bias, its presence adds to the article. Wikiant (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur Dumaka (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Licensing and Bias
This article implies that training courses whose graduates are not immediately eligible for licensure are more academic and less professional than the American JD programme. The idea seems to be that the requirements to practice throughout the world are identical, and only the level of preparation offered by the various training courses differs.

My impression is that there is at least as great a difference in licensure requirements as there is in training courses.

In Canada, where our three-year course is almost identical to the three-year US course, the requirement that our graduates article for a year, working under the supervision of an established lawyer reflects a difference in licensure requirements and not a difference in the amount of vocational training required by Canadian and American degrees.

This article also mentions that the ABA does not recognize Canadian JDs (or LLBs). The converse is true in Canada. American JDs are obliged to take further coursework, to article, and to pass the Canadian bar exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.101.201 (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles
This section has been tweaked so much that it appears to be almost entirely original research. I suggest that the section be removed entirely. Wikiant (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the section would more likely confuse people not familiar with the academics of a JD using the abbreviation Dr. It would lead people to believe that they can call an Attorney a Dr. even if the Attorney JD isn’t research based such as a SJD or professor of law. Dumaka (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 102
Footnote 102 (ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E)) is an ABA document cited as support for the statement that the JD is a doctorate and that lawyers can use the title "doctor". I downloaded the document and it contains no reference (that I could find) to support either of these claims. Wikiant (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
I believe that the two pictures at the top of the article (the diploma and the graduation gown) serve no purpose other than to promote the POV that the JD is a doctorate. There is *ample* debate on this topic and enough reasonable citations on both sides for me to conclude that this is clearly a question on which there is no consensus. In light of the lack of consensus, I am removing (again) these pictures. I ask that Zoticogrillo not (again) replace them until such time as other editors have weighed in on the question. Wikiant (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't personally have a problem with either picture (although the captions could probably be reworded to avoid POVness). As to the question of whether the JD is a doctorate, and whether someone who has one is entitled to the style 'Dr', I'm inclined to say yes to both: it's clearly a doctoral degree because it has the word 'doctor' in its title (and it's given a doctoral-style gown and hood), and it seems absurd to me that someone with a doctorate shouldn't be allowed to call themselves 'Dr'.  It wouldn't be a doctoral degree in the UK because there's a general rule here that doctorates should primarily consist of a substantial research component, which the JD doesn't seem to have - the nearest analogous law degrees here are the LLB and LLM.  (Similarly, the standard qualifying medical degree is the MBChB rather than the MD, which is a higher research degree, although by long-standing custom qualified physicians are addressed as 'Dr' by courtesy.) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will introduce content that attempts to avoid POV issues.
 * Wiki content must follow the wiki policies, which policies represent a consensus of the wiki community as a whole, and if any editor disagrees with the policies, the proscribed process must be followed. According to wiki policies, content must be verifiable, which means that the content/idea has already been published by a reliable source.  The policies state (in 2nd paragraph) that "[i]n general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..."  Articles must also avoid original research, which is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," and must endeavor to "cite reliable sources that are directly related on the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."  According to the neutrality policy, significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources should be included in wiki articles, but not in a proportion that exceeds the majority viewpoints.  Although some common fringe theories may be represented in wikipedia, it must go through a specific process to be included, and it must still be verifiable so that wikipedia does not become the primary source for the idea.
 * Because of the extraordinary amount of consensus building required by the content in this article (as evidenced by the archives), the policies have been strictly adhered to in this article. There are citations to peer-reviewed journals, books published in university presses and primary sources which make the specific and clear statement that the J.D. is a doctorate.  No synthesis is required for the sources to support this truth--direct quotations would suffice.  However, there are no reliable sources which make the clear statement that the J.D. is not a doctorate, therefore the claim is not a minority opinion, and I am not aware that the claim has been approved as a fringe theory that can be included in wikipedia.  Purported evidence demonstrating that the J.D. is not a doctorate requires "unpublished analysis" or "synthesis of published material," and the inclusion of such is a violation of the policy regarding original research.
 * This has already been discussed with third party intervention before, as evidenced in the archives. I would refer you to those discussions, but you were one of the primary participants in those discussions, and are intimately familiar with them.  I'm not sure why they are being resurrected, and this appears to be an attempt to claim there is an unresolved debate when, without the addition of evidence or arguments, there is none. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The captions are merely descriptive and one even has a citation, which citation supports the statement and provides interesting information to hard-to-find sources useful to a reader who wishes to learn more about academic regalia. Please propose non-POV language. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest here. The pictures do nothing to advance the description of a JD degree. The only purpose they serve is to advance the position that the JD is a doctorate in the same sense that every other doctoral degree is a doctorate. Whether the pictures have supporting citations or not is irrelevant. The problem is that the pictures are being used in a context that advances one side of an argument. Wikiant (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point - surely the JD is a doctoral degree in a real sense. True, that class of professional, non-research-oriented doctorates don't exist in a fair number of other countries (such as the UK, where the QAA's guidelines stipulate that any degree incorporating the word 'doctor' should primarily consist of a substantial original research component) but there seem to be numerous references confirming that the JD degree in the US is a doctorate, at least in the same sense as several other professional-practice-oriented non-research degrees (such as the MD).
