Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juris Doctor

Current edit warring in JD article by Wikiant since presentation of the mediation request

As posted on the discussion page of the JD article: Objections to the current revisions to the Juris Doctor article have been reversed a number of times with no discussion. The revisions being pushed at this time eliminates highly relevant pictures and a large amount of verifiable content. It is not clear what the justification for these edits is, as there has been little attempt to discuss them before implementation. However, it appears that the justification is that since the Juris Doctor is not considered a doctorate by some schools in Australia and by one African academic expressing opinion, any mention of the Juris Doctor as a doctorate should be limited to that in the "debate" section of the article. It appears that the editor believes those citations to overwhelm other citations from scholarly and institutional sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Requests that editing be delayed until after mediation on the issue has been ignored. It is noted that the editor pushing these edits has made no attempt to move those citations to that section, but has merely eliminated them entirely. It is difficult to perceive good faith in this behavior, as the persistence of these edits seems to show bulling and edit warring. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Objection to issue one

I object to the first issue posed by the filing party, as it fails to state a clear or justiciable issue, and contains factual allegations, which allegations have no bearing on the issues at hand, for which there is no evidence, and which contain a personal attack. Therefore the issue submitted by the filing party should be removed, and administrative action should be considered. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Case opening

Hi everyone, I am your friendly mediator that medcom asked to help out with this case. I'm glad to that the parties have narrowed the area of dispute to a single issue, as that means you all agree on a great many of the issues. Looking at the issues listed, I have some opening comments.

• Three editors agree to an major change in the article. One (Zoticogrillo) disagrees and refuses to allow the change. Evidence from the past suggests that Zoticogrillo will engage in an editing war until opposing editors give up and go away.

• This really isn't something we can mediate. It is more a statement of opinion as to what has occured.

• Whether the article should state that the J.D. is a doctorate and how to organize conflicting information on the topic.

• Ok, this is something we can work on, there are many different ways we can approach this issue.

• Whether there has been editor misconduct, and whether there should be administrative action to limit editing to the page.

• No, Mediation isn't about editor misconduct and it does not result in administrative actions. Mediators do not block or topic ban people. Anything that goes on in mediation cannot be used to have someone sanctioned so evidence gathering has no purpose.

I would like the parties to make some general comments on their views to start. Why do you edit Wikipedia? What do you like to edit? How do you think the article should refer to J.D.s? Why? Once I understand where everyone is coming from we can move on to ways of discussing the content. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Zoticogrillo has not edited since March 10th, are there any issues here that do not involve him that we could work on? MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He is integral to the discussion, but we do need resolution. If you have initial thoughts, you might go ahead and express them. Meanwhile, perhaps sending Zoticogrillo a reminder message is appropriate. Wikiant (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I emailed Zoticogrillo asking him to come to the Mediation, I'll give him a couple more days and if he doesn't show up, present some thoughts on the matter. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Person 1

1. I believe in contributing, where possible, to the dissemination of information and in the encouragement of logical thinking.

2. I prefer to edit articles about which I have more knowledge than the average person. As such, my edits tend to involve content rather than form.

3. The article should refer to the JD as a first professional degree and (where U.S. JDs are concerned) a graduate degree. The article should include a single section that, in a neutral fashion, summarizes and cites the two sides of the argument as to the JD's status as a doctoral degree. Other than in this single section, the article should neither claim that the JD is a doctorate nor claim that the JD is not a doctorate -- either overtly or implicitly.

4. Why? Because there is ample evidence (cited throughout the article and the talk page) on both sides of the argument. This appears to indicate that there is a general consensus on only one thing -- that the status of the JD as a doctoral-level degree is an unresolved question.

Wikiant (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Person 2

1. I think Wikipedia's great - an amazing collaborative achievement and an immensely useful resource. I like the idea of contributing, in some small way, to such an endeavour.
2. I also prefer to edit articles where I'm confident I know a reasonable amount about the subject matter, and can make some sort of positive contribution.
3. I don't have any fixed opinions on the contentious question, to be honest, and I consider my involvement in this dispute to be largely peripheral. I'm neither a lawyer nor American (I have a PhD in mathematics from a British university) but I'm interested in academic matters in general. I was curious about the status of the JD, and kind of got drawn into the discussion while trying to understand the finer points of the subject. I've mostly come to the conclusion that there does seem to be some sort of unresolved question about the exact academic standing of the JD, so perhaps the article should reflect that in as neutral a way as possible.
4. I would like Wikipedia to be as accurate and impartial as possible. I started out broadly agreeing with Zoticogrillo - surely a degree which includes the word 'doctor' in its title should necessarily be a doctorate (whatever that means), but Wikiant succeeded in convincing me that the question is unresolved (and possibly unresolvable).

-- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Person 3

1. I make heavy use of Wikipedia and began editing it out of a sense of "giving back".
2. I've focused on areas in which I have some specialized knowledge--applied mathematics, martial arts, academics--but have also tried to start some new articles in areas that seemed to lack them.
3. The American J.D. is a professional degree and arguably a professional doctorate, but is comparable to a professional master's degree such as the roughly 3-year M.Arch. or M.F.A. or the 2-year M.S.W., or the 3-year D.P.T. and similar degrees. It's clearly lower than a Ph.D. on the academic scale, but serves its purpose of preparing its hodlers for the practice of law.
4. The J.D. is one of a variety of degrees that started as baccalaureate degrees and were 'upgraded' for reasons of professionalization. These remain highly contentious in academia (see Credential Creep, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 June 2007, pp. A10-12, which focuses on this issue in the context of the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree). Every degree with "doctor(ate)" in its title seems to have an argument on its WP page that it's equivalent to a Ph.D. This is making an argument rather than reporting the facts in many cases. Frankly, it would be best to have the whole matter of comparisons removed from the article--but it would quickly be returned.

JJL (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Person 4

zoticogrillo: 1. "Why do you edit Wikipedia?" I love Wikipedia because good articles can be a quick introduction to topics which are not always found in mainstream published media, and because the source links can be a wealth of useful leads to more detailed information. Because many editors detail information (with sources) which they have encountered in their personal experience, it has the potential of producing information that would not otherwise be covered in traditional sources (for example, geographical information on previously obscure locations). It's wonderful to participate in this process.

2. "What do you like to edit?" I like to find topics which are under-developed and have personal interest, and to add citations to enrich the articles.

