Talk:German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 23, 2007, and in the Did you know? column on July 5, 2006.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Flag of Luxembourg German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I 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..
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Wonderful work!

Great work, Bastin! You'll get it to WP:FA status in no time, I'm certain. :) —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant in the room?

That's a colloquialism that's rarely heard in English speaking countries. My guess is that a non-native English speaker translated a metaphor that's used in another language. I would suggest a slight rewrite of an otherwise fascinating article should be done. Frankly, I had no clue how Luxembourg was treated during World War I or WWII. OrangeMarlin 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise of the article. Most certainly, the First World War was an elephant in the room. Bastin 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I agree that an "elephant in the room" is an English colloquialism, but the only time I ever hear it used is in reference to drug or alcohol addiction. I really hate being this compulsive, but it really isn't used very often in a historical treatise. In addition, it is my opinion that a good encyclopedic article should never use slang, colloquialisms or metaphors to make a point. So, once again, great article, but I would still refrain from using a fairly obscure colloquialism (at least when writing a historical article).OrangeMarlin 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I still stand by the position that it's very commonly used (558,000 hits on Google can't be wrong), and known well enough to justify its inclusion in most general purpose articles. I've removed it nonetheless; although it is used in the most of the dialects of English (British, American, and New Zealand, certainly), it may not be recognisable in all. Given that the article is about a non-English speaking country, it is likely to be of interest to a range of people, so it might be best to play it safe. Bastin 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I've come late to this discussion but I just can't refrain. This colloquialism is used regularly in Australian English, most notably in a political context, usually in commentary pieces in the media. It is used to describe important issues that one or more sides of politics are reluctant to acknowledge or discuss, usually because it's in the "too hard basket" (a colloquialism to describe a colloquialism), that solutions would produce unacceptable political fallout or that the protagonist has no ability to influence. Regular usage is mostly restricted to more educated, and/or politically aware individuals, although knowledge of it is far wider. It is not commonly used in the addiction/drug abuse/recovery setting (although as described on it's own page it certainly is an elephant in the room). This later usage seems to be more local to the United States, no doubt due to the association with the pink elephants used in popular American culture, most notably as a trope within animation, as a euphamism for innebriation or delerium tremens. Jaxsonjo 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-class?

Whoever rated this as B? It's at least A, more likely FA... —Nightstallion (?) 08:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA, I'd say.

Bastin, once you've filled in the remaining two sections (or erased them, I doubt they'd be missed...?), this is more than ready for WP:FA status... —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued support; certainly, I think so, too. Nonetheless, deleting them isn't an option; although the missing period is less interesting, it forms a substantial part of the history. If it has to be done for no other reason, FAs have to be entirely comprehensive! However, that's not to say that I can't copy quite large chunks from the article on the National Union Government. Furthermore, I've now completed my little diversionary task, so I can dedicate myself to this article for a while. Bastin 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! Looking very much forward to see you continue your great work on this article. :) Be sure to prod me once you nominate it, I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to support it... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's about ready now, ain't it? —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably about ready now. I still think that there are a few problems with the images (their paucity, their lack of tagging, their relevance, etc), which I've been begun to address today. I also plan to replace most of the red links with stubs, which will further improve the article. Bastin 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourgish versus Luxembourgian

Sorry to be pernickerty, but its Luxembourgish, not Luxembourgian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.120.24 (talk • contribs) 17:00, Aug 1, 2006 (UTC).

