Talk:Constitution of Louisiana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listing of other state constitutions[edit]

This article would be improved if there was a listing of the previous constitutions. It says that there were eleven, which were the other years? Is there commentary to reflect what was in each? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title or content?[edit]

As noted by another editor, there have been many constitutions of Louisiana. In fact; 10 times between 1812 and 1974, with167 out of 239 amendments approved since 1974, and the most state constitutions of any other. To have an article titled "Constitution of Louisiana" without (1974) is misleading at best. Of course I guess we could have an article on each it would be better to start with a title "Louisiana State Constitutions" (or the like) then later, if expansions require, expand to more articles. There would be at least one (maybe more) "Did you know" (see 1864) as many people probably will not know that the Union did not exclude slavery in territories (or states) under Union control in the Emancipation Proclamation. A change in 1861, that would not actually be an amendment but a new constitution, was to change the words "United States" to "Confederate States".

I think, for now, this should be content in a "History" section. If and when there is enough information on individual versions, then different articles may be in order. But I think it would be best to organize that information here first. In any event, the current version should keep the title "Constitution of Louisiana" per WP:COMMONNAME. Int21h (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You actually reiterated some of my comments, "then later, if expansions require, expand to more articles.". I am just curious where you arrived at the common name? Ooops!!, I did not realize that I was commenting on points concerning an article that had no source or references until I added content concerning alternate names, with references, and had to add a reference section. Wow! Something like 78 edits since 2005 and no references.
The external links section can not be used as a source or reference as this will correctly present the article as not having any and appear as original research. Content and links in an external links section, that are acceptable to be used as content or references, should be moved to the main body and a reference section.
  • I do see where I think the mention of common name came from. The link in the external links section points to a web page that has a clickable link on the left side that states, "Constitution of Louisiana". On the right side is also the caption "Constitution of Louisiana". The very next link after this information (highlighted in blue) is the caption, Constitution of 1974, a link that directs to a PDF file titled; Louisiana Constitution of 1974.
Below are some important references to the common, as well as current legal name;
The state government, as well as publishers on the subject, added the year. Within the state the name is more commonly referred to simply as the Constitution of 1974 (The Louisiana State Constitution: A Reference Guide, Volume 37, p-20).
The use of "common name" does not really seem to matter sometimes as it appears to me some might feel it is no longer relevant to Wikipedia. This is my opinion but I have my reasons.
    • Please note: The "legal" name, and not the actual common name, according to ARTICLE XIV, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: Part III section §36, Effect of Adoption; is the Constitution of the State of Louisiana.
I will (and had plans to) incorporate the above contents into the article and is one of the reasons the links and information was provided. A good thing is that it will go from zero (now two) references to several. I just thought I would touch on the matter of "common name". Otr500 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books yields the following:

Even with that said, I still think WP:PRECISION should be considered: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." I think "Constitution of Louisiana" would be best for this. Otherwise, all wikilinks are going to be redirects because no one is going to type " of the State" because it is superfluous; there is only one Louisiana. Int21h (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue about adding "state". The examples I provided were actual books on the subject as evidence of what I have found. I do not rely on Google just for "hits" or counts as it is a known fact "that Google searches may report vastly more hits than actually exist, especially for exact quoted expressions.".
You have not really stated the real reason for excluding (or eluding to other names) the more common name of the Constitution of Louisiana (1974) and the very important and not to be over looked fact you mentioned concerning "precise enough to unambiguously define...but no more than that.". You stated this after I gave at least 10 examples of ambiguity, being the 10 Constitutions of Louisiana that are very commonly referred to with a year included to provide an unambiguous definition, as well as the fact that Wikipedia uses the year in many articles. This is to include Louisiana Supreme Court that lists the 10 examples (unambiguous by year being included) that I provided but provided no references.
I see now! I did note that you have edited a lot of articles on constitutions and have also noted that the name of this article is being used consistently (and I feel appropriately) across Wikipedia without compromise or individual article sacrifice.
  • With extensive evidence to indicate that "Constitution of Louisiana (1974) is more common and probably the name that is overall better, especially with the state history of rewrites, possibly soon to relegate it to a past constitution, but considering the consistency of other like named articles, I can support for now, the name as used with a descriptive history section. I would hope though that editors will be more frugal in providing reference. Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm partial to keep the title as simple as possible. In other words, I think the current constitution should keep the "Constitution of Louisiana" title. You (we) need to develop the history of the Louisiana Constitution in the article first, so please add that as soon as possible so we can work through that. If you want to start other articles, fine. If you want to redirect "Constitution of Louisiana (1974)" to this, fine. But in my opinion, when one says "Constitution of Louisiana" they mean the current, in force version. When it was promulgated is but one aspect of its history, an aspect I have a hunch few know about, and not one that really needs to be in the title. With that said, do what you think is best. Int21h (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "History" and "Constitutions" section (threw in a Antebellum subsection since it is certainly relevant) with references. Please check it out and see how it looks. Otr500 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1868 Constitution[edit]

This readable file from Wikipedia Commons would be good to include showing page 8. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Louisiana&oldid=1213873050"