3. "How do you think the article should refer to J.D.s? Why?" The article to should refer to the J.D. as a professional doctorate, as it was thus created and has been traditionally treated (according to cited material). The historic and academic sources are clear that the J.D., like the M.D., was created as a professional doctorate. There are some minority academics that disagree with this definition (although the citations to these are difficult to find), and some jurisdictions which do not have professional doctorates that have recently adopted the degree define it differently in their jurisdiction (such as Australia and Hong Kong). There are some individuals who feel uncomfortable with the definition of the J.D. as a doctorate (of any kind), and these individuals tend to be lawyers from outside the U.S. (who think it's unfair that their degree should be perceived of a lesser value vis-a-vis that of their U.S. counter-parts) or holders of academic doctorates such as the Ph.D. (who believe that a less academically rigorous degree should be distinguished from their doctorate). It is important that the article stick to facts as found in academic and historic materials, as these personal interests have the potential to interfere with the article (leading to much vandalism of the article). Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Everything on Wikipedia is driven by the neutral point of view that requires content be properly sourced and represent all points of view. If the parties could respond below showing diffs of what description of the juris doctor article is the one they feel best shows NPOV, that would be helpful. If there isn't a prior version that is acceptable, feel free to use a sandbox page. I think everyone is close to each other and comparing versions might show that. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for a NPOV version of the article. This version does two things: (1) it removes all references either for or against the JD as a doctorate from the main body of the text; (2) it includes a single section at the end that lists the main arguments with citations for and against the JD's status as a doctorate. Wikiant (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I more-or-less am in agreement with that. The less said about this, the better--it just attracts argumentation on the article page. My opinion is that it's M.S.-level but there is definitely disagreement about that which must be addressed on the page. In fact part of the problem is that definitions in this area aren't that precise, and various universities and professional orgs. bend the terms to gain relative advantage (e.g., the executive J.D. and MBAs). I again recommend this article [1] (found a bypass link to it here [2] from an online article citing it; abstracted here [3]: Without standards defining the professional doctorate, they say, there is a tendency to use the term "doctorate" very loosely. While a Ph.D. takes on average about 12 years to complete from the start of college, the new degrees, sometimes mocked as a "Ph.D. lite," typically take six or seven years. Generally the new degrees do not require a major research project. "For the last 15 or 20 years," says John D. Wiley, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "we've been under pressure to take what is basically a master's degree and call it a doctorate."). The discussion is also ongoing in the news now w.r.t. the Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees [4] and there's even discussion of this w.r.t. physician assistants [5]. I'm not trying to engage in WP:OR by bringing in the health professions angle, just hoping to demonstrate that the whole issue of "professional doctorate" is fairly muddled. JJL (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern degree inflation is a topic that is different from a degree that was created in the 19th century contemporaneously with the M.D. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a detailed discussion of degree inflation (which isn't just a modern phenomenon) is probably beyond the scope of the JD article, and also probably difficult to find definitive and suitably neutral citations for. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a sensible compromise. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exclude highly informative and well-cited material? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand Wikiant correctly, he's not primarily arguing for the exclusion of highly informative and well-cited material, just that the specific issue of whether the JD is a doctorate or not (whatever that term actually means, and I'm by no means convinced that it's well-defined in the US) be restricted to a section of its own and not allowed to bleed into the rest of the article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the citations provided in the first sentence of the existing article are more than ample. The article as a whole, with its citations, provides further support through historical context. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been remarked before, there are a lot of citations in the JD article, and I for one am a bit too busy at the moment to track them all down. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to list the three or four most important ones which support your position, and I'll try to get hold of them. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where possible, preference was given to materials available online, even when they are less ideal than those in print. Please let me know if there are any dead links. You can see by the frequency and context of use which of the printed materials might be most important. I wish I had time to copy and scan them for everyone. Any citations to printed materials offered in support of the first sentence are obviously important. Both of the articles by Reed are highly relevant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And I wish I had time to track down and read them all too, but I don't. I'll try to find the articles by Reed. I've also just downloaded the article by Stein and will read that. If there's another reference or two which strongly support your case then let me know.

It turns out my university library has access to an electronic copy of Reed's 1921 book Training for the Public Profession of the Law so I'll start reading through that and see if I come to the same conclusions you have. At first glance it looks very interesting, anyway -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on the subject of the references, I have to say I find the way they're formatted quite difficult to follow, and would much prefer it if we had just one reference per footnote, and one footnote per reference (by using the name parameter to the ref tag). There are, for example, several references to 'Stein (1981)' before we actually get to the footnote which tells us the full details of what this article is. If nobody has any objections (and if I can find the time over the next few days) I'd like to have a go at tidying this up. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so based off everyone's comments, I went ahead and constructed a diff at [6] that compares the two versions in question. My initial thoughts are that we have some formatting, style, and weight issues between the two versions that need to be resolved.

• Wikipedia:Lead section - The lead section of an article should generally be a summary of the entire article. So all the topics mentioned in the lead should be dealt with in definable sections of the article and all of the sections of the article should be traceable back to the lead. Too much detail in the lead can be a bad thing and usually references to specific things (in this cases institutions, timelines, etc) are overkill and should be moved to the main part of the article.

• Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure - NPOV means that all articles should describe all significant points of view in a neutral manner. It does not mean that every point of view must be represented. Granted this article is difficult because there are 200 years of US-JD history and 10 years of global-JD history, but it still should be possible to separate out what aspects of the JD are significant. One question I have is about the Executive Juris Doctor, how much literature is in existence on this degree? Does it really need an entire primary section? Can the approach used on EMBAs be used here to better balance things?

• Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves - Another part of NPOV is that articles about controversial subjects don't need to rehash the controversy in every part. An aspect of this is that we don't need to list out all the disagreements in the field such as "He said X; She said Y". Ideally we should be able to weave the differences into the text. Also, this has been interpreted to mean that we do not need to begin every word with a disclaimer. The classic example is Hitler. We don't begin every sentence with "Hitler, that genocidal murderer, ..." because we document his crimes in one part of the article and discuss other aspects in other parts of the article.

I am wondering if the parties could comment on how they feel each version meets the above policies and guidelines? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll refer to the versions as the "proposed" and the "existing."

WRT Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure, the proposed version achieves NPOV and does so cleanly by restricting the arguments to a single section. The existing version fails in that it contains numerous subtle non-NPOV arguments throughout -- many of which have no clear bearing on the article (for example, the picture of the doctoral robes and the Chinese characters claimed to be interpreted as "doctor").

WRT Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves, again the proposed version achieves NPOV more cleanly by simply stating the arguments on each side of the debate. The existing version contains numerous explications of facts that end up being non-NPOV arguments. For example, the second paragraph goes to great length to explain that the term "doctor" originally meant teacher (something that isn't directly relevant to the article, much less something of such import that it should appear in the second paragraph). The third paragraph then claims that the first law degrees were doctorates because they were "licenses to teach." Since we've established that "doctor" means "teacher," ergo the JD is a doctorate. This is the antithesis of NPOV.

Wikiant (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chinese: Use the sources cited--they are there for reader convenience, and answer your concern. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the key issue here is NPOV. The NPOV policy article states that NPOV content, "represent[s] fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (with emphasis on "significant" and article link to "published by reliable sources"). It seems then that a significant view must be verifiable. As an encyclopedic project, information which is verifiable, relevant and informative should be included in the article, as such increases the value of the encyclopedia. It appears to me that the article as it now exists conforms to NPOV and the purpose of wikipedia in every way. Although there can (always) be improvements...