 * I think the academic dress picture should stay - by itself all it does is present the fact (easily verifiable) that the Intercollegiate Code for academic dress specifies a doctors'-style gown and hood for JDs. And the diploma picture just demonstrates that JDs get a degree certificate when they graduate, which again is hardly controversial. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also numerous references confirming that the JD degree in the US is not a doctorate in the same sense that a Ph.D. is a doctorate nor in the sense that a doctorate is typically considered to be terminal. My point is that the main effect of the picture is to suggest that disagreements do not exist. I've altered the caption to draw attention to the debate section. The caption, IMHO, now balances the POV that the picture represents. Wikiant (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone was saying that the JD is a doctorate in the same sense as a PhD. But it is, as far as I can see, a doctorate in the same sense as a number of other professional doctoral degrees that exist in the US.  Possibly the question of whether it's a terminal degree (a concept not in widespread use beyond the US) is more relevant than I understood it to be - perhaps somebody could clarify this.  The problem seems to be that slightly different criteria are being used to judge whether the JD is a proper doctorate or not.  (By the criteria currently in use in the UK it wouldn't be.)  It seems that there's disagreement about what the correct criteria are in the US - so what importance would you (or anyone else) say is, or should be, given to (a) the inclusion of the word 'Doctor' in the name of the degree, (b) its status (or not) as a terminal degree (whatever that actually means), (c) the granting of a doctor's gown and hood in the Intercollegiate Code, and (d) anything else? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While that is an interesting philosophical discussion, it doesn't really have an impact on the article, since it is clearly resolved by the numerous citations of highest credibility in the article that the degree was created as a professional doctorate. However, to engage the discussion: The J.D. is the only professional degree in law in the U.S., therefore it is a terminal degree by definition; and there is an analytical problem in this discussion because it attempts to compare degrees from very different educational and legal systems. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, as has been stated by Nicholas Jackson, nowhere in this article is the claim made that the J.D. is the same as the Ph.D. The claim that the pictures or captions are misleading is hypothetical and a reader misunderstanding the caption and picture would have to ignore the whole article. We cannot defensively create articles fearing that our readers are stupid, especially when doing so would exclude informative content which content would improve the product. The dominant paradigm in wikipedia is that the product is an encyclopedia, and therefore if something is informative, it should be included. Just because you disagree with the inclusion, does not mean that it must be excluded, as consensus does not require unanimity. As stated in the consensus policy description, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Based on our previous discussions, I know you to be an intelligent editor. Therefore, it is most likely that your efforts here are not arising out of illogical fear or misunderstanding, but are purposeful and an example of creating the appearance of changing consensus (you are persisting with issues that have not been raised in nearly a year). Including content which is highly relevant and informative improves the article, and these pictures and captions you are protesting are the only visual representations of the subject matter of the article, therefore they cannot be excluded. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Caption Edit The following caption was added to the picture of the gown: "Although there is debate surrounding the academic status of the J.D. degree, in the United States J.D. holders wear academic robes reserved for doctoral degree holders." Captions are primarily to describe the picture only, and should not contain substantive arguments. Nonetheless, the proposed caption attempts to raise the visibility of an alleged debate, and is illogical. It is abundantly clear that the J.D. is a doctorate (see above and citations in article). Pointing out a practice of holders in the United States has no meaning, as the J.D. is a U.S. degree. And universities carefully regulate academic regalia, therefore the gowns are not worn by choice of the holders, but by regulation of the academic institutions, which institutions have a monopoly on creating and regulating academic tradition. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And herein lies the insidiousness. You claim that my caption contains a substantive argument (when all it does is link the user to the debate section of the article) -- albeit overtly. Your caption, meanwhile, really does make a substantive argument (albeit covertly) by implying that there is no debate. I'm willing (out of sheer exhaustion) to go along with the charade that the robes picture is not about advancing a POV (wink wink). However, I'm altering the caption to remove reference to "academic doctorate." It's a picture of JD graduation robes. Period. If you want to introduce the doctorate nomenclature, then do it honestly by linking to the debate. Wikiant (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't even attempt to address any of the most basic arguments, such as WHY IS IT CALLED A JURIS DOCTOR?! Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point! With the picture and caption, you raise the debate topic yet don't want the picture to link to the debate. Meanwhile, you want me to carry on the debate with you here. The debate is already well documented in the article. Point the picture to the debate or remove the reference to the doctorate. Wikiant (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've ignored virtually everything I have said. You can't just respond to one thing and pretend that it's the entirety of the conversation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like this debate will ever end. Why don't we just create two articles, one for the JD and one for the Law degree. Noted the JD is a law degree, it is also a Doctors of Laws. But in order to stop the debate we should just keep the title of Dr. out of the soon to be newly revised Law degree article. Dumaka (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great suggestion, and I believe there is already a Law degree article. There is no debate, as there is no factual evidence to support the claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate.  It is a fringe theory at best.  Wikiant is just on a lone crusade. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 102
Can we make footnote 102 more specific. It isn't a reference so much as a list of organizations claimed to support the statement. Wikiant (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not without messing up the citation style, which is uniform throughout the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't trust you Zoticogrillo. In contradiction to your charge of my being on a crusade, many other editors have provided evidence against you in this debate. Everytime one of us delves into one of your "citations", we find that either the citation contains *no* reference to what you claim it references, or the citation is taken out of context, or the citation is employed in a context for which it was clearly not intended. So, please provide the specific evidence you claim exists in footnote 102 or I will replace the footnote with a fact tag. For the record dear readers, I predict that Zoticogrillo will respond with some convoluted argument as to why what I ask is (a) unreasonable, (b) can't be done, (c) violates Wikipedia policy, or (d) [fill in a red herring]. Wikiant (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you don't trust me. I have in the past mistakenly provided imperfect citations, which given the volume of citations in the article was merely an oversight, but I have never providing misleading citations nor have I provided any citations in any other manner in bad faith.  Please do not try and slander me with the same illusory argumentation that you have implemented in these discussion pages.  I'm sorry that you have found my comments to be personal, but your persistence without factual support has become a characteristic.
 * As for this specific footnote--I am sorry that you are not familiar with standard citation formats. The citations are clear to be found.  In fact, they are all in footnote number 4, and there are online links to all but one of them, for the convenience of readers such as yourself.  You will find in the archives that you have already examined and discussed them. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. Wikiant (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

