Talk:Juris Doctor

Use of Doctor

According to the American Bar Association Journal on page 452 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.wpunj.edu/stable/25724785?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents, in summation, it should be noted that in an academic setting the use of Doctor is acceptable. The cannons do not control, non-practicing lawyers, Professors of Law, J.D.'s practicing outside the US where the title of doctor is normal, e.g. Juris Doctor recipients engaged in academia (Juris Doctor literally means teacher of the law). Therefore, I ask that you edit the article to include this important distinction recognized by the ABA, as well as other exceptions listed. Professors of Law, are paid at the doctorate level much like an ED.D is paid for their doctorate degree and thus, the title is not over aggrandizing but proper within the specific exceptions. Thank you

Opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics Author(s): Thomas J. Boodell, C. A. Carson, III, Benton E. Gates, Charles W. Joiner, Kirk M. McAlpin, Samuel P. Myers, Floyd B. Sperry, Walter P. Armstrong and Jr. Source: American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 55, No. 5 (MAY 1969), pp. 451-453 Published by: American Bar Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724785 Accessed: 07-03-2022 16:39 UTC Mortymolander (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions this exception: "These were then reinforced with a full ethics opinion that maintained the ban on using the title in legal practice, as a form of self-laudation (except when dealing with countries where the use of "doctor" by lawyers was standard practice), but allowed the use of the title in academia" (emphasis added). Robminchin (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over image of diploma

Anonymous345123 and Filetime, please stop edit warring over the image of the diploma in this article and resolve your differences here. ElKevbo (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Filetime:

You revert other people's edits without any explanation or arguments; and yet you expect others to not "deviate from the status quo." Feel free to offer substantive reasons (like I have) as to why the status quo should be maintained then.

I've given you my reasons, all of which are perfectly reasonable:

1. The picture of Suffolk Law's diploma is visibly warped (not flat) and therefore unevenly lit.

2. The picture of Suffolk Law's diploma is of notably low quality.

3. The picture is clearly “flashed” by a camera.

4. The Columbia Law School diploma picture is of significantly higher quality and lacks all the defects mentioned above.

5. Columbia Law School's adoption of the JD over the LLB is expressly referenced in the article and is therefore arguably more relevant.

The only reason I could see for any reasonable person opposing this edit is bias. I see you're affiliated with Massachusetts? Again, feel free to present cogent arguments as to why the Suffolk Law diploma should be remain in the face of the reasons I've set forth.

I’ve looked over your past edits and the criticisms directed at you on your Talk page and have noticed a pattern: you often improperly revert edits without reasonable explanation (or make disputed inclusions) without providing well-founded, substantive explanations.

You can’t revert people’s edits without explanation and then demand that they not deviate from the status quo (and argue there is contestation) when YOU are the sole user contesting the changes and refusing to provide ANY reasons for the contestation. Can you understand how ridiculous that makes you look?

You’re basically saying, “Hey, no changes from the status quo since there is contestation. By the way, I’m the sole contesting individual and I refuse to offer any reasons for my contestation.”

You've now reverted my edit of the diploma image MULTIPLE times without offering a SINGLE substantive reason for your opposition to it. It's difficult to take you seriously or engage with you in good faith when you conduct yourself like this

Anonymous345123 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think as a matter of procedural principle here, as a matter of etiquette, if there is opposition, the best thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page instead of engaging in multiple reverts, as that doesn't go anywhere (WP:3RR). Nonetheless, I can see merit in your use of the Columbia JD image for the reasons you've mentioned. Perhaps @Filetime could justify their reasons here. I believe that they need no substantive reason in the edit summary to revert other than it departs from status quo, again as a matter of etiquette, but extended discussions belong on the talk page. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about reversions based on maintaining the status quo. But the user has also indicated that it is a contested/disputed change and yet has not offered a single explanation or tried to communicate with me (notably, the user is the only individual who has expressed any opposition in the first place). Instead, the user has gone on to engage in MULTIPLE reversions. Again, it's just very difficult to engage (in good faith) with someone who conducts themselves like this. Anonymous345123 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous345123 appears to be a sockpuppet account of one of the number of accounts inserting Columbia related images into the headers of articles about general university related topics. See these edits [1] on the article for University. Filetime (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to open an investigation. Your own personal suspicions of sockpuppetry are not an acceptable reason to continue an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Filetime @ElKevbo For what it's worth, I think the image of the Columbia Law diploma looked a lot better; the Suffolk Law diploma is a grittier image that looks like it's a screenshot of a computer screen. It might be worth opening a dedicated section to gain consensus. GuardianH (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I can absolutely confirm that I am not using any sockpuppet accounts, and that I have never edited the article that you've referenced with ANY account (although now that I look at it, it could use some improvements...). I'm frankly astounded that you assume that any user insisting on using a Columbia-related picture is my doing.

But let's just assume that it was me who edited that page. How is that a basis for you to revert my edits on a completely different page (Juris Doctor) when you've presented no reasons as to why? It's just so comically petty and immature. Anonymous345123 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Australian JD curriculum

Correction: This article states in a table the curriculum for the JD in Australia is the same as for the undergraduate LLB in the same jurisdiction - it definitely is NOT the same.

Units required for the JD, including compulsory Priestly's 11, are the same topic areas, but are all classified and taught as PG (post-graduate) or G (graduate) level units.

Content in every unit is at a significantly higher and more in-depth level, as appropriate for a post graduate qualification at the masters level.

JD entry requirements include, at least, an undergraduate degree in a field other than law.

Furthermore, the Masters of Laws at University of Canberra, where the JD has been taught for over 15y for example, requires completion of only about 1/2(?) the number of these same units as the JD does, BUT course entry requires an LLB. [redacted IP] 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

how can IP address already shown be removed? Furthermorish (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction - overview about the JD history

Hello everyone,

When reading the intro to the page, I stumbled upon the following phrase:

"Originating in the United States in the late 19th century, the JD has since replaced the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) as the most common law degree in the country."

However, later in the article, one comes to know that:

"Legal studies have a long history in Italy, with the University of Bologna being the main Italian center for studies of both canon law and civil law in the 12th and 13th centuries."

How can these two statements be reconciled?

My knowledge is the following: whilst the American JD program has sprung into existence around the 19th Century - that is a fact - it has also come to my attention that legal degrees in Italy have a much longstanding tradition and holders of such degrees are bestowed the title of "Doctor of Law" (something similar to Dottor in legge).

Furthermore, the intro seems to perfectly fit the case of common law countries, whereas the subsequent developments also touch upon civil law countries (e.g. China and Italy, as well as Philippines it I am not mistaken).

Just making some remarks along with some (indirect) suggestions, to understand whether we are at a consensus or the subject-matter needs being discussed.

Best, 37.169.64.106 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. the historical context sub-section goes as follows, further echoing the discrepancy mentioned above:

"The first university in Europe, the University of Bologna, was founded as a school of law by four famous legal scholars in the 11th century who were students of the glossator school in that city. This served as the model for other law schools of the Middle Ages, and other early universities such as the University of Padua. The first academic degrees may have been doctorates in civil law (doctores legum) followed by canon law (doctores decretorum); these were not professional degrees but rather indicated that their holders had been approved to teach at the universities. While Bologna granted only doctorates, preparatory degrees (bachelor's and licences) were introduced in Paris and then in the English universities.". 37.169.64.106 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer is that the Italian degree is not actually a JD, or even particularly related to a JD, but represents a separate development of legal education. Legal studies, and degrees such as the LLD and DCL, obviously predate the JD by centuries, but that the JD developed in the US isn't really in doubt. Robminchin (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)