A lead section should show why the topic is interesting or notable and should summarize the most important points. The current lead defines the topic, explains briefly the key parts of the history and context, explains briefly why it is unique, and provides a rough map of the rest of the article. But the map is very rough, and a lot of space is spent on the definition. The current lead uses a lot of space to define the degree because it is directly relevant to the purposes of a lead, because a separate section would be too brief and redundant, and because it is the definition of the degree that tends to attract the most misunderstanding and vandalism. The map or overall summary could be tighter and more representative of the following sections, as the current map is wrapped up with the predominant objective of defining the topic and providing brief context. The proposed alternative content is no improvement on providing a summary, and is (possibly) confusing to the reader because it doesn't clearly define the topic.

As for the article structure, I believe what is intended by mentioning this is the fact that there is a segregation of a point of view (that of the JD not being a doctorate) into one section (the debate section). This is partially because, as the article referenced by the mediator states, the article is to represent all significant points of view throughout the article. Since there is no reliable source which takes issue with the J.D. being a "true" or "fake" doctorate, the point of view is not significant enough to be integrated into the article. The proposed alternative has no change in the article structure.

I believe that the current article tries to let the facts speak for themselves by providing detail and factual support in a non-biased manner. Any old debate is separated (fairly) to one section. The proposed alternative removes verifiable, informative and relevant content because it is feared that the reader may reach the "wrong" conclusion.

Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to see a bit more discussion between the parties about how these policies apply. I can facilitate talking on certain topics in certain ways, but I do need the parties to exchange ideas for things to work best. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in not simply a matter of presenting properly sourced material. It is also a matter of not presenting the material in such a fashion as to promote a point of view. That is what has happened here. There is plenty of sourced material indicating that the JD is a doctorate. There is plenty of sourced material indicating that the JD is not a doctorate. The existing version presents the "is a doctorate" material in such a way as to promote that particular view. Wikiant (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a large component of the problem. I don't believe that the J.D. is a doctorate but I'm not asking to have that perspective removed. But for a long time the situation was repeatedly cast in this form [7]: "the Juris Doctor is a degree over which there has been much misunderstanding". The three paragraphs following that line all put forward an argument against the doctoral status then end with "However..." leaving the impression that the view that it's not a doctorate is erroneous. That version, and the difficulties in achieving compromise/NPOV there, is a big part of what has led us here. Presenting both sides must be done in an NPOV way, not a criticism/response manner. JJL (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define "point of view." I've tried to quote or summarize the wiki policies as phrased in the articles. I suppose one could say that any positive or factual statement is a point of view, but that would seriously impede an encyclopedic project, and no wiki policy states that all positive or factual statements are points of view. My position above is that if it meets wiki policies, it stays in, and it can only be excluded if it is a clear violation of the policies and mission. For our convenience, could you include here the sourced material indicating that the JD is not a doctorate, so that we can get more substantive? It appears that we are considering removing the "debate" section, is that true? Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I tire from what appears to be deliberate obtuseness. Your request for sourced material (see virtually any page related to this article) and conclusion that we are discussing "removing the debate section" is simply WP:IDHT. Wikiant (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Given (1) the pace at which this discussion is progressing, (2) the fact that three of the four of us have expressed disatisfaction with the existing version of the article, and (3) that the existing version continues to be edited by others while this discussion progresses, I suggest that the proposed version be implemented now. I am happy to continue the discussion until we reach a resolution, but let us do so with the proposed version as the baseline. Wikiant (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are unhappy with the pace. Your April 13th posting was unresponsive. The subject of this discussion is whether your proposed version should be implemented or not. Implementing it now is premature. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that we could go through this more methodically, so that we would be more sure to be clearly understood, and so that it would be easier to make small concessions as we went along. But I guess I will just hack away at it all at once. I'm sorry for the resulting wordiness.

The proposed version

The intro section has no reference to the J.D. being considered a doctorate or graduate degree by any entity. It also excludes the fact that it was established as a doctorate. The photo of the robes has also been removed. References to the intent of the pioneers of the degree, and to the degree as a graduate or doctorate, have been removed throughout the body of the article. This is despite the fact that the removed content is well supported by high quality references, and is very informative. The reasons for this are allegedly in the last section of the article, "Debate about academic status."

The "Debate" section of the proposed version

At the begining the section states that, "requirements for professional degrees are determined by trade organizations," which for many (all?) jurisdictions is clearly false. As the article states, the degree was established and administered by scholars at academic institutions in all jurisdictions where it exists, and the ABA did not get involved in heavily influencing legal education in the U.S. until the century after the J.D. was established.

It makes the generalized statement that "the J.D. is not a doctoral level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor"," but cites to websites of only two Australian academic institutions for support. The J.D. has only been in existence in Australia for a couple of years, and there is some disagreement among the institutions there whether the degree is a graduate degree or not. The citations support the claim that those institutions do not consider the J.D. to be a doctorate or graduate degree.

The references for the statement about the J.D. being a prerequisite degree for a masters and a doctorate are not authoritative and are of limited utility. The one from the Oxford dictionary is used improperly, as it does not support the statement, but is part of the argument that the statement makes. The one by the African scholar is from a non-historical opinion piece that contains no references itself, is written by an individual who has never studied in the United States (where the J.D. degree originated and predominates), and the statements it makes are in direct contradiction of historical materials and reliable citations.

It contains no mention of the distinction between professional degrees and academic degrees.

For the statement that the J.D. is not a terminal degree, the reference from Austin Peay is from a non-authoritative source, which is of an administrator of unknown origins who is expressing his opinion of a degree which his institution does not offer. The second reference is a non-authoritative commercial website.

It makes no mention of the practice of J.D. holders using the title of "Dr." in academic and professional venues.

Even if the content of the "Debate" section did warrant changes to the content of the rest of the article, it would not justify the complete removal of informative content with reliable references.

The article could mention the fact that the J.D. is not considered a doctorate in Hong Kong or Australia at the begining, and it should also mention that the degree is very new to those two countries. But it should also mention immediately proximate to that statement that the J.D. was established as a doctorate level graduate degree in the U.S., where it is still considered a graduate level doctorate degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we've reached a roadblock here. Neither side has moved any closer to accepting things from the other side since this mediation opened. Unless there are further comments, I'll be closing this as unsuccessful in a day or two. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, my proposal is:

That the first sentence reads as drafted in Wikiant's proposed draft. The second sentence reads something like... The Juris Doctor is normally awarded as a doctorate and a graduate degree, although not by some institutions in some commonwealth jurisdictions, where it has been introduced very recently (such as in Hong Kong and Australia).

That the rest of the article as it presently exists remain unchanged, with the exception of some collaborative re-drafting of the "debate" section, per numerous suggestions above.

The reason for these changes is because of the quality and content of the citations available. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's generally awarded as a postgraduate degree; graduate degrees are non-professional degrees under the control of the Dean of the Graduate School. Admittedly, "graduate degree" is often used loosely to include all postbaccalaureate study. Since stating that it's a doctorate is highly contentious, suggesting that such a statement appear unqualified in the lede doesn't seem helpful to me. I'm still for burying it near the end of the article, in a he said/she said mode. JJL (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. All reference to JD as doctorate or not doctorate needs to be restricted to a single section. There are plenty of citations claiming that the JD is not a doctorate. We can't remain NPOV unless we sidestep the issue save for a single section devoted specifically to the issue. If the mediator is going to shut this discussion down as unresolved, I suggest we go with the majority opinion and change to my earlier proposed version of the article. Wikiant (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has argued that my proposals, or any of the steps in arriving at my conclusions, are contrary to wiki policies, and no one has tried to engage me in analysing the citations. There are numerous citations that state that the J.D. is a doctorate and a graduate degree. Only two citations from Australian schools have been presented to show that the J.D. is not a doctorate, and they have been presented as support for the generalized statement that no institution in no place considers the J.D. a doctorate.