use of Dr title in professional and academic settings
The citations show that some J.D. holders do use the title of Dr. in professional and academic settings. The citation for the academic setting is clear, as it is an example. The citation for the professional setting is an illustration, as issues are not brought to bar associations for an opinion until the issues is raised in the professional setting, which in this case would have been an attorney using the Dr. title. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The | first citation cites answers.com -- not a source that rises to Wikipedia standards for citation. The | second citation mentions the JD only once and as follows: "Excluded from the survey are professional doctorate recipients such as those earning the...J.D." The second citation is not about the JD, so I find this one a bit of a stretch. The | third citation is to a website for the San Diego County Bar -- where's the supporting text? The | fourth citation is a list of academic programs offered at Univ of Utah -- no where does it say anything about the J.D. being a doctoral degree. The | fifth citation is in German. Perhaps Zoticogrillo can read German. I cannot. Given the track record of the previous four citations, I am apt to assume that this one is similarly inadequate. Wikiant (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The AAUDE doc does not cite answers.com as authority. Only a handful of other entries in the glossary contain any other references, and it is clear that they are provided for information purposes only.  AAUDE is authoritative in and of itself and does not need to cite other references.
 * The NSF citation is evidence that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.
 * The San Diego Bar Association has recently updated their website, but it appears to not yet be complete. The document can still be read [|here].  The burden is on you to find the document, and it's easy to find through the internet archive, as I have shown.  Nonetheless, even if it cannot be found online, it is still sufficient.  There are things that exists outside the internet.
 * The University of Utah lists the J.D. under "Doctoral-Level Degrees."
 * Ignorance of German is no excuse. Use http://translate.google.com/ to get the general idea.  It's not invalid just because it's not in English.  But I do recommend you study German--it's useful.
 * You didn't mention the Encyclopedia Britannica citation, making a reader believe that you have dismissed ALL of the citations and that your conclusion is sound, when you have not.
 * These references were already raised and discussed at length more than a year ago, as can be seen in the archives. They were most recently discussed in great detail in May of 2008 above.  Raising old resolved discussions in hopes that it will create the appearance of changing consensus is disingenuous.
 * Finally, you dispute that the J.D. is not a doctorate, but provide no factual evidence whatsoever to support it. The burden is on you to disprove the fact, a burden which you have ignored. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text from AAUDE:

“Professional” Doctorate First-professional doctoral degrees are first degrees in a given field and include: Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Psychology and Veterinary medicine. First-professional doctoral degrees such as the M.D. and J.D. do not require completion of a thesis/dissertation or publication of a coherent body of literature. http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate

Notice the link at the end -- that's answers.com.

I'll leave the NSF citation to others to consider. IMHO, this reference is inferior as its purpose is not to claim that the JD is a doctorate, but rather it mentions the JD only to say that the paper is *not* about the JD. (Additionally, it mentions the JD as a "professional doctorate"; I note that you've dropped the adjective.)

Finally, I am *not* arguing that the JD is not a doctorate. I *am* arguing that you are using citations disengenuously in a manic effort to support your POV that the JD *is* a doctorate. That's a claim that *you* are making and which *you* are required to support. All I am saying is that these citations do not support that claim. Wikiant (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the J.D. is a professional doctorate. I'm sorry that I've neglected to place the same degree of importance to that qualification as you do.  I merely thought it was an extra descriptor.
 * I am aware of the AAUDE text. It is not a citation, but a reference for more information.  See my comments above.
 * I agree that the NSF states that the paper is not about professional doctorates, such as the J.D. Which says that it is a professional doctorate.
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica citation is nonetheless sufficient to say that the J.D. is a doctorate (without "professional"), and the University of Utah cite is supportive of that.
 * I didn't understand that your quib was with dropping the "professional" descriptor. I thought the issue was with "doctorate" used in any context, with or without "professional."  Since you admit that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, I will change the text and reintroduce the rest of the text as previously drafted.  Let's not edit war without comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just noticed that the text did read "professional doctorate." Since you say that you have no issue with the term "professional doctorate," and you have not raised issues with other parts of the text, I assume that you will agree to the inclusion of the text. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The wordiness in the academic status/titles parts is really getting to be an issue. It'd be helpful to have a disinterested party edit it down to the essentials. The purpose isn't to frame the debate but to briefly present the facts and major opinions. JJL (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More "Disingenuous" Citations
Footnote 106 cites ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) as support for the statement:


 * "...some J.D. holders in the United States use the title of "Doctor" in professional...settings."

| Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) states (in total):


 * "Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a lawyer from using or permitting the use of, in connection with his name, an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law."

The only way this citation can support the text is if one assumes that, by "title derived therefrom", the passage means "doctor." As it is specifically the use of the title "doctor" that the passage is meant to support, we have here a circular argument.

Footnote 107 cites a person's own | website. That's self-publication being used as an authority.

Wikiant (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one...

The text in the article says:


 * "In countries where holders of the first law degree use the title of doctor, J.D. holders who are attorneys will often use the title of doctor as well."

