Talk:Law of Louisiana

Citation 21, http://www.civilco.de/, is dead, and the wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20060810050211/http://civilco.de/, is some kind of Islamist critique of the 9/11 commission report? The word Louisiana doesn't appear once in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.17.166 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana law vs. Louisiana Civil Code

I got redirected here from "Louisiana Civil Code" but I'm not sure why. The Louisiana Civil Code has a history and importance that is separate and distinct from the very general subject of "Louisiana law." I just don't understand the logic of the Wikipedians... --Economy1 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We often redirect topics that we expect to be expanded into articles later. The consensus is that a redirect is better than nothing. James500 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now there is an article Louisiana Civil Code. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

way to repeditive

the same phrase is used three times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.115.215 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.law.tulane.edu/uploadedFiles/Institutes_and_Centers/Eason_Weinmann/v01i01-Yiannopoulos(1).pdf

Appears that at least one very distinguished scholar thinks that the Louisiana code was indeed based on the Napoleonic code, contrary to assertion made in the present Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.236.70 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. The Yiannopoulos article, particularly paragraphs 22 through 25, describes a scholarly dispute about whether the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 was mostly French or mostly Spanish. Yiannopoulos does not take one side or the other. The current wording of this article is consistent with the facts presented in paragraph 22 of this article. --Lockley (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Louisiana’s Evidence Code

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge per no consensus, length of time, and closed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure #1 Otr500 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Create a larger article as both are on the same topic and both are very underdeveloped. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - good call. But merge source should be greatly abbreviated first. Alternatively, imported section needs {{under construction}} tag with |section=yes parameter set. Latter might get more editorial review than former, but your choice. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The Law of Louisiana article is a broad overview topic article, while the Louisiana Code of Evidence is a literary work. Each has its own focus. The only way to properly merge them would be to treat the new article as an article about the Louisiana Code of Evidence--which would be very confusing. One is effectively a book, the other is a topic. The Law of Louisiana article should not have 20 paragraphs about each code--articles about each code should each have at least 20 paragraphs. Making this article about every code is just too much for one article--having an article for each code is acceptable. Lets not merge every single literary work into the broad topic article just because one of the articles is underdeveloped--that will only (1) make the merged article a monstrosity, or (2) cause friction between editors who want to add relevant, useful information and editors who want to prevent the article from becoming a monstrosity. Int21h (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Louisiana Code of Evidence is many things; a "literary work" it is not. Nor is it most usefully conceived of as a "book."

The Code is a part of the Law of Louisiana. (Both topic and Wikipedia article on that topic.) Precisely where a single paragraph - completely rewritten in encyclopedic summary style (but not at encyclopedic length!) - with inline references to reliable secondary sources, belongs.

I've added a reliable secondary source to the Code in Further reading, for just such use.

I suggest working on such a single paragraph here, in Law of Louisiana. That valued contribution would be well reviewed by other editors. A few sentences in Effective differences section will do as a start, with a concluding inline reference to a secondary source. Perhaps someday a passable Wikipedia article on the Code could be developed from such a foundation. Perhaps not. But if it can't be put in a single paragraph here, how do you expect to develop a strong lead paragraph for a good - or even acceptable - standalone article?

I now Support Articles For Deletion candidacy of Louisiana Code of Evidence article. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The evidence code is independently notable and should have its own article. James500 (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Split at this point. I would like to state that the Louisiana Civil code is in fact based on the Napoleonic code (the secret is out) contrary to all the crap spread around. Some claim (a prominent argument) that because the Louisiana Purchase took place in 1803, one year before the Napoleon codes, that it can not be so. The state of Louisiana was admitted into the Union in 1812, and had plenty of time from 1804, until the enactment of the codes by the Legislature of the Territory of Orleans, on March 31,1808. These laws were influenced an arguable amount by Spanish law (of course I have references). End of history 101.

I have briefly entertained this proposal. I live in this state so am somewhat protective of Louisiana articles that have relevance on Wikipedia. That does not mean I can not be objective and hope that is not questioned. I am perplexed of reference that "Louisiana Code of Evidence" is simply a "literary work". The "Handbook on Louisiana Evidence" and the the parallel "Federal Rules of Evidence", are not just literary works but compilations of laws. There are literary works like the "Louisiana Code of Evidence Practice Guide", "Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal", "Internal Rules of the Third Circuit", as well as the "Handbook of Louisiana Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Procedure".

My concern here is that evidence codes, as a part of other codes, make up Louisiana law. Both articles are lacking and it may be that merging them could make one better article. Arguments to keep were justifiable and at least one argument to delete, because an editor attempted to relegate those codes of the written laws as merely a "literary work", were utterly unbelievable.

Merging the two would make a better article, especially with an expandable "Louisiana Code of Evidence" section, that can become a subsection of a "Louisiana codes" section. Another fact is that "IF" the article expands it can be separated. Someone care to weigh in on this? Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Int21h expanded this article and I expanded Louisiana Code of Evidence. Both are now qualified as stand alone a articles and I am sure both will see further improvements. Otr500 (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - The Louisiana Code of Evidence has little independent notability. It tracks very closely the Federal Rules of Evidence. Unlike the Louisiana Civil Code, which has all sorts of current and historical independent importance, the Code of Evidence is a comparatively recent enactment. However, this article, as it stands, is basically about substantive law. Insofar as we merge in articles on procedural law, maybe we also cover the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure? N'Awlins Contrarian 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Law of Louisiana. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229015223/http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/reg/register.htm to http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/reg/register.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810050211/http://civilco.de/ to http://www.civilco.de/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229043802/http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/lac/books.htm to http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/lac/books.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229015223/http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/reg/register.htm to http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/reg/register.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)