As you can see by the citations JJL, the U.S. institutions operate differently than those in the commonwealth, and a graduate degree is defined differently in the U.S.

The decision to implement Wikiant's proposed edits would circumvent wiki policies and logic. And the shocking thing is that no one is saying otherwise. I really don't understand why this mediation process was initiated, as clearly no one is very interested in participating. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have argued the point with you, but when asked to show a few specific citation(s) backing up your point you demur. You also gloss over cites to the contrary. Your continued, long-running insistence that what you consider adequately sourced material cannot be removed is quite tendentious. I disagree also regarding your defn. of a graduate degree. I would propose that the reason you find what's going on to be a "shocking thing" is your unwillingness to see things from both sides and meet in the middle. The proposal is a present-both-sides segment, but you counter with my-way-up-front. I think if you assume good faith and try to understand that we honestly hold an opinion at variance with yours it could help. JJL (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my expression of frustration. I imagine this process is frustrating for all of us. It has resulted in a proposal from me, which I now realize was overdue, so it's not a complete waste of time. Hopefully we can have more progress.

I thought it would be easier for people to find in the article rather than duplicating here. Hopefully I'll get the formatting right. Please see the article for the full cites.

College Blue Book Degrees Offered by College and Subject, p. 817 The degrees offered by law schools are listed in this volume as doctorates and not first professional degrees

Association of American Universities Data Exchange [8]

National Science Foundation [9] Under "Data notes" this article mentions that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.

San Diego County Bar Association [10] Under "other references", this discusses differences between academic and professional doctorates, and contains a statement that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.

University of Utah [11] The J.D. degree is listed under doctorate degrees.

German Federal Ministry of Education [12] Report by the German Federal Ministry of Education analysing the Chronicle of Higher Education from the U.S. and stating that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.

Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 962:1a The J.D. is listed among other doctorate degrees.

Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm not a party of this mediation process, nor have I ever edited the article, but I have been watching this discussion for more than a year now. I think you should recommence distinguishing two questions: 1. Is the JD a degree commonly classified as a "professional doctorate" ? -- I think there's no doubt, as even the sources concerning modern degree inflation presented by JJL do refer to these degrees as professional doctorates. A google search for JD and professional doctorate gets you some 100.000 hits. 2. Are professional doctorates "real" doctorates equal to academic doctorates? -- That's the contentious question, and there are justified doubts. So I think the article should state that the JD is considered a professional doctorate in the U.S. without repeating that unnecessarily frequently, and avoid calling it just "doctorate". The debate section should treat the second question in a fair and balanced way. I know that's not a very new insight, since, if my memory serves me right, half a year ago Wikiant conceded that the JD is a "professional doctorate", and Zoticogrillo didn't claim that the JD equals an academic doctorate. Fred Plotz (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your weighing in on the question. I would be satisfied with the solution you suggest. In fact, that was the solution Zoticogrillo implemented when he first started editing this article some years ago. I became dissatisfied when the solution devolved in two ways: (1) the "professional" adjective was dropped, and (2) there were introduced numerous gratuitous references to the JD as a doctorate in an apparent (my interpretation) attempt to lump the JD in with doctorates in general. To be satisfied with this compromise, I'd need to see all such references (e.g., the academic robes, the Chinese characters, the belaboring of "doctor means teacher; JDs teach; ergo JDs are doctors") excised. Wikiant (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again I am largely in agreement with this view of what is acceptable in the article and this perception of how events have unfolded. JJL (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Gratuitous"? Your opposition has forced me to carefully cite ALL the content of the article, PARTICULARLY as related to the J.D. being a doctorate. I worked really hard to find the highest quality sources, and when possible I cited to sources that could be most easily found by everyone (online when possible). The result has been some very high quality content, so I've appreciated the stimulus. But I've worked really hard here, Wikiant, and I hope you will at least have the respect and sense to look at the citations provided.

THREE citations have been provided to show that the robe pictured is a J.D. robe and that it is a doctorate robe. (1) Haycraft, Frank W (1927). The Degrees and Hoods of the World's Universities & Colleges. London: Cheshunt Press. (2) Lackmiller, D (1969). Scholars on Parade: Colleges, Universities, Costumes and Degrees. New York: MacMillan. (3) American Council on Education (2008). "American Costume Code & Ceremony Guide". http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10625.

SIX citations have been provided to show that the Chinese/Japanese characters in the translation for J.D. mean doctorate. (1) Longman English-Japanese Dictionary (2007). Pearson Education, Essex U.K. (2) Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary. (2003). Oxford, N.Y. (3) The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary. (2002). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing. (4) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Chinese-English). (2006). Pearson Education, Hong Kong, 2006. (5) http://translate.google.com/ (6) http://www.mofo.com.cn/MofoCN?Action=BiographiesAction&SubAction=BiographiesResult

"doctorates in general"? What on earth do you mean? Does that category include the M.D.? The D.D.S.? Or just the doctorates you personally deem worthy?

"the belaboring of "doctor means teacher; JDs teach; ergo JDs are doctors""? I don't see that argument anywhere. The J.D. is a doctor because some of the most ideal sources one could hope to find on the topic say that it is.

You have a great foundness for, and skill with, straw man argumentation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the problem: Adding so many redundant citations, and mentioning or alluding to the point so often (robes, Chinese characters), as to give WP:UNDUE weight to what is after all a contested position. JJL (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of your comments Fred Plotz. The dropping of the "professional" was not deliberate, and I can understand why the adjective is important to some.

I don't believe that professional doctorates are "equal" to academic doctorates any more than I believe lions to be elephants. But both lions and elephants are mammals. I am not sure what is meant by the term "real" doctorate. Professional and academic doctorates are both doctorates, but of very different types. The course of study and typical requirements for each meet the needs of those who hold the degrees.

The historical development of university degrees shows that the first degrees at the glossators, and the universities that followed, were doctorates, and the study programs were instituted for the purpose of training legal professionals. The second subject that developed at these institutions was medicine, and the purpose of that training was for the degree holders to professionally practice medicine. Degrees in abstract subjects such as philosophy came much later.

As stated by the creators of the JD, "This [the J.D.] is a form of degree parallel with the J.U.D. conferred in German universities, and with the doctorate in law conferred in several other continental countries." See the wiki article on J.U.D. The continental countries referred to are the hosts of the oldest academic institutions in Europe, such as Italy and Spain. The doctorates referred to are those law degrees conferred by those old institutions since the 12th century, which I just mentioned above, and which were doctorates.

Online sources for the above can be found in the Juris Doctor article.

