Talk:Doctor of Laws

Modified to remove possible plagiarism issue. Granted it was in quotes before and a reference listed at the bottom of the page, but it was only implicitly stated. The modifications remove the need for the quote.

A higher degree awarded by publication (meaning a body of work is sent into the university and is examined at the request of the candidate) is not honourary and it does grant the title of Doctor.

Does it show a POV by claiming that law professors obtain the JSD or DJS only when required for promotion and tenure? In my experience, it is not necessary to hold either degree to get tenure, indeed, few profs do hold above a masters and JD. The wording here makes it sound like no one would ever get a JSD for its own merits, which I think is biased and untrue.--Mike 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

fr

I added the French language link fr:LL.D. It seems to be a disambiguous page, it isn't. We had big trouble on French language wikipedia concerning this question. We decided to split the original article between two: one with the French expression (fr:Docteur en droit), the other with the English expression (fr:Doctor of Laws). The first expression is used by Canadians (francophone and anglophone when they speak French), where there is actually this diploma/title ; the second one is used by French, and some contributors decided to not use the expression used in Canada.

This question was, and still is, really hard and very emotional, I would thank you to respect this very difficult question in French language Wikipedia. Staatenloser 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

United States edits

References to the J.D. were removed as not appropriate to the degree of Doctor of Laws as this page relates to the highest degrees in law, not first professional degrees. All earned degrees are academic degrees.

Recent edits to the United States section have contained errors. One of the simple ones was with the coding, which moves the footnoted references into the text. The other is an issue of verifiability. But there is also mis-use of the terms "de jure" and "de facto." If something is "de jure" then there must be a verifiable rule or law out there somewhere that can be cited. Likewise with "de facto"--there must be some factual support that can be cited for the claim. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the SJD to the LLD is problematic because they are so different, and because there is variation among LLD degrees in various jurisdictions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. section has been updated with references to the U.S. law schools. Some may not agree that the J.S.D./S.J.D. is the most advanced law degree and is the actual terminal degree in law, but the American law schools recognize this. It is an error to place the American J.D. under this section. It is true that the J.D. contains the word doctor, but there is much dispute over this. The juris doctor site is already very skewed and biased. The J.D. debate should remain in its own section and not continue on into the section reserved for the Doctor of Laws that is recognized worldwide as a Ph.D.-level degree. This statement is in no way intended to diminish the American J.D., which is an outstanding degree in its own right. It is made strictly for the purpose of accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv-22 (talk • /Mv-22) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate is unfounded. Because you therefore cannot provide any verifiability, your recommended content will be revised or removed, according to wiki standards. This is not the proper venue to debate and propagate unverified fringe theories. I invite you to initiate third part intervention if you disagree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No one really considers the JD a doctorate. I think you're POV pushing here. --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really so easy to resolve. Show me some citations. Verifiability? There are hundreds (ok, not hundreds, but tens) of great cites in the J.D. article that says that the J.D. IS a doctorate. I'm not just making it up... it's really true. If you can find some that say otherwise, it would be REALLY IMPORTANT to mention, because it could improve the current J.D. article considerably. Aren't we grateful for the standard of verifiability? Zoticogrillo (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to remove statements under this section that the JSD is considered the most advanced law degree and the terminal degree in law. Citations were provided by way of examples of U.S. law schools who state just that. I am not trying to get into the JD debate, but the biased opinions relative to the JD should not flow over into this section that is reserved for the Doctor of Laws. Also it was never claimed that the JD was not a doctorate, but surely no one equates this type of doctorate to the Doctor of Laws. Even those who argue strongly that the J.D. is a doctorate do not try to do this. My aim is to have quality information on this page, not to undertake an editing war based upon personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv-22 (talk • /Mv-22) 13:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the unpleasant experience. We had a misunderstanding. As you may know and be familiar with, as Wikipedia has evolved, a loose set of ground rules have been laid down to help avoid misunderstandings. One of them is the principle of verifiability. When you provide a citation, you need to provide enough information that other users can go and look for that information. I tried to help you by looking for the information you cite, but I could not find it. My intent was not to war with you, but I hoped that you would provide more specific citations. Learning all the codes and standards for Wikipedia can be a pain, especially for those of us with lives, and for that reason I highly recommend the Adopt-a-user program. You can team up with a knowledgeable Wiki user who can answer your questions and help you resolve difficulties you might have. I have found it to be invaluable. Think of it as a living index to the wiki world. Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, I am not up to speed on the codes in this system. However, this section is Doctor of Laws not Juris Doctor. There is much debate on whether the JD is a true doctorate, and I don't have time or willingness to enter into that debate, which right now is skewed on the JD page. This page, however, is entitled Doctor of Laws--the research doctorate in law. If that is the case, why are you inserting the notion that there are two doctorates in the U.S. the academic and the professional? (All degrees are academic by the way unless they were purchased somewhere). Most of the top law schools in the U.S. refer to the LL.M. and the S.J.D. as degrees in their graduate programs, and others refer to the S.J.D. as their most advanced law degree. When I try to put this in and provide citations as to which universities make this claim, they are deleted. I don't think this is proper, and perhaps one day will look at the rules more closely to attempt to put a stop to this. I, for one, would never make a disparaging remark about the J.D., but it is not a Ph.D.-level degree as is the S.J.D. Mv-22 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. When you cite materials, you need to provide enough specificity that another user can go and look for the information, just like with academic publications. If you have citations to support your viewpoint re JD, the J.D. article would be improved if you could add them, and I hope you will do so. Some of your views re the JD doctorate and professional degrees contradict authoratative academic and historical sources, many of which can be found at the JD article. I hope you will have the opportunity to view some of those books and articles next time you are at the library. Finally, as I have already stated, equating the LL.D. with the SJD or a PhD is problematic since there are some differences between the programs and the academic systems from which they originate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in the J.D. page. This is a page for a Doctor of Laws, so please stop inserting your personal opinions here. If you are interested in learning about graduate law degrees, I hope you will have the opportunity some day to stop by one the the top U.S. law schools where admissions officers will be happy to explain the difference to you. Mv-22 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