If you look at the | citation, you'll see that the article says nothing about "countries where holders..." It says (and it is quite specific) that the opinion *narrowly* applies to the Spanish-speaking community in Florida.

FWIW, note further in the same document, the passage:


 * Other board members noted the LL.M. degree is higher than a juris doctor, but is commonly referred to as a masters of law, yet someone with a J.D. could use the title of doctor of laws which implies more learning than an LL.M.

So, Zoticogrillo not only misrepresented this citation, but ignored a separate passage in the same document that contradicts the very point he is attempting to make.

Wikiant (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing about the LLM being a masters and higher than a JD, and so the JD is therefore not a real doctorate argument is this: anyone who has ever attended law school (that has an LLM program) knows that there are two types of LLM. The vast majority are geared to non U.S. educated lawyers, and aims to introduce them to the American legal system. It is basically the first year (the only year with standardized course requirements) of a JD program (exact same course work - except they are not even required to compete with JD students nor are they subject to the JD grade curve; if they were, they would largely be destroyed). While it is technically a "higher degree" than a JD, I mean, c'mon, do the mental math here. The other possibility is that it is focused course work, most (if not all) courses are available to JD students. Many JD students just don't know what kind of lawyer they want to be, and may go back to take the specialized courses that were open to them in law school, but they just didn't know to take. At the most, it's a fourth year add-on to a JD. It is NOT more advanced. For those few LLM courses not offered to JDs, it's a marketing thing; you can get admitted by petition - I know, I did.

Bottom line, the argument that since an LLM is a masters, and since it is higher than a JD, the JD is therefore not a real (or terminal, or therefore an undergraduate, and so on) doctorate degree is bogus.

Has anyone here attended law school? Or taken a class with LLMs? Or taken both a JD and another professional degree? This argument is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we all share the same experiences. However, our experiences are irrelevant.  Truth is truth even outside of human perception, and most truth can be understood through logic without comprehensive experience. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Zotocogrillo - I've largely agreed with your arguments, up to your last statement. Do you really believe that? Experiences are absolutely relevant to perception and reality. They cannot, however, be cited on Wikipedia. Huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.63.224 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, I believe we can discuss these citations without personal attacks. If you want to address my behavior, you may do so directly and specifically. But lacing all your discussions with the above adjectives provides no productive purpose.

Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) ABA opinions and rules are issued in response to the behavior of the lawyers, and this citation is support by example for the text. You are correct that the citation is not very helpful for those not familiar with the ABA rules and opinions, as the ABA has clarified the rule in other opinions and comments. Therefore, the citation can be improved with more detailed explanation. But the citation of the rule only was not false or misleading. For example, this rule was clarified by Informal Opinion 1152, which states in part, that DR 2-102(E) "permits the use by a lawyer of 'an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law.' This clearly permits the use of the term 'Doctor' by the holder of a J.D. degree..." The text of that opinion can be found in the library, or as quoted here. Council Statement 2, entitled "J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency," also clarifies by stating: "WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all appropriate persons be requested to eliminate any policy, or practice, existing within their jurisdiction which disparages legal education or promotes discriminatory employment practices against J.D. degree-holders who hold academic appointment in education institutions." Therefore, in understanding the context of the rule as described above, the meaning is clear.

UMT Faculty Profile This is a website maintained by a university, and is not a personal website. But even if it were a personal website, such are acceptable if they meet certain criteria, and are not automatically invalid. This citation clearly and ideally supports the text. Also, as it clearly represents practice in a large state university, it is an important cite and is not included for any disingenuous purpose or intent to mislead.

In countries where holders This sentence was introduced by another editor long ago. The citation provides illustrations of this practice, as it discusses the practice of attorneys in Spanish-speaking communities. It does not provide proof of the text, but it provides support. The text does say that the rule will apply only to Florida, but in the text there are quotes from individuals discussing Spanish communities. They do not state that the practices they commented on exists only in Spanish communities in Florida, which would be odd since the Spanish community in Florida is comprised mostly of immigrants from Spanish communities outside the U.S. The quote about the LLM is discussion of some of the members of the committee, not a statement of fact and not very important, and is not relevant to the practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. The LLM statement does not contradict a point being made in the text about practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. Therefore there was no misrepresentation or misleading exclusion as the citation does provide some support by example of the text.

