Talk:Juris Doctor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeJuris Doctor was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Executive Juris Doctor"[edit]

So Buzzfeed (which despite the stupid name is now a legit and reasonably reliable news organ) has this article about something called the Executive Juris Doctor degree

I don't know if it's important enough to include in this already dense and long article, so I didn't, but on the other hand probably some none-zero number of people are going to search on "Executive Juris Doctor" which is a redirect to "Juris Doctor#Executive Juris Doctor", which section doesn't exist, so they are just dumped at the top of this article, which contains no info at on Executive Juris Doctor.

So maybe we ought to ad a section something like this, probably in the "Types and characteristics" subsection:

====Executive Juris Doctor====

Some for-profit schools in the United States offer a legal education program resulting in an Executive Juris Doctor (EJD) degree. Despite the similarity in name to Juris Doctor (which is sometimes the source of confusion), this degree is not generally recognized in the legal profession and is not sufficient in any state to take a bar exam or practice law.

with Buzzfeed as the source. I don't know, what do you all think? Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having skimmed the long Buzzfeed article, I have to say this looks like a scam. NRPanikker (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there other sources discussing this phenomenon? If this is only described in one source and only offered at a few institutions then it doesn't seem like something we should mention at all. ElKevbo (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me after reading the article that the EJD is a different degree from the JD so should not be included here and should not redirect here. If it had its own page, then possibly a template:about link would be appropriate Robminchin (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah it is kind of a scam I guess, at least Buzzfeed thinks so. I'm a little reluctant to write that in the article tho because that's just one source, also I'm sure it works for some people, say you want to be a talent manager or business executive and want extensive legal knowledge without needing to practice law. As to a separeate article, maybe that's best, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article, at least not yet. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently there was some minor content in the article here about the EJD in the 2009-2010 time frame, but it was deleted in January 2011. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Doctor[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Edit war over image of diploma[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Information icon 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)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juris_Doctor&oldid=1165710431"