Talk:Paul M. Hebert Law Center/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Paul M. Hebert Law Center. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Relationship to the University

An earlier edition of this article says that the Hebert Law Center was "unique" among American law schools because it is an autonomous campus of, rather than a dependent part of, its larger university. I deleted the language about the law school being "unique" in this fashion. CUNY law school, on the campus of Queens College in New York, has a similar arrangement. Kyleandrew1 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gardner again

I reposted information about the scandal involving Jacob Gardner. I decided that this information is notable because the scandal recieved both print and television media attention, led to an unprecedented removal of a student association leader by academic administration, and highlights long-standing racial issues within LSU law center. One faculty member said the incident set race relations at LSU law center back 20 years. This faculty member also implied that the scandal exacerbates a historic divide between LSU Law School and Southern University law school, an historical African-American institution. I offer these as reasons that the Jacob Gardner scandal is noteworthy enough to be on wikipedia. --Modernhiawatha 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the information about the Gardner incident again. Unless one wants to post every minor thing about the history of the law school and its politics, I don't see why it should be here. This situation was blown out of proportion by people with certain political agendas. The fellow who received the email frankly does not care. Similar past incidents such as the suit by the law center to remove the website lsulaw.com, comments by the administration comparing students to shoppers at K-mart, certain members of the administration involved with drug use, and other scandals are not reported, so this one should not be posted here. Like the above incidents, I doubt it will be remembered two years from now. --Rockules318

Jacob Gardner

The law center's Student Bar Association President, Jacob Gardner, was recently criticized and asked to resign from his position by many faculty and students for forwarding an allegedly racist e-mail titled, "Ghetto Spelling Bee."

I removed the above passage from the article and the three external links because it doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Scandals happen at all institutions; what makes this one encyclopedic? Linking to a petition inherently goes against WP:NPOV. Does this have potential to be made encyclopedic? --Christopherlin 06:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Christopherlin. The incident was not so extreme to be encyclopedic. What would be an encyclopedic scandal at a Univeristy? Kent State shooting? --Modernhiawatha 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kent State shootings is tagged as a good article, and it is a part of American history. This is not to say that people have to die in order for an event to be notable. Wikipedia:Notability is a good starting point for what generally gets left in. --Christopherlin 06:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

I can't even find Jennifer Montgomery using Google without it being a Wikipedia mirror. I live in Baton Rouge, and I have never heard of her. I do not believe her to be notable.

I won't begrudge you the Louisiana Supreme Court Justices; they should be notable, even if I don't think they are. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page at Talk:LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources

LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources now redirects here, but there is still a talk page at Talk:LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources. Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 30#LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources

The deletion of the redirect at LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 30#LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources. Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Paul M. Hebert Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 23:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD discussion for the removal of the two infoboxes for the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources

An editor has removed the two infoboxes, one for the print edition, and one for the online edition, for the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources. The edit comment for this removal was "cleanup". Here is a diff showing the infoboxes. What do other editors think? Are these infoboxes something that soiled or cluttered the article, thus needed cleanup? Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time ever that I have seen TWO infoboxes applied for one and the same journal. In addition, this journal is completely non-notable (as argued in the AfD that you inappropriately and prematurely closed). A simple mention that this journal exists is, at this stage, enough. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that "this journal is completely non-notable" is a straw man since (1) no one is disagreeing with you, and (2) the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The essay [Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence] has more. Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do other editors think, do these infoboxes clutter the article requiring a need for "cleanup"? This journal has been in the works since late 2011, and one edition has gone to press. Does this "stage" call for no infoboxes? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing imbedded infoboxes for affiliated journals, magazines, websites or other types of publications within a larger, 'mother' article. As a stub, the entry is fine as it is, in my opinion. It still can be expanded as a section of this article. But I do not think an infobox would be appropriate at the section level. Better to revisit the notability question several years hence, for indications of whether there is the basis for a separate article at that time. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)