Therefore, the citations will be improved as discussed above by including the other sources if possible, and if the text must be changed to stick to the strict meaning of the citations, it will be. Furthermore, most of these citations have already been examined and discussed by the editors, and they are not being misused with any malevolent intent or dishonesty. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant
User:Wikiant has been a useful contributor to this article. However, recently the edits by this user have been extreme, and comments have contained personal attacks. Please see the comments above. Also see the recent edit by this user, in which an entire passage was removed because of a dispute over just one word. This activity has started to establish a pattern of behavior, which has been on going for more than a year, and is an example of Tendentious editing. Administrator action might be necessary to preserve the quality of the article, but I hope not, since User:Wikiant is normally a productive editor. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say I've rather lost track of exactly what points you two are arguing about. Perhaps it might be helpful if both of you could explain, calmly, without assigning blame, and in no more than a couple of sentences each, what your respective positions are. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Wikiant is currently trying to establish that I have been intentionally providing misleading or false citations for the purpose of pushing a POV, as you can see above. Therefore, his attacks have been on my character.  However, this topic is not on the personal attacks, but on Wikiant's editing behavior.  Wikiant's position is, and always has been, that the J.D. is not a doctorate, a position that has been unmoved by reason or evidence, and a position for which no factual support has been offered.  The resultant behavior of the editor is therefore an example of Tendentious editing.  I normally welcome challenges to the article's content, which give me the opportunity to improve it, but the aggressive behavior of Wikiant has become discourteous and unproductive. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not really interested in who started it - I've got far more interesting things to do than read yet more bickering. What I'm trying to figure out is exactly what you two are arguing about, whether some sort of consensus can be reached on that point, and whether the contentious parts of the article can be worded in a way that everybody's broadly happy with.  Am I right, therefore, in understanding that your position is "The JD is a doctorate"? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is broad consensus. If there was still any real debate about a specific claim, I would have initiated a discussion about that.  I'm sorry to disappoint you, but these postings are merely a complaint about editor conduct--I know it's not the best venue for it.  If you are still interested in the topical discussions that lead to this, you'll have to read the previous two sections. I've already summarized them as best I could. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there's broad consensus on that point, but the word "tendentious" does indeed come to mind. JJL (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried reading the previous sections and I'm afraid I found them pretty frustrating: sifting through the rather heated rhetoric on both sides of the argument was difficult enough, but every time I thought I'd figured out on what specific point you both disagreed, one of you said something that indicated I hadn't. I asked you both to state your specific positions at least partly because I'm actually interested to know, and because I thought it might help arrive at a proper consensus.  Personally I'm of the view that the JD is a doctorate (at least by the criteria that seem to be used in US universities - different criteria apply in the UK but that's not specifically relevant here) but Wikiant seems to feel strongly that it isn't and I'm curious to know whether this is a correct summary of his position and, if so, why. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point I have been trying to make is that the JD's status is unclear. There are reliable citations on both sides of the argument (that the JD is a doctorate and that it is not). A year ago, Zoticogrillo made some valuable changes that, drawing on reliable citations, made two clear points: (1) that the JD is a first professional degree, and (2) that there is disagreement as to what the JD's status is beyond item (1). Since that time, Zoticogrillo has introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2). I didn't comment much on the changes until I noticed that many of the citations Zoticogrillo was using to support these tweaks did not in fact support the changes. Thus, more and more, the article began to look like a mixture of Zoticogrillo's POV and OR. Wikiant (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that's a bit clearer, thanks. So am I right in saying that the ambiguous status issue arises partly because it's not a 'terminal degree' (I confess I'm still rather hazy on what that means) and because there is some sort of (state bar?) prohibition against JDs using the title Dr in a professional (or other) context?  I would have thought that the universities (as the awarding bodies) would have had final say.  That is, if they say it's a doctorate (which they seem to have done, both by the title of the degree, and the fact graduates wear a doctoral gown and hood) then surely it is?  Whether the provided sources are sufficient to demonstrate or refute this position is a different matter, I guess.  (Disclaimer: I have no particular axe to grind other than a fond hope that people get along civilly if possible.  I'm not a lawyer, an American or a JD: I have a PhD in mathematics from a British university, and a general interest in some of the more obscure aspects of academia.) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You hit on some of the key points. Whether the JD is "terminal" appears open to debate. Zoticogrillo's edits state that the JD is terminal *for the purpose of practicing law.* However, there is also evidence that the JD is a prerequisite for the LLM and SJD degrees (which suggests that the JD is not terminal). WRT the title, the ABA does not prohibit the use of "Dr" (which is different than promoting its use). It seems to me that the final arbiter of titles should be the academic institution, not the trade group, but evidence from that quarter is scant (hence the article contains questionable "cites" such as a picture of a JD's academic robes and the minutes from a university's faculty senate meeting). IMPORTANT: To avoid spiraling back into the arguments, I reiterate: I am not suggesting that the JD is not a doctorate, *nor* am I suggesting that it is. Rather, I (among other editors) stress that there is ample evidence that there is disagreement as to the JD's status. To the extent that the article minimizes the disagreement in favor of taking a side, the article becomes POV. Wikiant (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

alleged factual dispute
The subject in the previous section has changed since it was initiated, therefore this section has been started.

A read of the archives is boring. Mainly because it is full of primarily Wikiant hammering on the same tired old rhetoric and criticism without any factual support.

The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established with a number of citations from the most credible sources. These sources have been from academic institutions and scholars.

There are no reliable citations which state that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate. Innumerable requests for them have been made, and if they existed, they would appear in the article.

The history and previous versions can be viewed, which demonstrate that I have not, "introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2)," but that since the major revision last year the article has always stated that the Juris Doctor is a doctorate, and has always relied on the same citations for that fact.

Wikiant continues to claim that the citations did not support the statements in the article, however a study of the three previous sections above (footnote 102, use of Dr title in professional and academic settings, and More "Disingenuous" Citations) shows that Wikiants claims were unfounded.

JDs in the United States use the title of Dr, academic practice clearly establishes that the degree is a Dr. degree, ABA policies specifically state that a JD may use the title of Dr., and many JD holders in well established professional and academic settings formally use the title.

The JD is a terminal degree. There is no higher professional degree in law than the JD.