Therefore any contention that a professional doctorate is not a true doctorate would have to address the doctorates awarded by these old institions such as Bologna and Salamanca. And if those original doctorates are "true" doctorates, to say that the J.D. is not a true doctorate one would have to find that the creators of the J.D. failed in mirroring those old doctorates in some way.

It seems to me that any other way of examining it would be a-historical and illogical. But unless that examination is independently published in reliable media, it would not have any impact on a wiki article.

Therefore, I agree that the J.D. should be described as a professional doctorate only, but disagree to any insinuation that it is not a "true" doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad all of you start talking again. The term "real" was used synonym with "PhD equivalent", and not meant to be judgemental -- sorry for that. I fully understand the historical context of the creation of the JD as far as it is presented in the article. Indeed, before the 20th century, the JUD didn't contain a noteworthy research component at European universities, so it might well be regarded as a "professional doctorate", just as the JD is still nowadays. Therefore, the history section does, from my point of view, not insinuate that the JD was created to equal a research doctorate. I also unterstand that there are some good reasons to assume the JD is a "doctorate-level degree", despite being not an academic/research doctorate. However, for the sake of peace and quiet, i'd suggest to move those arguments and sources stating that the JD is today considered doctorate-level in the U.S. (including pictures of doctoral robes and chinese characters) to the debate section, as far as they are not there yet. I'm hoping to see all of you cooperating again, and I'd be happy to review the article if renominated for GA, when this dispute is resolved. I think all in all it's a damned good article. Fred Plotz (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred's idea seems like a reasonable suggestion for formatting the content, any thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely these arguments, Zoticogrillo, that must be avoided. My impression, forgive me if I am wrong, is that everytime we have agreement to stop at "the JD is a professional doctorate," you append arguments as to why the JD is a "true doctorate." That only serves to re-open the can of worms. There is one statement to which we all agree: "The JD is a professional doctorate." Any discussion as to "true doctorate," etc. must be relegated to the debate section. Otherwise, we're back at square one. (Note: I seem to recall an editor even taking issue with "professional doctorate," claiming that the term had no meaning but that the correct term was "first professional degree." I'm willing to overlook that, but am not willing to go down the path of arguing "true doctorates.") Wikiant (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great! So, the consensus is that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, is that correct? Therefore, what is the objection to the first sentence of the current article?

How do you respond to citations such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica that say that the J.D. is a doctorate, without the adjective?

I don't really understand your statements though. Is there a difference between a professional doctorate and a doctorate? How would you characterize the traditional degrees awarded at Bologna? Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very unhelpful. JJL (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The camel's nose. Forget it. Asking for compromise is too much. I restate my original proposal to replace the JD article with the version that has all references to the JD as doctorate expunged. Wikiant (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys, please calm down, both of you! I unterstand your frustration after such a long time going back and forth with this debate. But, at the end of the day, the purpose of Wikipedia is to make good, reliable content available to the audience, not push one's own agenda at all costs. Even if both of you feel to be in the right. Wikiant, please regard Zoticogrillo's questions as an input to coordinate a restructuring of the debate section, and, Zoticogrillo, please try to pose those questions explicitly in this "debate" context in the future. Don't be childish, both of you. Fred Plotz (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred, the questions Zoticogrillo raise have been raised and addressed many, many times over the past three or more years. At the end, there is no conclusive resolution *unless* one ignores sources from one side or the other. My attempts at compromise have been aimed at (1) not ignoring either side of the argument, while (2) avoiding the endlessly spiralling argument as to the JD's status. Alas, it seems that everytime compromise is in reach, it is snatched away by the omnipresent death spiral. Wikiant (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, again I do understand your frustration. Nevertheless, I urge both of you to ignore your personal feelings, and make a constructive effort to settle this dispute on behalf of the project. I really think we're pretty close to an acceptable compromise.--Fred Plotz (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so, this is what I think is a summay of we are talking about:

(1) As stated by one editor, "There is one statement to which we all agree: "The JD is a professional doctorate."" Therefore everyone agrees that the article will refer to the JD as a professional doctorate throughout the article (without being redundant).

(2) There is an objection to the current article's first sentence defining the JD as a professional doctorate, the basis for this are citations stating that the JD is not a doctorate in Australia, and my response was to incorporate the Australian citations into the introduction. I proposed specific language for that content above. What is the response to this?

(3) There is also a proposal to remove all mention of the JD being a professional doctorate to the "debate" section, because defining the JD as a professional doctorate is controversial. I think the basis for this are the two Australian cites. Are there other citations?

(4) There is interest/concern over re-writing the "debate" section according to some of the suggestions of the mediator. It seems that we need to resolve the issue of the content of that section before discussing the drafting. Is that alright? Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that description of the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" although several such degrees are master's -level degrees. Mentioning the designation in passing in the lede is acceptable to me, however, I don't want to see the point repeated obsessively throughout the article. The issue about the controversial nature of the "doctorate" should go in a brief section near the end. (These always seem to grow rapidly by accretion in any article on a non-Ph.D. doctorate as passing editors add their own opinion, and hence such sections can be attractive nuisances, but I don't see how to avoid unless it can all be referred to an article on just that. Could Professional doctorate serve that purpose?) The robes and Chinese characters don't add to the discussion in my opinion. JJL (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note the following intermediate results and make some additional suggestions:

(1) The JD can be referred to as a professional doctorate in the U.S., both in the lead and where necessary in the article. The lead should also state that it is not a professional doctorate in certain foreign juristictions.

(2) The JD cannot be called just "doctorate". The adjective "professional" must be re-added throughout the article.

(3) The debate section should concentrate on the question wheter the JD is doctorate level or not. It should be shortened presenting the few most important pros and cons, and avoid preponderance of any side as far as the amount of text is concerned. Futhermore, I think it is important just to present the arguments of each side, and not to argue against them. I also think that references to the JD as a terminal professional degree are dispensable. The title section might be shortened or extinct.

(a) I personally regard as the most important pros:

1. The JD was created to mirror degrees that were regarded as doctorates at the time, despite not containing a major research component.

2. The JD is a sufficient qualification for postitions in academia normally requiring a PhD equivalent qualification.

3. The JD is classified as a doctorate most notably by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

(b) I personally regard as the most important cons:

1. The JD is explicitly not a doctorate in other common law jurisdictions.

2. The existence of the SJD as the highest degree in law and PhD equivalent.

3. The JD is classified below PhD equivalent qualifications by the US administration's pay rate classification.

Please share your comments on this (keeping in mind that we're attempting to reach an agreement acceptable for both sides)

Apart from that, are there any concerns to refer to the JD as a graduate degree (even in the wider sense), or is it really necessary to call it just a post-baccalaureate degree?