edits to United States section

The section on the United States was revised because it lacked sufficient citations to support the content, and because the content often contradicted other source material. Citation to Harvard Law School was removed because it did not support the content. The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States citation, which was added to the section, states the following: "The professional Doctor's degree should be the highest university award given in a particular field in recognition of completion of academic preparation for professional practice, whereas the Doctor of Philosophy should be given in recognition of preparation for research whether the particular field of learning is pure or applied." (emphasis added) Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't notice the previous discussion section on this same topic. It's been a few months since I logged in. Trovatore has objected to my edits because, as the editor claims, the J.D. is not relevant to the article. However, the J.D. has been in the U.S. referred to as a Doctor of Laws, and for nearly 100 years it was the only degree to which that term referred. I found a book that has that statement, and I will reference it when I find it in the library tomorrow. Therefore, the J.D. material is very relevant. Besides the fact that it is still to this day sometimes referred to as a Doctor of Laws. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Trovatore here: this article should be about the degree of Doctor of Laws (LLD) and, by extension, equivalent degrees such as that of Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) and possibly the SJD too. It's probably ok to include a short paragraph on its relation to related degrees such as the JD, but that should be restricted to the US section, and shouldn't be allowed to spill over into the rest of the article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If the intent is that this article be about the LL.D., then it should be entitled as such. I have found in my research (which you can duplicate by following my citations and doing your own research) that in the United States the term "doctor of laws" refers most commonly to the Juris Doctor. Sometimes the term in the U.S. refers to the LL.D., and it is rarely used to refer to the S.J.D. But as it stands, if the article is about the "Doctor of Laws," then in the U.S. context, it is about a number of degrees, predominantly the Juris Doctor.

It seems that the intent of some of the editors, then, is to create an article that compares research doctorates of law across educational systems. That would be a useful article, but I don't know what the title would be. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point - that this article shouldn't be a comparison of doctoral degrees in law across educational systems. I'm not quite convinced that this article should be about degrees which are commonly referred to as "doctor of laws", though. What would you suggest an article about the actual "Doctor of Laws" (LLD) degree be called, if not "Doctor of Laws"? Perhaps an acceptable approach would be to restrict this article to that degree (and maybe isomorphic degrees such as the DCL, but I'm not too sure about that) and to move all the other content to a new "Doctoral degrees in Law" article. Does that sound sensible? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why must we force an English term on it? Why call it a LL.D. and in the same breath a Doctor of Laws? A LL.D. article should be entitled just that, and if acronyms must be avoided, use the latin term. I think it would be useful to have a composite article listing the various doctorates of law from all jurisdictions, and it could be called "Doctor of Law." But at some point, editors are going to have to come to terms with the strange animal they created in the U.S. called the J.D. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll insert the citation later. I've already found some material on the internet, which will be used for the article for now until the book is located tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was very surprised to find very few instances of the S.J.D. being referred to as a "Doctor of Laws" degree, which is reflected in the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore has removed content that meets all wiki policies for inclusion because that editor states that this article is not about the J.D. However, in the U.S. the term "Doctor of Laws" refers most commonly to the Juris Doctor degree, and rarely to the S.J.D. Please see my comment just a few lines above regarding the creation of an article that addresses only research doctorates of law. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The JD, not being a research degree, is not comparable to the other degrees treated in this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary — its articles are not supposed to collect together things that accidentally have the same name. If it is really true that the term Doctor of Laws is used in the US to refer to the JD, rather than this being an exception being presented misleadingly as the rule by Zoticogrillo, then it is not reasonable to organize the article by this name, and a different solution should be found. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it truly is the case that "the term Doctor of Laws is used in the US to refer to the JD, rather than this being an exception being presented misleadingly as the rule by Zoticogrillo," which is clear by the citations in the article. I included just eight examples from the internet, because if I were to be exhaustive, the list could potentially be endless.

You will also find that the nineth example, footnote number 16, is actually not an example of the use of the term in the U.S., but it is from the website of the Nobel Foundation (which issues the Nobel Prizes, of course). I could find more examples of the use internationally, however it would not be relevant to the section of use in the U.S., and I think that the Nobel example already establishes my point.

Definition of terms is a huge part of any encyclopedic article, indeed such a fundamental issue that no article can be taken seriously (meaning it will never pass GA review, and might even be erased) unless it addresses it.

Did you see that some of us have been discussing changing the name of the article above?