Wiki policies state that silence is consensus. There have been no editors other than Wikiant who have recently claimed that the JD is not a doctorate. In fact, the disputes that Wikiant currently raises were clearly resolved nearly a year ago among the editors, and Wikiant now raises those same disputes once again without any variation, which tries to create the appearance of a break with consensus when there is none. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the consensus policy page specifically states that "consensus" is not the same as unanimous consent. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I found the following (I'm not kidding) via a 30 second Google search suggests that, "The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established" is questionable:

"The (JD) is not a doctoral level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title “Doctor”. (RMIT University, Postgraduate Program in Juris Doctor)

"The JD is not a doctorate degree. In fact, the next degree after the JD in the US is the LLM and then the doctorate degree (SJD), which is offered by some law schools." (Comparing American and British Legal Education Systems: Lessons for Commonwealth African Law Schools, Kenneth K. Mwenda, Cambria Press)

"Please note that the despite the name, the JD is not a doctoral-level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor". (Bond University, Faculty of Law Degree Programs)

"J.D. is not a doctorate degree - - not considered a terminal degree." (Austin Peay State University, Minutes of Deans Council Meeting, July 28, 2004)

"However, unlike a Doctorate, a J.D. is not a terminal degree." (Online Education Database)

Wikiant (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too question whether the J.D. is a doctorate. As to a 'terminal' degree, the term is itself vague for the reasons indicated. A M.S.W. is terminal w.r.t. practicing as a social worker, but the D.S.W. exists; similarly for the M.D. and the follow-on specialized masters degrees one can take afterwards. The M.F.A. has traditionally been considered a terminal degree for teaching in those areas but there are D.F.A. degrees; similarly in architecture. How terminal a degree is depends to an extent on the purpose one has in mind. An ABET-accredited bachelor's degree will do you more good in becoming a licensed professional engineer than will a Ph.D. in engineering. JJL (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting - thanks for this (I hope you don't mind, but I added links to the sources you mentioned). What a bizarre state of affairs: a degree that includes the word 'doctor' in its title, but which might not be a doctorate in the accepted sense (even accounting for the wider use of that term in the US). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the US the ABA and some state bar associations permit JD holders to use the title "Dr". A college could forbid the use of the title for its JD-holding faculty. Some have, some have not. Gimmetrow 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me from the sources whether any US colleges forbid the "Dr" title to JD holders. Australian colleges are a different case since they aren't guided by US ABA opinions. Gimmetrow 13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more sources for both sides of the debate: (University of Southern Queensland),  (Chinese University of Hong Kong),  (University of New England),  (Texas State Bar),  (ABA),  (New York State Bar) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

These are all great sources which could be included in the article. A thorough search of the internet for many such cites was done last year, and intermittently since then. Some of the websites or versions are new, which could explain why they weren't found before. I know that many editors have searched for them to no avail. Some comments on some of the citations: RMIT, Bond U., U. of Queensland, and U of New England are all Australian universities. These pages all state the policy of the Australian education system that the J.D. is not a doctorate in Australia. I believe that the website already mentions this, but if it doesn't, I thought that it did, and it was an oversight. This position re JD is understandable, since the system is a transplant from the Oxbridge system in England, which system does not contemplate the kind of professional degrees created in the U.S., but leaves professional training to the professions. The City U of HK cite exists in the website. The ABA ethics opinion is from the 60's has been superseded by subsequent opinions, which are cited in the article. The NY opinion kind of goes back and forth, and since it is also from the late 60's, I believe it has been largely superseded as well. The interesting excerpt from Kenneth Mwenda, and African educator not educated in the United States, appears to be opinion and conjecture, and his description of the JD, such as the history, is wrong, as demonstrated by the numerous scholarly works on the topic cited to in the article. The APSU minutes notes is interesting, especially given the context. It appears that someone proposed additions to the faculty handbook, and it states that individual's opinion, but it does not state whether that element ever made it into the faculty handbook, and it is only a summary of what was said during the meeting. Note also that if it did make it into the policies of the school, it is only because the school does not have a law school, as the ABA pulls the accreditation of law schools that don't recognize the JD as a doctorate (as you can read in the citation found in the "title" section of the JD article. The Online Education Database is a commercial website that does not have credibility. My goal at the major revision of the article last year was to explain some of the source of the confusion of the JD, and either I did not succeed, or understanding this phenomenon requires reading the entire article, which is pretty long and complex. In short, this is basically what the article summarizes (as found in the scholarly works on the topic): The JD was created to be a doctor of law degree as found in the old schools of Europe. It was created in the unique educational system of the US to serve the unique professional needs of that jurisdiction. Because educational, legal and professional systems differ greatly from country to country (except in the Commonwealth) the JD has been implemented or perceived differently in those various systems. These same discussions about the status of the MD degree would also exists, were it not for the fact that medical doctors use the "doctor" title by virtue of their profession. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a survey at FSSE at the request of the university president. Near the end they asked me to identify my highest degree. The top two options were:
 * What is the highest degree you have earned?
 * First professional degree (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., J.D., D.V.M.)
 * Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

I've seen this many times in my career, though often the J.D. is listed alongside professional master's degrees like the M.S.W., M.F.A., M.Arch., etc. JJL (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul
Following the discussion above, I propose to undertake an overhaul of the article. I propose doing the following: (1) Adjust references to the JD to uniformly describe it as a "first professional degree" (a status which appears to be non-controversial). These changes will neither claim nor deny that the JD is doctoral/terminal -- rather, the changes will avoid the doctoral/terminal discussion entirely. (2) Combine the "Titles" and "Debate About Academic Status" sections into a single section containing two sub-sections: (a) evidence suggesting that the JD is a doctoral and/or terminal degree, and (b) evidence suggesting that the JD is not a doctoral and/or terminal degree. For this overhaul to work, the article needs to remain neutral to the JD's status beyond that of first professional degree except in the single section that offers evidence. Wikiant (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'd say that the "Titles"/"Debate About Academic Status" section should be as brief as possible. It tends to attract proponents of the JD-as-doctorate or defenders of the PhD-is-premier positions and is most interesting to them. Keeping it from growing will require constant vigilance. This seems to happen at lots of higher degrees--excessive defense of that degree being just as good as a PhD, only different. JJL (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I was previously of the opinion that the JD was clearly a doctoral degree in at least some sense, but the presence of valid sources which say otherwise has convinced me that there is at least an ongoing debate, and that the matter isn't as clear-cut as I'd thought. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am eager for the new citations to be integrated into the article. However, the new citations are of limited value, and should compliment other authoritative/credible citations. A recent "overhaul" of the article was a broad sweep which knocked out a lot of really valuable source material, such as the Encycl. Britt.