--Fred Plotz (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with all of Fred's points. I'd like to add a fourth: "(4) Indirect references to the JD being or not being a doctorate will be removed as will passages that, regardless of their intended purpose, have the de facto purpose of advancing arguments for or against the JD's status." Wikiant (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a useful summary. (Thanks!) Regarding #3, first sentence, there are issues of whether or not the (U.S.) J.D. is truly a doctorate as well as whether or not it's doctorate level, but your suggestion is acceptable to me. Regarding #3.a.2, this statement must be hedged--it's been back-and-forth as to whether it's adequate for a college presidency, for example. Regarding your last statement, in the general sense it's a graduate (in the sense of postbaccalaureate) academic (in the sense of being from a college) degree, but in the strict sense it's a postgraduate (as opposed to graduate) professional (as opposed to academic) degree. I don't know that it makes sense to try to cut things that finely, but I would prefer to refer to it as a postgraduate or postbaccalaureate degree. JJL (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since content in wikipedia must be verifiable, we don't have to discuss how to define the degree. We could decide to call it something, but if there are no citations... Let the citations do the talking. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand aright, we have reduced the issue to few points:

(1) Can the JD be called a graduate, or rather a postgraduate degree? -- We have citations in the article from Boalt Hall and USC supporting that the JD, along with LLM and SJD, is a graduate degree. On the other hand, e.g. HLS and YLS obviously distinguish between the JD and graduate programs (see admissions pages there). This could be included in the debate section, but I personally think it is not necessary. Zoticogrillo, are you OK with calling it postgraduate instead of graduate? A suitable citation could be this ("Law is a postgraduate degree in the US")

(2) Is the JD a sufficient degree for academic positions normally requiring a PhD equivalent qualification, such as college presidency? -- There are strong indications for this, as several (former and current) presidents of high ranking universities (UC system, UMinnesota, Harvard, Columbia, Johns Hopkins) are JDs. JJL, are there any citations available indicating the contrary?

(3) Wikiant, apart from title and debate sections, do you find any passages in the current article advancing argument for the JD being nowadays doctorate level?

Fred Plotz (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes: (1) the picture of the doctoral robes, (2)"other doctorates are four years or longer", (3) "Doctor is the word for teacher..." and subsequent discussion, (4) The image captioned, "The first doctor degrees...", (5) "...the first law degrees were doctorates.", (6) "The origins of the doctorate lie...", (7) "...the first academic title of doctor applied to scholars of law." These seven span only the first three paragraphs of the article. To see more, search the article for the word "doctor." Wikiant (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re (2), there used to be citations in the article to newspaper coverage of would-be university presidents who only had a J.D. being criticized for not having a terminal degree. On a quick search I didn't find them. (Was [David L. Boren]] at U. of Ok. an example? Someone at the U. of Tenn.?)Perhaps someone else can retrieve them? JJL (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing those articles, but cannot find them anymore either. Perhaps the internet archive (archive.org) is useful? The articles were written by local papers and were of an editorial nature or were a reporting of opinions only. The institution involved was an obscure U.S. institution which had no law school. It is clear that such objections are not persuasive to some of the oldest and most well respected universities in the U.S. (Columbia, Harvard, etc., see J.D. article).

As for the question whether the JD suffices for college presidency, maybe we should just keep the current formulation just listing notable JDs holding that position instead of generalizing as I did above.

I think Wikiant's objections concerning explicit or implicit references to the JD as a doctorate throughout the article must be reviewed individually. This seems to be the potentially most difficult part of this mediation, so I would like to invite all of you to actively participate in this discussion.

For now, I just want to make two general suggestions for the treatment of this topic:

(1) References to the JD as a doctorate in the contemporary context should first be tested if they are still true/ still make sense if the adjective "professional" is added.

(2) Historical information not directly related to the contemporary status of the JD should remain in the article to the greatest possible extent. Adding other historical information relativizing the statements made, reformulating statements, and paraphrasing direct quotations is generally preferable to deletion of content.

Are these suggestions principally acceptable for all of you?--Fred Plotz (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by (1), but I'm satisfied with the general direction of your proposal. Wikiant (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed on a number of occasions that we proceed as closely as possible according to the main wiki policies, particularly verifiability. Those policies are logical, clear and have been formed over time to help editors resolve quickly disputes over content. My proposals in this regard have been ignored, and the guiding justification for most of the content discussed has been simply, "what do people think about it," which is incredibly subjective and results in illogical and confusing article content and structure. Most suggestions and objections have devolved to ignoring and often contracting wiki policies entirely. Future recommendations or objections should at least marginally refer to some wiki policy somewhere.

Content should reflect the citations provided, and verifiable content which is not contentious with other citations should not be removed or suppressed merely because someone doesn't like it.

Therefore, if I citation says that the J.D. is a doctorate, the content should say that it is (with the clarification that it is a professional doctorate). Two citations seem to say that the J.D. is not a doctorate in Australia, and one seems to say that it is not a doctorate in Hong Kong. The content should say this clearly, without overgeneralizing (for which overgeneraliztions there is no verifiable support). But the weight of the citations (all of which citations are of high quality) clearly state that the J.D. is presently considered a professional doctorate, therefore there is no reason to remove content that says that the J.D. is a professional doctorate from the first paragraph (or anywhere else). Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikiant: I meant can there just be added "professional" to doctorate. For instance, if added "professional" to doctorate in a sentence like "other doctorates are four years or longer", is this sentence still true?

Got it. I'm good with (1). Wikiant (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Zoticogrillo: One of the main policies is WP:CONSENSUS. There are sources for considering the JD a doctorate(-level degree), but that is not a generally accepted position, which shows for instance this source. ([Law] Degrees awarded at the doctoral level are the Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD or JSD) and the Doctor of Comparative Law Studies (DCL).) Also, sources for the JD being a doctorate originating from times before the creation of the SJD do not necessarily reflect its present academic status. I think we have agreed so far to refer to the JD only as a professional doctorate, not just as a doctorate outside the debate section. Therefore, a sentence like "(...) the J.D. is a doctorate like the J.U.D. or D.C.L. (...)" should be transferred to the debate section. If the arguments and sources for the JD being a doctorate or doctorate level are superior to those contesting that (by the way, I personally think at least from a historical perspective, they are, but that doesn't matter here), any reader of that section can draw his own conclusions. This does not affect the verifiability of the article in any way, but has the sole intent to make it less contentious. I don't see any other way for this article to reach at least some stability. Furthermore, a statement can be true and well-sourced, but at the same time omit other relevant information and thus advance a bias. For instance, the "etymology" and "origins of the law degree" sections state that doctor means teacher and that the first law degrees were doctorates which were the qualification for the guild. That's absolutely true and well-sourced. But it omits the fact that the guild was the guild of masters. There was no distinction made between masters and doctors at the time.[13] This is also reflected by etymology: master (magister) and doctor are synonymous; both mean teacher. Adding that information in some way would contribute to the neutrality of this article.--Fred Plotz (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Break

I'm going on a break for a few weeks, I think we are still at a roadblock, even with Fred's help. Any objections to closing this? MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I went on a break for a week without warning. Sorry. I'd like to see a list of agreed changes, and a summary of outstanding issues, before we close. I have minimal time for wiki stuff for the next two weeks, so I'm not sure I'll be able to draft anything. I'm still looking forward to responding to Fred's last post. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will create a page to incorporate the points on which we (apparently) agree. Specifically (paraphrasing Fred Plotz):

1. The JD in the U.S. will only and everywhere be referred to as a "professional doctorate" with no other modifiers or qualifications. The lead will state that the JD is not a professional doctorate in certain foreign juristictions.