I am sorry that you are disappointed to learn of the situation in the United States (and appearantly internationally, as seen by the Nobel example), but please direct your frustration towards research and not at me personally. I am merely reporting research, and mean you no harm. I also find the results of my research surprising and sometimes perplexing (as I have sometimes expressed above). Please don't assume that I have any malicious intent, or that I'm so dull that I would actually POV push this relatively small and insignificant issue. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course an article must define its subject matter, for some value of define (though this is often problematic — see mathematics and number for two particularly bad cases). But what I'm talking about is the other side of the coin; namely, the choice of the subject matter that goes in a single article. The JD does not naturally belong in the same article as research doctorates in law, from the US or any other country, even if it is sometimes called "Doctor of Law". The proper solution for disparate topics that accidentally share the same name is a disambiguation page, not an article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But the term as used in the United States does not just sometimes refer to the J.D. in the U.S. It almost always refers to the J.D. in the U.S., and at one point in time in the U.S. it almost exclusively referred to the J.D. Forcing one paradigm as applied in some countries to all others is inappropriate for an objective forum, no matter how convincing one may think that paradigm is. I am now heading to the library to find the citation for the latter, historical, use.

Have you read the citations and confirmed this issue with your own research? If then you still feel so convinced by your position, please share your research with us! Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't even matter if it always referred to the JD. It's not the same topic. WP articles are organized by subject matter, not by accidental similarity of name. --Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "accidental similarity" here. You could take the position that the academic institutions in the U.S. over the past 150 years have misused the term, and that even the most prestigious universities there continue continue to do so, but this is not a forum for original research, and you would have to find a citation to support it. In the end, there is nothing more irrelevant than what our personal opinions might be. In the U.S. "Doctor of Laws" means J.D., and to say otherwise is to impose a paradigm (nationalist?) on the article. Again, please show your research. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a name. There is no presumption that it means the same thing in different jurisdictions. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of your position would be that the article should only discuss the "Doctor of Laws," or DL degree, and not the LL.D. or any other degree that does not use that specific name exclusively. But the English translation of a number of degrees is "Doctor of Laws," and it is the common name given to a number of degrees. What's more, the DL is an archaic degree which (I believe) is no longer used. Therefore, the article should be about the common use of the term, which is used differently in different jurisdictions.

Just to be clear, what is your recommendation for a resolution? As I stated above, mine is that there be a separate article for LL.D. and that this "Doctor of Laws" article continue on as an article for all the degrees which use that name. Could you please be specific as to the article characteristics and explicate why you believe it should be that way? Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation is that there be no article for all degrees that use the same name. Using the same name is not a sufficient reason to treat disparate topics in the same article. There can be a disambiguation page. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The source of my confusion is that you keep ambivilating between connotation and denotation. You also assume that degrees from very different educational systems can be forced into one hierarchical system. I also note that your objections only arise when the J.D. degree is brought up, and that you prefer content which states that the J.D. is not a doctorate, rather than differentiating the J.D. by saying it is a professional and not a research doctorate. Therefore, it seems the most important point for you is establishing that the J.D. is not a doctorate. But that position is not supported by the evidence, and insisting that the article be so fundamentally changed over such a simple issue is POV pushing and unreasonable.

According to the wiki guideline page on disambiguation:

"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that appears on hitting "Go" to any of the other possible desired articles."

This is in order for the reader to quickly exclude irrelevant information. There is no such situation here. The present is an article which addresses the term in a comprehensive and thorough manner. The different degrees are all of the same type, and the meaning of the term is not so diverse.

Your personal concern that readers might misunderstand and think that the J.D. is the same as a LL.D. (or the same as a Ph.D.) is unfounded, as the issue is clearly explained in the article.

A drastic change to the article, such as removing the present article with its wealth of useful information and replacing it with a disambiguation page, should only be done for a very good reason, because an encyclopedia should error on the side of making information simple and plentiful for the benefit of the readers. Therefore, this article should remain as it is, and a seperate article on the LL.D. should be created. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) They are not of the same type. A research degree is a completely different animal from a three-year professional qualification. No one ever thought to put the JD here before you; it was not intuitive to anyone else that it should go with these other degrees.

You are clearly acting with an agenda. Anyone can look through the history and see that you tried to push the JD here a year ago, and yet you act now as though this is some new discovery from your "research".

The most frustrating thing is that it's perfectly obvious you have an agenda, and yet you write as though you don't. This is frankly not terribly honest. --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I belatedly understand what part of the problem might be: both the LLD ("legum doctor") and JD ("iuris doctor") degrees translate into English as "Doctor of Law(s)". (My Latin is a little rusty these days, so it took me a little while to realise this, for which I apologise.) As a result, it's not immediately obvious what the focus should be of an article entitled "Doctor of Laws". It occurs to me that there are a number of options for resolving this situation:

1. Leave the article as it is, a somewhat rambling analysis of doctoral degrees in law throughout the world.
2. Make this article primarily about the LLD (and equivalent degrees such as the DCL) and give a disambiguation link to the JD.
3. Make this article primarily about the JD and give a disambiguation link to the LLD/DCL.
4. Replace this article with a disambiguation page pointing to separate pages for the LLD and JD (and any other relevant degrees which merit inclusion).
5. Make this article about both the LLD and JD, with appropriate links to other relevant degrees.

