Talk:Louisiana Tigers

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

A fact from Louisiana Tigers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Louisiana Tigers Confederate Army brigade were a key part of the Army of Northern Virginia and developed a reputation as fearless, hard fighting shock troops?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

Wikipedia

" Another large segment were French-speaking Creoles. " Sorry, but going by te roster for Co. B "Tiger Rifles", French names were not particularly noticable. It's probably a mistaken association for Coppens or 1st La Zouaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.202.22 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book Author Copying his work wholesale into wikipedia?

Surprised the monitoring bots or oversight hasn't caught this yet. This article is not only bizarrely long given the notability of the topic, but the fact that an author has copied so much out of his own book into this encyclopedia is ridiculous and incredibly narcissistic. Then again, he did write the wikipedia article on himself.68.34.210.83 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written appears to be a summary of a copyrighted work which excessively borrows from that work. It appears to violate fair use, despite the fact that it seems to be the author of the work that put the content in there.68.34.210.83 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]