2. The debate section will concentrate on the question as to whether the JD is doctorate level or not. It will be shortened to present the few most important pros and cons, and to avoid a preponderance of any side as far as the amount of text is concerned. The section will only present the arguments of each side, and not argue against other points.

3. Indirect references to the JD being or not being a doctorate will be removed as will passages that, regardless of their intended purpose, have the de facto effect of advancing arguments for or against the JD's status vis-a-vis a doctoral degree.

Wikiant (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Poking my head in. I'm glad to see the parties are still talking and making proposals. Since people still have an interest in resolving the issues, I'll keep the mediation open so the proposals can be discussed and negotiated further. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't really been contributing very much to this discussion over the past few weeks - a load of other stuff has been keeping me busy. I've had a quick read through a couple of the articles that Zoticogrillo cited, and have been at least partly reconvinced that, in the US at least, there is a class of non-research-based, professional doctoral degrees, and that the JD (and the MD, for that matter) is included in this class. Outside the US, the water seems to be muddier, with examples from Australia and Hong Kong where the relevant university regulations (which, I think, should be considered authoritative in those cases) specifically state that the JD is not a doctoral degree (I'm reminded of a UK QAA report a few years ago which found that the MBA should really only be considered a postgraduate certificate). I'm happier with this position - it always seemed odd that a degree with 'Doctor' in the title be in some way not a doctoral degree, especially since the term 'doctoral degree' seems not to be well-defined (or, given the apparent lack of a single central accreditation authority, even definable). I'm happy with the three points that Wikiant suggests - this seems a sensible structure for the article. Anyway, I'm pleased that some sort of consensus seems to be emerging. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am frustrated that I still don't have time for a detailed reply to everything here, but I wanted to make what I think is an important comment to wikiant's summary of the points of agreement. Fred expressed some concerns with point three, to which I don't remember there being any response. I assume that an illustration of point three is in your proposed revision, and I will review that later. Nonetheless, I agreed with Fred's comments about point three, namely that the language is ambiguous and probably even overly-broad in its intent. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I am not a part to the discussion, but since I find the current resolution unsatisfactory, I would like to add my two cents.

1) The use of the word "Doctor" to refer to a particular academic degree does not confer doctoral status on that degree. In Italy for example, everyone who is awarded a "Laurea Magistrale" is referred to as "Dottore", although the aforementioned "Laurea" is classified as a master's degree under the Bologna system.

2) Not all postgraduate (Am. English graduate) academic degrees are doctorates. In fact, a postgraduate degree may be occasionally referred to even as a "bachelor's" degree (e.g. the BCL, BPhil and MB/BChir degrees in the UK, or the old LL.B, which used to be awarded in the United States before the degree's name was changed to J.D. for prestige reasons).

3) Several universities outside the U.S. recognize the American J.D. on par with an undergraduate Commonwealth/British LL.B as an entry qualification for their postgraduate master's programs in Law, see e.g. the LSE and Oxford sites that were previously linked in the course of the debate.

4) In the United States itself, the J.D. is regarded as the first professional degree in Law, inferior in academic standing to the LL.M and the S.J.D. In fact, the websites of some U.S. Law schools, most notably the Harvard Law School, make an explicit distinction between the school's "graduate programs", which award master's (LL.M) and research doctoral (S.J.D) degrees, and their J.D. program. Interestingly enough, the J.D. itself is never referred to as a "graduate degree" in the aforementioned websites, although admission to a J.D. program actually requires previous completion of a 4-year bachelor's degree. That seems to reinforce the status of the J.D. as first (i.e. non-terminal) professional degree, equal in academic standing to a second bachelor's degree.

5) Several official documents published on the web by the U.S Department of Education, see several previously posted links, explicitly distinguish "first professional degrees" from "master's" and "doctor's" degrees and NEVER refer to the J.D. as a doctorate or use the term "professional doctorate" as suggested by Zoticogrillo. That suggests the term "professional doctorate" is not officially sanctioned by the U.S. federal government.

6) Lawyers are not routinely referred to as "Doctors" in the United States. In US academia, it is also uncommon to refer to J.D. holders as "Doctors".

7) The decision to accept the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" in U.S usage, but not in international terminology, is not satisfactory and, frankly, rather unencyclopedic. "Professional doctorate" is not a widely accepted terminology not even within the U.S itself. For example, as we've seen before, neither the D.O.E nor H.L.S (or several other Law schools for that matter) use that term. Wikipedia is supposed to target an international audience and, therefore, there is no reason why any particular country's usage of a term or, in the case of a J.D. , a term used only by an even narrower section of the population/ academic community within one particular country, should have precedence over or be singled out in comparison to the more universal understanding of the meaning of that same term.

8) I propose therefore that, in accordance with D.O.E. terminology and universally accepted consensus, the J.D. be referred solely as a "first professional degree" in all Wikipedia articles, with a short note indicating that the J.D. and similar first professional degrees (MD, DVM, DDM, etc.) are also occasionally referred to within the US as "professional doctorates" as an abuse of terminology, probably due to the fact that those degrees, somewhat improperly, incorporate the word "doctor" into their official style. Toeplitz (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with the above, save that I'm more accepting of the "professional doctorate" terminology (in general). On the other hand, we're trying to get a workable consensus here and that may require some that some eggs be broken. JJL (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If I got it right, the BE term postgraduate degree is not synonymous with the AE term post-graduate degree, as the latter seems to include all those degrees that require a bachelor's degree for entry. There is obviously some controversy whether the JD is a graduate degree, since eg. Harvard doesn't list the JD as a graduate degree but eg. Berkeley does (see source in the current article). However, it seems to be uncontroversial that the JD is a post-graduate degree in that wider sense. Also, the term professional doctorate is, from my point of view, widely enough used to be also used in the article, and it seems to be a workable compromise to avoid a bias towards any side. Anyway, using this term is not a preliminary decision of the very different question if the JD (and similarly termed degrees) is a doctoral level degree. This should be solely a matter of the debate section. Besides, I think you neglect that Zoticogrillo has provided historical evidence that at least some of the "fathers" of the JD obviously intended to create a legal doctorate degree. Now given that this was before the introduction of research doctorates to the US, there may have been a change in status over time, but this possible change has, from my perspective, not been sufficiently documented to be presupposed in an encyclopedia. The terminology used by some law schools and government agencies is a sign but by no means decisive.--Fred Plotz (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My additions to the article have been supported by citations, and those who have studied the article know this to be true, contrary to the claims of Toeplitz. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I have created a proposed page with the changes we have discussed. See user:wikiant/jd. Wikiant (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikiant. Just a thought - forgive me if this was brought up somewhere else. I would suggest modifying the 2nd line under the "evidence that J.D. isn't a doctoral level degree" section. It should read that a number of *non-US* instituions claim that J.D. is not doctoral level; neither of these cites are American, and I doubt the same laguage could be found at any U.S. law school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! As I mentioned above, neither the Harvard Law School nor the Yale Law School for example ever refer to their J.D degrees as "professional doctorates". Yale's site even mentions that the school offers a few "joint programs" that lead to the double awarding of a "master's and a J.D." or a "doctorate and a J.D.". The U.S. Department of Education does not use the term "professional doctorate" either, as shown in various sites that were previously linked in the original J.D. talk page. I don't know why people keep claiming on this page that "professional doctorate" is a widely accepted concept in the US when both academic institutions, professional organizations and the U.S. government do not sanction that term and routinely distinguish the J.D. from doctorates. Toeplitz (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Toeplitz: your references to Yale having joint programs with a "masters and J.D." or a "doctorate in a J.D." is in no way a statement that the J.D. is somehow not a doctorate. This argument is merely an attempt to bootstrap by negative implication: since Harvard or Yale doesn't explicitly refer to a J.D. as a "professional doctorate," it must mean that it is explicitly not so. Surely you see the fault in this statement. To be more specific: in the new article, it explicitly states that academic institutions have said that the J.D. is not a doctorate and its holders are not entitled to use the doctoral title. However, it only cites to foreign institutions: neither of your references above make any such claim. In addition, as a Harvard grad myself, I can tell you that Harvard gives doctoral robes to J.D. graduates, a tacit admission that they are in fact doctorates.