Option 1 seems unpopular, and I must say I'm not entirely in favour of it either. The LLD predates the JD by some centuries, which is a point in favour of option 2, but the JD is probably much more common these days, which is a balancing point in favour of option 3 - but to my mind neither are entirely acceptable because they prefer one over the other. So I think at the moment I'm inclined towards either options 4 or 5, or possibly some compromise between them (perhaps option 4.5, in which the article is replaced with a longer disambiguation page with a short overview of both degrees with links to more detailed treatments). I do think that the more general discussion of vaguely equivalent law degrees throughout the world should be swapped out into a different article ("Doctoral degrees in Law" perhaps). Does any of this sound sensible? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article should be about any degree to which the term commonly applies. That is, it should be about any degree to which the general public or some large group (such as a group of institutions) applies the term. The common public use of the term in the United States is to that of the Juris Doctor and sometimes also the LL.D. (and rarely the S.J.D. as well). This is shown by the citations in the article. The reason why the article should address multiple degrees is because the term applies differently in the English language in different countries. I think the test should be, "if I were looking for an article or more information on _____ , what search terms would I use, and what kind of information might be useful to me?"

A more clear distinction can be made between research and professional doctorates in the article. Such as having a clear statement about the difference in the introduction, as well as a statement that the term "Doctor of Laws" more commonly refers to (i.e. in most nations) a research degree in law.

But excluding the J.D. from the article would be ignoring popular use of the term in the U.S., merely because we don't think the definition should apply. Our intellectual understanding and desire to order information should not in this instance over-rule public practice, since this is an encyclopedia for public use.

I have taken up this issue because it is a small niche of which I have already done much research, and for which there is a strong need of contributors. It is merely an intellectual pass-time. I don't understand what I would possibly have to gain personally from advancing a POV in this area, and if someone else has an idea, I wish they would share it with me. I'd hate to neglect an unseen, valuable opportunity! :) It might seem that my position is primarily that the J.D. is a doctorate, but actually my position is that evidence should rule. If the sources said that the J.D. is not considered a doctorate, then that would be the position I would promote. I don't care about the J.D. itself one way or the other. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's get this out in the open. You are apparently American (you claim mother-tongue facility in Italian, but you live in Seattle and San Francisco) and apparently a lawyer (based on your editing interests). Thus it is reasonable to infer that you hold a JD. Is this correct, or not? --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your interest in my personal background. If my logic is sound, then my background is irrelevant.

I am, again, of the position that sound reasoning should be our controlling factor, and none else. I assume that all editors are of the same mind. Therefore I don't wish to entertain distracting topics which might tempt us to become distracted from that ideal.

The term "American" is archaic, and offensive to individuals from other countries on the American continents, which are many. But assuming that I am a U.S. citizen just because I presently live here is also an assumption that relies on an archiac world-view. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You opened the door, counselor. You asked what you would "have to gain personally from advancing a POV in this area". --Trovatore (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But, assuming that I am an attorney, how on earth would a wikipedia article benefit me?! Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's likely a matter of your personal pride. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? Because wikipedia is more authoritative than some academic institution websites and the Encyclopedia Britannica? I could just imagine someone saying to me, "Hello, I'm Dr. Smith, and I call myself "Dr." because wikipedia says I can." (I'm just poking fun here).

I have to say that this talk page has actually given me the biggest boost to my ego--although many don't think highly of attorneys, it's nice to have someone just assume that I'm an attorney, given that most are highly educated and erudite. Who needs a degree or a title with an assumtion such as that? Thank you! :) Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the question: Do you or do you not hold a JD? You invited this line of questioning, counselor. --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been advised that I am entirely within my rights to respond with a raspberry or "tthhhppp," which I shall now dispatch presently. Therefore, for the reasons given above, :P to you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely within your rights, but your motives were already suspect, and this has done nothing to quell those suspicions. Other editors should take note of this when evaluating how likely it is, and to what extent you have cherry-picked the evidence you have presented. --Trovatore (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and while EVERYONE is reading this, editors should also be aware that I have beautifully round buttocks! here=> B <=here (Although it appears that one cheek is bigger than the other.) Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you two have quite finished arguing, perhaps we could return to discussing the article itself. I've had another read through and am coming round to the view that perhaps some version of option 1 is the most sensible approach after all. I think that some of the sections (Brazil, for example) could do with a bit of a copy-edit, though. So maybe it'd be better to make this article about (as Zoticogrillo suggested) all degrees which are commonly called (or whose official title translates into English as) "Doctor of Law(s)". If we were to go down this route, I think it'd be good to have a slightly more extensive opening paragraph, highlighting the different types of degrees under discussion (professional degrees like the JD, PhD-level research degrees, and UK-style higher doctorates). This could be followed by a brief section (one or two paragraphs but no more) outlining the history of the LLD (which dates from the middle ages) and its variants, and the JD (which dates from the 19th century). Detailed discussion of the actual LLD could be split off into a separate article ("Doctor of Laws (LLD)" perhaps) if we felt it necessary. Discussion of the JD's academic standing (whether or not it's a "proper doctorate") should be omitted entirely from this article, though, however reputable the cited sources might be. How does this sound? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm done laughing at myself now. Let's move forward as you suggest. It will be interesting to explain the reason why it's sometimes called "Doctor of Laws." A LL.D. article will be a challenge to draft, but that's what makes wikipedia so fun. I'm interested to see your drafts, since it seems you know a great deal more about the LL.D. than I. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that I know more about the LLD than you, but I'm willing to help write such an article if it turns out there's enough to say on the subject. I've heard couple of different explanations for why it's sometimes "Doctor of Laws": one is that originally there were separate degrees in Canon and Civil Law, but in England at least the DCanL and BCanL didn't survive the Reformation (I believe that some Catholic universities still award these degrees); another is that the Laws in question are Civil and Common Law. Actually, I'm an academic dress fan - what little I know about the history of these degrees I learned while reading about what robes they wore. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Juris Doctor does not translate verbatim as "Doctor of Laws", but as "Doctor of Law". "Doctor of Laws" would be Jurum Doctor. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that Doctor of Laws translates to Legum Doctor. Also, I agree that this section should be re-written, with the idea that the only references to the J.D. in the article should be that the J.D. should not be confused with a Doctor of Laws. I think the intent of this section is to discuss the highest degrees in law, i.e., the LL.D., and its functional equivalents throughout the world. Maybe there should be separate articles on the Doctor of Laws (literally), which in the U.S. is only an honorary degree. Then there could be a separate article for the S.J.D. There is already an article on the first graduate law degree in the U.S. (LL.M.) and the J.D. 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv-22 (talk • /Mv-22)