The new citations basically show that:

The JD is not considered a doctorate by many institutions in Australia and one in HK (where in both countries the degree is a very recent phenomenon, and where the structure of the degree differs wildly from that in the US).

During the 1960's the use of the title of "doctor" by JD holders was limited by some professional bodies, something that was new in the 1960's and has been discontinued for almost 20 years.

The perception that the JD is not a terminal degree, and mis-information about the history of the degree, is common. However, we can thankfully consult historical source material and scholarly works for a more correct understanding (at least as regards to the history of the degree).

Thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And I know it's a pain in the ____, but someone really should sit down and read the printed materials which are cited to in the article. They really are interesting and informative.  Although doing so would take time, please reflect on how much time has been spent discussing and researching this topic over the past two years!  It's likely to continue until people start reading the citations. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Zoticogrillo is all about consensus until he is the hold out. I'm going to file a request for mediation. Wikiant (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus? With only four editors participating over the last week?  And are the other three of you of an identical mind on the topic?  Holding out?  By interpreting citations according to good faith?  And by wanting ALL of the above citations to be included (many of them already are)?  Even if I agreed with you 100%, you can't remove content that is verifiable with high quality citations.  I have never objected to including good citations, and have rarely protested when very poor ones were proposed.  Interpretation is one thing, but removing/ignoring good citations entirely is... not my way of doing things. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations under discussion are side comments from assorted web sites, and so WP:SYNTH is a concern here. As to my mind on the matter, the J.D. is not a doctorate and it is a terminal degree for the practice of law, as the M.S.W. is terminal for licensure in social work despite there being a D.S.W., or the M.D. is for the practice of medicine despite the presence of M.M.S. degrees that have it as a prerequisite. That doesn't mean there might not be higher academic degrees in each area. I think it's better to say that the J.D. is a professional degree rather than a terminal degree as that more accurately captures the matter. JJL (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To make a note as an observer - Wikiant's edits were awful, and removed much in the way of relevant information. I would have to say that if anyone is pushing an agenda here, it is Wikiant. Does nobody else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided as to whether Wikiant's sources demonstrate that the JD definitely isn't a proper doctorate, whatever that means. It is clear that criteria for doctoral degrees vary throughout the world, and Zoticogrillo is correct to say that the current situation in Australia (where there seem to be several universities who have recently introduced JD programmes but specifically stated they're not doctoral degrees) is not necessarily relevant to the situation in the US. However, I am now convinced that there is at least some ongoing debate over the exact academic status of the degree, so perhaps the article should acknowledge this in some way. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Objections to the current revisions to the Juris Doctor article have been reversed a number of times with no discussion. The revisions being pushed at this time eliminates highly relevant pictures and a large amount of verifiable content. It is not clear what the justification for these edits is, as there has been little attempt to discuss them before implementation. However, it appears that the justification is that since the Juris Doctor is not considered a doctorate by some schools in Australia and by one African academic expressing opinion, any mention of the Juris Doctor as a doctorate should be limited to that in the "debate" section of the article. It appears that the editor believes those citations to overwhelm other citations from scholarly and institutional sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. Requests that editing be delayed until after mediation on the issue has been ignored. It is noted that the editor pushing these edits has made no attempt to move those citations to that section, but has merely eliminated them entirely. It is difficult to perceive good faith in this behavior, as the persistence of these edits seems to show bulling and edit warring. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if both of you would refrain from making substantive changes to the article until this matter is resolved. You both obviously care strongly that this article be as factually correct as possible, which is great, but this constant bickering and sniping isn't serving any useful purpose. So perhaps you could both take a deep breath, count to ten, and stick to a civil discussion of the details of the article itself. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, Wikiant's edits still remain. I am particularly offended by the removal of some of the historical and purely informative content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that most of the editors here have advanced degrees, so we should behave like educated people. Please someone for heavens sake at least try looking at some of the books that have been listed in the references! Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has 116 refs. Can you indicate the one best source for the claim that the J.D. is a doctorate? Many of the cites on both sides have been side remarks in some university committee's minutes--hardly unimpeachable sources, and they disprove (by counterexample) more than they prove anything. JJL (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I for one don't have the time or energy to sift through a hundred sources, but if you can point me at the most important three or four then I'm willing to have a go at tracking them down. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The frequent reversions are indeed unhelpful. I think both sides should refrain until mediation has been completed. Among other things, I'm reluctant to make minor edits as I believe they'll simply be swept away by wholesale reversions. JJL (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm happy to await the mediation. Wikiant (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of arguing back and forth...can someone simply write to the Department of Education and ask them if the Juris Doctor is a Doctorate Degree of not. From my investigation I know for a fact that the term professional doctorate is not a term accepted by the department of education. The accept term is first professional degree. -Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the US Department of Education have the authority to make that pronouncement? (For the US version of the degree, that is - clearly they'd have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the Canadian or Australian versions.)  Or are the universities themselves (either individually or collectively) the relevant authorities? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas....you are very correct...the US Department of Education only has authority over education qualification in the United States. It is common knowledge that the US government does not consider the Juris Doctor a doctorate degree; the official US government pay scale (GS) clearly reflect this. I just want people to end this back and forth argument. The fact that we are arguing about this shows that there is something wrong with the Juris Doctor classification by some as a doctorate degree. The US department of education clear states that some first professional degrees have the name doctor in them but this not make equivalent to the PHD. In this country a university can call their degree what the want to...the issue hits the wall when they go to apply for a Job with the government or major corporation outside their fields. So can someone..anyone please write to the Depart of Edu and get their feed back ? -  Edward  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.139.110 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that pay-scales or subsequent employability are relevant to this argument. Nor, unfortunately, would a letter from some representative of the US Department of Education count as a valid source for Wikipedia purposes - citations have to be to verifiable, reputable, published sources.  A document published by the US DoE clearly stating (a) what the official definition of a 'doctoral degree' is, and (b) whether the JD satisfies this definition, would be ideal - but nobody seems to have found such a source so far.
 * In the UK, the situation is rather more clear-cut: the Privy Council and/or the Department of Education (or whatever it's calling itself this week - last time I checked it was the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) grant degree-awarding powers to a recognised institution (either a university or university college - both of which titles are legally protected). The QAA vets all degree-level qualifications, and its current rules stipulate that doctoral degrees must comprise a substantial original research component.  Clearly all holders of doctoral degrees are entitled to call themselves 'Dr', and by historical precedent, holders of the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (and, in the last decade or so, the degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery) who are registered medical (or dental) practitioners are also entitled to do so, but this latter doesn't mean that the BDS or MBChB is a doctoral degree.
 * With the JD, there seems to be considerable debate over whether the JD is a 'doctoral degree' (whatever that means in the US) and whether its holders are entitled to call themselves 'Dr' either in a professional, social or academic context. I'm finding all this at the same time quite interesting and deeply confusing, although I'm beginning to suspect that no consensus, either within Wikipedia or within the US legal and academic worlds, will be found any time soon.  -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the US Department of Education has no authority over US universities. The DOE regulates US primary and secondary education only. There is no governmental regulatory body for US universities. Wikiant (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting - thanks for that. So it's entirely up to the universities themselves what they mean by 'doctoral degree' (and, presumably, 'terminal degree' and similar concepts?) and whether the JD counts as such?  Do they have any kind of consensus? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By way of answer, let me just say: University of Phoenix. JJL (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking over the Task of WikiProject Law project and I am shocked to see this argument is still going on. Did we ever come to an agreement on this? Each university has its own name for the degree. But I thought we were going to make two articles. One for the J.D. and one for the Law degree. But I'm my humble opinion I believe the J.D. to be a law degree not a doctorates. But that's just my opinion. Dumaka (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor. JJL (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Question
Perhaps I'm stepping into a snake pit but I'll be bold. I was looking over this article to possibly review for GA since it has been sitting as a GAN for over five weeks. Upon seeing this discussion and looking at the edit history I fear the article would quick fail for lack of stability. Has there been any movement on the mediation? I checked the mediation page and it does not appear as though anything substantive has been done for a couple of weeks. I will pose this question to the GA reviewer community for their input. I'd hate to bring down a nominee that has been sitting for so long but I know that it probably should not be reviewed while it sits in mediation over a contentious issue. Any thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's waiting for a mediator now, I think it should just be failed. At the conclusion of the MedCom case it can always be re-submitted. Wizardman  16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this subject is still being debated on the Wikipedia. The following official document from the US Department of Education makes it abundantly clear that the American J.D. should not be regarded as a doctoral-level qualification, even though the designation "Doctor" is (inappropriately) incorporated into the degree's name. Any statement to the contrary (as currently found in several Wikipedia articles) is factually wrong. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The source you linked to (thanks for that, by the way) certainly says that the JD (and other first professional degrees) shouldn't be regarded as being on the same level as the PhD or other research doctorates, but I don't think anybody has argued that it should be. What I think we're arguing about (although I've lost track on several occasions) is whether the term 'doctorate' as used in the US has, either officially or by custom, widened in definition to cover the various first professional degrees which happen to have the word 'Doctor' in their name, as well as the proper research-focussed doctorates like the PhD.  It's also not clear whether the US Department of Education has any authority to make such pronouncements, due to the relatively unregulated nature of US higher education.  I'm now convinced that at the very least there is an ongoing debate about this point, both here on Wikipedia (currently the subject of mediation) and in the wider world. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicholas Jackson is correct in stating that academic policies are not regulated by the government in the U.S., unlike many civil law countries (and China, see citation found in section on China). And yes, research doctorates and professional doctorates are qualitatively different.  The history, as discussed in this J.D. article, is clear that the J.D., just like the M.D., was created as a professional doctorate, just as existed in 12th century Europe.  Research doctorates weren't created until hundreds of years after those original 12th century degrees.  The M.D. predates the Ph.D. in the U.S., and the Ph.D. was still exceedingly rare even after the J.D. was created by Harvard.  Therefore, there has been no widening of the definition of the doctorate, unless you consider the innovation of the modern research doctorate to be a widening. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Executive Juris Doctor
This article covers information on the EJD degree. My question is why does the Executive Juris Doctor (degree) main article still exist? Dumaka (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)