Dear anonymous: when the Yale site mentions the double-awarding of a "J.D. and a doctorate", it is clearly placing those two objects, i.e. J.D and doctorate, into two distinct categories. If the J.D. were understood simply as a "different" kind of doctorate, e.g. a "professional doctorate" as opposed to a "research doctorate", then the Yale site would probably use re-phrase the reference above to double award of a "J.D. and a research doctorate".

BTW, your alma mater, Harvard, also offers several joint J.D./master's degrees, including an international J.D./LL.M degree offered jointly with the University of Cambridge in the UK. There are no joint J.D/Ph.D programs though, as the doctoral degree in Law offered by the Harvard Law School is actually the S.J.D. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward

It appears that debate has settled down. Barring comments to the contrary, I will replace the JD page with the new proposed page. WP policy states that we can't bind the hands of future editors, however, I'll include our "3 points" in the talk page as a guide for future editors who wish to avoid digging us back into this hole. Wikiant (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There was never consensus about the second part of point two, stating that ANY text which has the DE FACTO effect of furthuring an argument should be excluded, therefore that clause is not part of the final decision of this mediation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure

Seeing as things have been settled for a bit now, I am closing this request as Successful. The original participants have worked up a version that is acceptable, and that is the point of mediation. Many thanks to all who participated. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a clarification about the scope of the settlement of this mediation. Because this is not arbitration, but merely a mediated discussion page, the consent of all participants is required. Users unjustifiably witholding consent or otherwise acting in bad faith can be subject to disciplinary action in another forum.

There was never consensus over clause two of the second point of agreement (regarding content with "de facto" effect), and objections by two editors to that clause received no direct response. Consensus regarding the removal of pictures of a diploma and robe was never obtained, and the arguments for the removal contained only very minimal reference to wiki policies or logic as justification. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we took your long silence as agreement with the consensus that seemed to have been reached, and acted accordingly. If it'll help settle this, I have no objection to one or both of the contentious pictures being put in the "Debate about status" section. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the academic robes picture. I'm happy to have it appear in the debate section, but the fact that it has been contentious indicates that there is more to it than simple a picture of a JD student in robes. Wikiant (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the only objections raised to the picture is that it is allegedly of poor quality and that you believe it to further a POV. There has been no objection raised as to the accuracy or relevance of the picture, and no issues raised as to the design and use of such robes. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My larger objection is that the picture advances a POV. My smaller objection is that, unto itself, the picture is not relevant. Moving the picture to the debate section both satisfies my POV concern and makes the picture relevant by linking it to the debate. I cannot speak to the accuracy as I have done no research as to academic wear for JDs. Also, Zoticogrillo, thank you for the barnstar. That was kind and gentlemanly. Wikiant (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding this very tendentious. The point of mediation was to reach some closure on the matter. I see that you are now once again adding "doctoral" where you can (e.g., the description of the robes) and weasel-wording down anything else (e.g., implying that only one dictionary defines 'doctorate' in a certain way). The objection that I am rasing is that you feel you WP:OWN the page. JJL (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Attack the logical arguments and the evidence, not the individual. You left some loose ends on the mediation, which was not my fault but yours. Perhaps you should have pursued arbitration instead of mediation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unclosure

It would be helpful to have the mediator revisit this matter. Large changes that are counter to this mediation's results are being made by one of its participants. JJL (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Grr, I was hoping this would peter out quietly. So what seems to be the issue? MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See the above section (Closure) and the comments by Zoticogrillo there, e.g. "There was never consensus..." and his recent edits to the J.D. page, e.g. this diff [14]. We're back to square one. JJL (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was largly consensus on most of the issues discussed in mediation, and I believe most parties have found mediation to be productive. The issues on which there was consensus have been implemented in the article, which have resulted in numerous changes which the parties have found satisfactory. Some small details are being worked out in the process of editing, although JJL has not participated in the discussion page regarding those changes. Mediation rarely results in 100% satisfaction for all parties. If JJL participates in discussion, those issues will probably be resolved. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I believe there was consensus (though perhaps not unanimity of opinion) on all the issues. The recent flurry of edits does not impress me as a working out of details so much as a re-packaging of material which we've already discussed. Wikiant (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is an ongoing organic process which results from discussion and collaborative editing. My activity on the article has been an attempt to implement what we have agreed in this venue, and I have explained each contribution and invited discussion on each of my changes. The edits might have seemed like a flurry because I have been necessarily absent from wikipedia for a month, and have been playing catch-up. Let's discuss! Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have edited back in is precisely the material that was discussed in this mediation (e.g. cutting out the whole "Use of title of Doctor by J.D. recipients" is part and parcel of reducing the amount of text spent on the whole doctoral issue.). Also, you haven't discussed them on the Talk page--you announced them and then immediately implemented them. You are working in a non-collaborative way, as though you WP:OWN the article and have a lock on the WP:TRUTH. JJL (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I will add more details to the discussion on the changes to titles. I had discussed other changes in detail, but you un-did all of my changes with one edit, with no discussion, making it difficult to guess what your specific objections were. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that we came to mediation because you would not seek nor abide by consensus there, and given that you're ignoring the results of the mediation, it's hard for me to see what purpose would be served by further discussion in the absence of at least mediation. JJL (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really certain if there would be a benefit from continued mediation at this point. We tried for several months and the lack of participation and the continual changing of positions made it very difficult to firm anything up. I believe mediation may have reached its limits as the issue preventing consensus appears to be behavioral and not content-based and that WP:RFC/U or WP:A/R may be the only options remaining. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we move on to WP:A/R. Given that I brought this issue to mediation, I'd rather that someone else begin the arbitration process. Wikiant (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is probably the only hope. I doubt that a WP:RFC/U would have any more effect than the mediation has. JJL (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)