My Latin dictionary says that both lex, legis and ius, iuris translate as "law", so while Legum Doctor does indeed mean "Doctor of Laws", and (as Trovatore observes) Iuris Doctor means "Doctor of Law", I think there's probably a case for including all of the current content, or for including just some of it. At the moment I'm leaning towards this article being about all degrees whose names translate into English as "Doctor of Law" or "Doctor of Laws", and then having separate articles for the various subtypes (there is already one for the JD, for example), but your suggestion is also a sensible one. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

From my view, the problem with including the Juris Doctor is that the distinction between the U.S. Doctor of Law (assuming one accepts this translation for the J.D.) and the actual degree of Doctor of Laws is far greater than the difference of one letter. The similarity in words is already causing some to hold the view that the two degrees should be grouped together, albeit under separate headings. I am still of the view that there should be one page for LL.D. (U.S. section should only be an honorary degree); another page for the S.J.D./J.S.D.; another for the LL.M.; and another for the J.D. This makes it clean. These degrees don’t compete against one another, they compliment each other. I don’t think that trying to make the case that the J.D. is the equivalent of an LL.D. by way of similarity in words over actual substantive content is the way to go with this. However, I can also see utility in the suggestion that the article be entitled "Doctoral Degrees in Law," and then breaking into several headings. The J.D. is indeed a doctoral degree and as long as it falls under a heading such as this, I think it will work.Mv-22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

As I've stated above, I agree that there should be a separate article for the LL.D. What should the title of the article be? If not LL.D., then how about "Legum Doctor" (did I spell that right?) Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

edits by 75.194.29.159 to U.S. section

The recent edits by 75.194.29.159 are surprising because they were substantial and there was no discussion. One edit was a grammatic mistake, another was addition to the section about the J.D. status, and the rest was removing content explaining why some term the S.J.D. as the highest degree or a postdoctorate.

I have removed the entire paragraph about the status of the J.D. It was suggested above by Nicholas that reference to the status of the J.D. degree be removed. I agree, because it is not relevant. The new draft should refer the reader to the J.D. article. In addition, the content added is not directly relevant to the status of the J.D. degree, and is an inference drawn by use of OR.

The content explaining the SJD as the "highest" degre and "postdoc" is very important, one reason being that it allows us to explain the difference between a professional and research doctorate.

I highly recommend that 75.194.29.159 get a username. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The J.D. page is full of entries by people trying to make the J.D. out to be more than it is. Those discussions should stay there, and leave the Doctor of Laws page to those degrees, which are substantially equivalent to the Ph.D. in law, S.J.D., D.C.L., etc. The J.D. has never been known as the Doctor of Laws (plural). It has been known as a bachelor of laws and as a Juris Doctor, but never a Doctor of Laws. It is a great degree, but there is no reason to bring these discussions here. Mv-22 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As already mentioned in a number of places above, we plan on keeping all discussion of the status of the J.D. degree out of this article. As for the term "Doctor of Laws" never applying to the J.D. degree, you are clearly wrong, as can be seen by the citations in the article (which include one from the Nobel Foundation). I am curious to see your support for the claim that the J.D. degree has been referred to as a "bachelor of laws," as I've never seen this instance, which would be very odd. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely improper for one to make the claim that leading law schools in the United States, such as Stanford and Harvard, are placing "misleading" statements on their websites. If law schools, such as these, have it wrong about their own degrees, we are all in trouble. This section is on U.S. degrees that are most analogous to the earned Doctor of Laws, and the fact that the JD is referenced on a page about the Nobel Foundation concerning individuals who earned their degrees (whatever they might actually be) outside of the United States bears no relationship to the U.S. J.D. being recognized as the equivalent to the Doctor of Laws (plural). If you have any question about this, I suggest that you stop by and ask the Dean of HLS or SLS. I am sure they will be happy to explain the distinctions.Mv-22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

I have spoken with administrators at Stanford about their posting, and their explaination fit that given in the content you removed from the article. Taken out of context, I can understand why you think they meant something different. Why do you think they also call it a postdoctorate, and why are you being selective about which of their statements you want included in the article?

However, you removed many more cites than just the Nobel Foundation citation without any explaination. Including ones from Northwestern University, and the University of California at San Francisco, both very highly esteemed institutions. And I'm not sure you are correct about your assumption of the degrees on the Nobel website--have you researched it? Please share your research with us.

Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to removed citations from an article, unless the citations are erroneous or mis-typed. Wiki articles are merely a summary of other information out there, and wiki editors are not truly "editors," as the term is normally used, but merely contributors. It is not our place to interpret or exclude information found elsewhere just because we disagree with it.

But thank you for discussing your edits. According to wiki policy, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, the citations you removed will be restored. Please comment on how you think those citations should appear, and how they should be explained, otherwise the content as it existed before will be restored, with a few additions you contributed. Please be weary of Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Have you read the comments above about the proposals for drafting a new article? I invite you to contribute to that conversation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the references by the other universities to the JD as a "doctor of laws" probably should not have been removed at this time. I suspect these are simply errors by their webmasters, but this needs to be verified. Mv-22 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In making that argument, it could be possible for the Western Michigan University and Northwestern websites, as they were probably drafted by webmasters, but it could also be true of the sites of Harvard and Stanford. However, the UCSF, Samford University, Dickinson and Salt Lake Baptist College materials were not drafted by webmasters, but are administrative materials, such as a style guide. Therefore, even if your assumption is proven to be true, it would only apply to two of the citations. Also keep in mind that the citations listed are only a sample of the first few google results (with advanced search), and there are hundreds of other examples. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

edits to U.S. section by user 75.192.204.180

User 75.192.204.180 has removed verifiable content and the citations and substituted that user's own opinion on the matter, which is a violation of a number of wiki policies. This has happened a number of times over the past week, with only a couple of users engaging in discussion on the matter. Editing of the article might have to be locked by an administrator if it continues. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LL.D. article

According to the suggestions of the editors who participated in the discussion on this page, I have created the LL.D. or Legum Doctor article. It was merely a paste of the relevant sections from this article, and needs more research. The changes suggested for this article have still not been implemented. An article for the SJD must be created. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The S.J.D. article has been created. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the intent was to create a clean article on the degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) since that is literally the only doctor of law (s) degree. It was never suggested that an article be created for the abbreviation of the degree. This way the article would only be about the Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) with references to other degrees such as the J.D., S.J.D., DCL, etc.Mv-22 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A "clean article on the degree" of LL.D. has indeed been created. The actual title of the article is Legum Doctor and LL.D. is simply a re-direct. "Doctor of Law" is an English translation which applies to a number of different degrees. This is clearly shown by verifiable references. Whereas you have not provided ANY support for your obviously incorrect POV that the LL.D. "is literally the only doctor of law(s) degree." Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The article might be better entitled Doctor of Laws and then refer only to an actual degree of Doctor of Law (s) (LL.D.). I understand your point of view, sir, but there are other views too. Is there anyone else that has a view on this other than Zoticogrillo? Mv-22 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, and I previously held the same opinion that you seem to, which is that the "Doctor of Laws" article should primarily (if not entirely) be about the LLD. But Zoticogrillo mostly convinced me that there are other degrees (including, apparently, the JD) which are commonly referred to as "Doctor of Law(s)" and/or whose Latin names translate into English as "Doctor of Law(s)", and made the point that a reader seeking information about one of these degrees will naturally look up "Doctor of Law" or "Doctor of Laws". A reader seeking information about the LLD will probably also look up this article and will be readily directed to the LLD article for specific information. It's probably not an ideal situation, but this way seems to be more convenient for the readers. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Points of view on the topic that cannot be supported by citations are distracting, as they cannot be included in the article. It's much easier to restrict discussion to only those things that can included in the article. As we see by the available citations, there is no such thing as "an actual degree of Doctor of Law (s)," as the term applies differently in different countries. This point is only a tricky one when we want our points of view to supersede the evidence found in citations. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There was initially quite a bit of opposition to introducing reference to the J.D. in this article, which issue was cleared up by citations. However, there is now even more content regarding the J.D. in Canada, even though there is ample evidence that shows that the term "Doctor of Law" is not used to refer to that degree in Canada, and there has been no opposition to its inclusion (other than by myself). Strange things are going on here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to take a close look at the citations (footnotes 12 – 21).

12. Harvard: The JD is called the Doctor of Law (not in the plural as incorrectly stated)(The JD is not even considered a graduate law degree at HLS). This should tell you something. 13. Emory: Doctor of Law, not laws 14. Western Michigan does not offer the degree and incorrectly (but understandably) refers to Doctor of Laws being offered at Cooley Law School. But take at look at Cooley’s website—Doctor of laws is not there. 15. This source is not verifiable. It is probably a non-US degree since the US JD was not offered at the time for these recipients. 16. Webster’s dictionary has the JD as a Doctor of Law; so why is it being cited in support of the notion that a J.D. is commonly referred to as a Doctor of Laws? 17. Salt Lake Baptist College?? Full of Errors; not a law school and does not appear to be regionally accredited. 18. Northwestern. This is the Graduate School web site--not the law school page. When you go to the appropriate page, you will see the correct name. 19. Samford has it correct: LL.D. is Doctor of laws J.D. is Doctor of Law. This again calls to question why this is being used as a source to support just the opposite position. 20. This document should really be questioned. It is not a U.S. law school. It is entitled CLS degrees, which I think means Clinical Laboratory Science. 21. Dickinson: Doctor of Law

Are you still persuaded that the J.D. “typically’ refers to the degree of Doctor of Laws? I would have removed all of these citations as inaccurate, but in the spirit of civility and discussion, I would like to hear other views before I do so. Again, this should not be viewed as an attack on the J.D. Why would anyone do that? But the notion that the J.D. is equivalent to level of Doctor of Laws is not supported.Mv-22 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is actually insignificant, since it is clear that this article is different from the Legum Doctor (LL.D.) article. Since 2005 this article has been about both "Doctor of Law" and "Doctor of Laws" (please see the history for the redirect page for doctor of law), and previous editors since that time have found that acceptable. Somewhere in the edits "Doctor of Law" must have been erased in the text of the article.

