Talk:Doctor of Laws

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  fr 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  United States edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  edits to U.S. section by user 75.192.204.180 

message: 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)
thread_title:  focus of topic and arrangement of countries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Juris Doctor in Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Doctor of laws in Canada 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Doctor of laws ..not Doctor of Law  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Petition to bar Zoticogrillo from editing any legal degree page on Wikipedia