Talk:Flag of Luxembourg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Flag of Luxembourg is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaboration intended to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg at the English language Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page..
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Heraldry and Vexillology Portal Flag of Luxembourg is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

removed reference to the French flag, incorrect statement (design is based on the Dutch flag)

Actually neither is demonstrated. As far as I recall Loutsch believes it's indeed derived from the French revolutionary flag. Even if it were derived from the Dutch one that would be an indirect derivation as that one is a revolutionary evolution from the original orange-white-blue to the current red-white-blue. In any case, the use of red-white-blue is more logical in Luxembourg (as those were indeed the local colours for several centuries before the revolution). How the flag could be derived from the Limbourg coat of arms (red lion on white) as mentionned in the article currently is beyond me in any case.--Caranorn 11:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag change?

Can anyone (likely only a Luxembourger) enlighten the world about how notable the proposal by a single parliamentarian actually is? —Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable as in it was the main topic of discussion in every media for at least a week, it's also still a common topic of discussion among people. Lastly, that MP is the son of a former minister (Jean Wolter, dead around 1980), Michel was the youngest MP (iirc) in Luxembourgish history, he was minister of the interior for a number of years, he reverted to parliament for various reasons, none of them a lack of public support... He is also leader of the largest parliamentary faction. So as a person he is notable. Add to that that the no. 1) local linguistic (Lex Roth) has expressed some support for his project. So from my point of view it's indeed notable. On the other hand, the country (and thereby parliamaent) has many far more important issues (mostly the budget) which is one reason why this proposal was largely criticised and has since that first week or so lost most press coverage. Right now I can't say what the outcome will be, but considering Wolter's position within the CSV I expect the law will eventually pass if it's indeed introduced. I will probably be unable to contribute anymore to the relevant articles once the law is passed as I plan to write a number of articles refuting both this MP and the linguist's theories, so at that point I won't be able to consider myself neutral on the subject.

Another note, I've known Wolter most of my life, our fathers were good friends, colleaugues at work and members of the same parliamentary faction, they both died around the same time, our mothers still are good friends. On the other hand I haven't had any personal dealings with him in a very long time. I really can't stand the guy and consider him dangerous, so I definitelly won't be exagarating his role in local politics, he simply is one of the most influencial people here.--Caranorn 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you keep this article and me up-to-date if he should actually introduce the law? Thanks for the information! —Nightstallion (?) 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, plan to do that anyhow:-).--Caranorn 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 15:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One minor addition, not worthy to be included in the article. Today MP Mozar (sp.) also of the CSV declared his support for the project. He was the CSV's leading candidate in the last Luxembourg city communal elections, while not one of the major players in the party still an influencial person (and another of our hereditary politicians whose father was in parliament with mine). Still, the vote count remains low, but most simply haven't expressed an opinion and with Mozar one can expect the more conservative wing of the CSV at least is in full support of Wolter.--Caranorn 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for the update. —Nightstallion (?) 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So, any news on this, or has the issue died meanwhile? —Nightstallion (?) 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing yet. I believe the government Commission hasn't decided yet. In the meantime, two additional initiatives (well maybe three, but two are likely to merge) have been founded. One for the tricolore and a second (or second and third) one parodying the others (black cow (black being the colour of the christian social people's party, and the cow as a symbol of stupidity) and the other wavering between the pink panther and spongebob as flag symbols). Maybe I'll fletch this section of the article out a bit, but I'm really not neutral (even less then before as I drew two of the parodies on the flag...).--Caranorn 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I s'pose this means we shouldn't hold our breath on this, then? What's a likely timeframe for implementing this? This year? Early next year? —Nightstallion (?) 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I have no clue. Right now the major political topic is the 5611 law and the resulting protests (student strike...). While the flag is a constant topic it's not taken seriously by most. I expect there will be no real news until the Heraldic Commission has voiced it's opinion on the subject (and I don't know whether they have met yet). But I'm pretty certain that law won't be up for a vote this year, probably the first half of 2007 if it comes to a vote.--Caranorn 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you'll be keeping us up-to-date, anyway, I can rest safely in the knowledge that we've got someone sitting at the source of this. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)