Your attacks of some of the citations are curious. It seems that you are insisting that all citations be from a law school website. But the content does not claim that "Doctor of Law(s)" is the official title of the degree (which is Juris Doctor), but that the term typically refers to the J.D. It also seems that you doubt the accuracy of the Nobel website, which is strange.

Here are some further citations. Many more are available. http://www.law.wisc.edu/current/rtf/04.0.html http://ww1.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/AlumniDegrees.htm http://www.shu.edu/academics/upload/shu_minor_legal_studies.pdf http://www.news.ku.edu/2009/january/6/fall08grads.shtml http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dean/oir/documents/Section6AlumniPostGraduateActivities.pdf http://quizbowl.stanford.edu/archive/sw94/BowlingGreen.b.txt Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking anything; I don't do that. Just making legitimate comments that you may or may not agree with. I also think your references to my comments as “strange” are not polite. This is after all, as you say, an intellectual pass-time, and there is no need for that.

I was unaware that this page was also Doctor of Law, and if that is the case, the references to the J.D. certainly can remain as long as it is clear that it refers to the Doctor of Law and not the Doctor of Laws, since the difference is indeed signficant. They are two entirely different degrees, and it may very well end up that people will be under the impression that the JD is the same thing as the degree of Doctor of laws. I don’t think anyone wants that. Perhaps we should have a separate page for Doctor of Law.

I looked up the JD references on the Nobel page as well as the individuals who received them. These were honorary degrees that were not awarded in the U.S. Since they have nothing to do with the U.S. J.D., which is what this paragraph is about, I have removed the reference. Just because a citation is inserted does not mean it is verifiable or correct.

Now as to the references from the law schools. Who would know better about the U.S. law degrees than the U.S. law schools? They are the ones who award the degrees.Mv-22 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing the articles is my pass-time, but discussing pecunia with editors isn't so fun.

Assuming inconsistencies or errors of highly reputable institutions, which inconsistencies would be necessary for your point of view, is irregular and "strange." There are other terms for that kind of behavior which are more clear and accurate, but to which you would object even more.

There are still citations in the article which show that the term "Doctor of Laws" also applies to the Juris Doctor in common usage. While they are not ideal citations (showing clear official usage), they are clear examples, and a google search of the terms turns up hundreds more. I will add some of the citations I previously brought up (which include a law school), if you wish. But it's annoying and unnecessary to readers to have so many citations which say the same thing.

Even though the Swedish degrees on the Nobel website are not U.S. issued, it does show the J.D. being defined by the term "Doctor of Laws." It has been properly removed because it is not relevant to the U.S. section.

Your criticisms of the other citations are not significant enough to have them removed, or to effect the content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

focus of topic and arrangement of countries

An editor recently re-arranged the countries and made various changes to the article. The article is about degrees termed to be a "doctor of law" or "doctor of laws," which term is used in many different countries (the U.S. not the most important among them), and which term does not apply to the J.D. in all countries. Therefore, the article shall be changed back to reflect this focus, and the countries shall be arranged alphabetically. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Juris Doctor in Canada

Zoticogrillo:

I have restored my original edit to the usage of Doctor of Laws. Prior to recent, it is true that the J.D. was not commonly referred to as Doctor of Laws, or a Doctorate in Laws in Canada, but that was because only one law school offerred a JD. My edits were accompanied by a citation (from the dean of the University of Toronto Law School) which explains the change in designation was in part motivated by the desire to let students refer to their degree as a Doctorate.

Perhaps you regard the fact that Canadian LLB programs were the academic equivalent of U.S. JD programs as a threat to your thesis that the JD is a terminal degree. Whatever your reasons, disbaraging Canadian law programs is an unjustified insult to Canadian-trained counsel, many of whom practice (alongside and undistinguished from US JD grads) in elite Manhattan firms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about "Doctor of Laws," which term is generally not applied to the J.D. in Canada. I have searched extensively for ANY references to the J.D. as a "Doctor of Law" in Canada, and have only found the two articles you have cited. And the two articles that we have found aren't very useful, as one merely mentions "doctor of law" as an English translation of Juris Doctor, and the other is an online commentary article. A useful citation would be one that shows that in Canada the term "Doctor of Law" is used (even occasionally) to mean the J.D. degree. As far as I can tell, no source clearly showing this can be found. Please update us if you find one! Since the term "Doctor of Law" in Canada applies almost exclusively to the LL.D., and sometimes to the S.J.D. (aka J.S.D.), any mention of the J.D. should be appropriately limited. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised to find Zoticogrillo here. Dude the Doctor of "Laws" and the Doctor of "Law" are two different degrees and translation from Latin to English. Don't take my word call the ABA. Moron 206.205.104.66 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It appears that you wish to ignore the citations on this topic, and wish to use abusive language by calling me a "Moron," both of which are violations of wiki policy significant enough to warrant serious administrative action. No wonder why you don't have a user name. Your IP will be blocked the next time you edit like this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of laws in Canada

This is partially a continuation of the previous section on the JD in Canada. The article is about law degrees to which the term "Doctor of Law" or "Doctor of Laws" applies. The term is applied differently in different countries, which is why there are different nation sections. There is often confusion on this point, and editors believe that this article should discuss all doctorates which are in law, but, according to the consensus reached in the numerous discussions above, that is not the topic of this article.

