This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pearl River Delta, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pearl River DeltaWikipedia:WikiProject Pearl River DeltaTemplate:WikiProject Pearl River DeltaPearl River Delta articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The official Chinese website of the institution clearly states that the degree offered is a master's degree and not a doctorate. Those who do not read Chinese can use Google Translate to confirm that fact. The proper citations are provided. One must wonder why it says something different on the English version of the website.
The Chinese law about academic degrees is the relevant law en force at this time, and it explicitly states the scope of degrees that the ministry allows to be awarded in China. Professional doctorates are not provided for. The citation provided is in English, for the reader's convenience. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unless you have other sourced to back this up, you cannot say things like that. Especially things like "often misleadingly claims to offer". That is negative. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Could you please help me understand your position more clearly? Which wiki policies do you believe apply to this matter? Would you please discuss why you think the citations provided are invalid, or why you think the use of them is inappropriate? It seems to me that the citations meet the wiki standards as expressed on this policy page. I am surprised to find an administrator engaging in edit warring without meaningful discussion. Because the content as it exists now is inaccurate, I will remove it. And the other relevant citations will be added again, pending your comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Someone at STL posted a document purported to be an accurate translation of an official Chinese government document. It was posted on the website after conflicts arose here in this STL article (correlation isn't causation), after which the document was cited in this article, and the article was substantially changed. I did not examine the document closely because I assumed the translation would be accurate. However, after a more close reading I have realized that the translation is clearly in error. The original document does NOT say that the name of the degree in English would be "J.D." It does use the term (in Chinese) masters [degree] throughout. I believe "[saying] things like "often misleadingly claims to offer"" is now totally appropriate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There appears to be a slow edit war regarding this article. It is regarding the above discussion about the J.D. degree at this institution. One editor even protected editing on this article without any discussion at all. No response was given to the above attempt to initiate substantive discussion. The only explanation for removing cited content that has been given thus far is that it "is negative." Most editing summaries give no explanation, and one only stating that the removed text contained "false content." I am again surprised to see that this renewed behavior is also by an administrator. In addition, there is reason to suspect bias, as this institution even publicized in it's "Media Kit" when this wikipedia article first appeared. At that time the article lacked sources and was drafted in a very promotional manner, leading one to suspect that it was drafted by a staff member of STL. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