Content has been introduced on a number of occasions which state that in Canada, the term applies to the SJD, however none of the citations given in support actually state that the SJD is termed a "Doctor of Law" in Canada. In fact, most of the citations mention the LLD or PhD and not the SJD at all. Only two schools in Canada offer the SJD, and both of them refer to the degree as a "Doctor of Juridical Science" and not "Doctor of Laws." Since the term "Doctor of Law" does not apply to the SJD in Canada, all content regarding the SJD in that section should be removed, since it is irrelevant. In addition, the editor introducing that content has erased valid citations on this topic, which is highly inappropriate.

As has been mentioned before, none of the Canadian law schools which offer the J.D. officially call the degree a "Doctor of Law." There are two articles which refer to the JD as a "Doctor of Law," but those are commentary rendering "Juris Doctor" into English, and are the great exception. No other sources refer to the JD as a "Doctor of Law," and most relevant sources in fact apply entirely different terms. Toronto states specifically on its official website that its J.D. is not a graduate degree but a second-entry degree, and UBC on their official website calls their JD a "bachelors." The editor introducing the JD content in the Canadian section has been erasing those relevant citations from the article without explanation, which is contrary to wiki policy. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of laws ..not Doctor of Law

This page is about the Doctor of "Laws" ..there is an "s" after Law and not about the Doctor of "Law" (no s) Two different degrees and translation from latin to English. The Juris Doctor is the Doctor of "Law". The S.J.D, L.L.D etc is the Doctor of "Laws". --206.205.104.66 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It appears that you wish to ignore the citations on this topic, and wish to use abusive language by calling me a "Moron," both of which are violations of wiki policy significant enough to warrant serious administrative action. No wonder why you don't have a user name. Your IP will be blocked the next time you edit like this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold a second Zoticogrillo. I have been following you edits pertaining to law degrees and I beginning to think that you have a motive. I agree with the other posters, not the moron comments, but the fact that you seems to be biased. I am not the only one who seems to think so. I am going to recommend that you be blocked from editing any legal degree pages. I think you are letting your personal desire to cloud your judgement. --Viscountrapier (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor of Laws and Doctor of Law are two completely different degrees, but the names are similar. It would be like saying a Doctor of Education in Technology is the same as a Doctor of Technology Education. Very close is words, but not even close enough for horseshoes.Mv-22 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They have been sometimes (mistakenly) used interchangeably, as evidenced in Eells, W. et al. Academic Degrees: Earned and Honorary Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education in the United States. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington D.C. 1960. Therefore, for this reason and the others discussed above, this article on both "Doctor of Law" and "Doctor of Laws," distinct from the LL.D. article, is justified. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This action only adds to the confusion by commingling a page for "Doctor of Law" and "Doctor of Laws." There is already a page for the Juris Doctor degree. And, there is no need for a page on the LL.D. There is no need to confuse the matter any further and lead one to believe that there is any substantive similarity between the two degrees. This is a drastic change to the “Doctor of Laws” page. No other entry-level law degree is included in any of descriptions for the other countries since this page is about the highest-level law degrees (PhD equivalents). The page should revert to its original form. The LL.D. page should likewise be removed. If you look at the very fine training matrix someone added to the page, we now end up with an anomaly whereby one goes from a J.D. to the LL.M., and then to Doctor of Laws, which includes the J.D. Somehow, we need to properly depict the J.D. as the entry-level professional training degree in law (albeit with the word doctor in it, which should not be confused with the Doctor of Laws. Mv-22 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all about verifiability. The J.D. article has all the available citations about the status of the J.D., the bulk of which confirm that the J.D. is a true professional doctorate. The term "Doctor of Law" and sometimes "Doctor of Laws" has been used to describe degrees other than the LL.D., a british degree which exists in common law systems almost exclusively. Since most countries are not common law, and there is verifiable and important references which use the term to describe professional doctorates, the current arrangement of articles makes the most sense. It can be changed if you can show verifiable sources justifying the change. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Petition to bar Zoticogrillo from editing any legal degree page on Wikipedia

It is my opinion that Zoticogrillo is posting his personal opinions on this page and other legal degree pages. And that he is using his position as a wiki editor to bully other posters. How do I file a official complaint about this user and who wants to join me in this petition?

I don't know what the process is, but something needs to be done.Derecho99 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits have always been accompanied by citations; that is, the content I have posted is not my opinion, but published in other media. However, you have attacked me personally with your own opinion, instead of addressing my arguments in a sound logical manner. If you need to have someone else tell you this, and wish to submit a formal complaint, this is the article: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. Alternatively, you can talk to me about your issues by submitting a comment on my talk page. I will do my best to engage your discussion in a fair and courteous manner. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)