Although the language is called 'Luxembourgish', the country's adjective is 'Luxembourgian'. See dictionary.com's definition. Bastin 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, that's debatable, and Wikipedia uses "Luxembourgish" for either -- compare Luxembourgish franc, not Luxembourgian franc. —Nightstallion (?) 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I've listed this as a good article; it's probably a decent FA candidate, in fact. One minor query that doesn't seem covered: Image:Schlieffen plan map.jpg shows the plan for the French left wing was to advance forwards through Luxembourg to meet the oncoming Germans. As this would presumably have led to a French occupation of some stripe, might it be worth mentioning in passing? Did French troops ever cross the border during the early attempts to attack? Shimgray | talk | 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

French soldiers never passed into Luxembourg (although Germany never hesitated to accuse opponents or dissidents of being French agents), and they claimed that they had no such plans. Mollard (the French ambassador in Luxembourg) sent a letter to Eyschen on the 3rd August 1914, just before the emergency session of the Chamber of Deputies called on that day, arguing that France would not violate Luxembourg's neutrality unless Germany did so first. Germany's position was that France could not be allowed to gain the upper hand, so Bethmann-Hollweg argued that Germany had to pre-empt the 'inevitable' French attack. Whether France had plans to make the first move is hard to say; they argued that they didn't, but I suppose that the US Military Academy (which produced the map) doesn't believe the French defence. Bastin 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] communism, a foreign influence?

Great article, but I wonder why you say "another foreign influence, namely communism" under rebellion. First of all, communism as an internationalist movement does not have a national origin, even if it did one could trace it to nearby Trier. So one cannot talk of foreign in that sense. Secondly local marxist groups and parties had existed for some time and had been very active during and immediatelly after WWI. But it's of course true that a foreign or external influence existed to a certain degree, that is to say the retreating german troops forming soldiers councils on their way home. But these were not involved in the two short lived republics of 1918. Unless you have names of "foreign" agitators leading the revolt I'd recommend removing the mention of foreign influence.

I'd prefer not to modify this myself for two reasons. 1) The article is to formidable for me to meddle with it. 2) I'm a communist myself and the day I first registered with Wikipedia (not this one as I only registered here today) I promised myself to stay out of political debates and articles as despite my studies (history and political sciences) I'd have a hard time staying neutral. So I hope you can reconsider that wording.

--Caranorn 13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism has national origins, just as every political movement in history does, despite what communists espouse. Lenin and Trotsky were Russian, and their belief in internationalism can't change that.
More pertinently, the revolts in Luxembourg did indeed have foundations abroad. The revolts in November had connections to the Spartacists (who launched their revolt on the same day, and whose workers' councils used the same model) and communists within the German army (who set up soldiers' councils and raised red flags). Whilst the January revolt was more domestic in origin, the French seemed to think that the later revolt bore signs of Belgian interference. Bastin 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why substitute the two categories?

Why shouldn't we keep the two categories Category:World War I and Category:History of Luxembourg? Made sense to me. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general trend on Wikipedia is to put an article into only one category on a particular tree. In this case, the category currently applied (Category:Luxembourg during World War I) is a child of both Category:World War I and Category:History of Luxembourg. There's no real reason to also put the article into the parent categories as well. Carom 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Army Casualties

Reading the article, I was struck by the extremely high number of soldiers killed in the French Army. The article claims 2800 of 3200 who served. That's nearly 90%. Assuming that some were also wounded I wonder if a single one survived the war in one piece. The source used doesn't seem especially reliable. I'm no expert but the claim seems rather extreme to me and I wonder if that is true. I'm especially concerned because the following information is a bit of synthesis created using the same fact.

Just a quick look around WP shows different numbers at World War I casualties, note #4. 2000 dead among 3700 who served. That claim seems more realistic and also comes from the National Museum of Military History (in Luxembourg) -- a more reliable source, at least in my opinon. The source quoted actually says "2000+" but the article uses only 2000. The Museum page also says that about 150 served in the US forces. Maybe that would be useful for the article as well. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with your sites interface, which for me, is so very non-intuitive. But that is not my problem at the moment, what I would like to comment on is the entry "Tom Brady is bad quarterback" found just above the contents sidebox. Tom Brady's abilities may be worthy of debate, but I can not imagine how it would relate to the German occupation of Luxenburg. As a parting thought, calling an interface page a "Talk Page" but labeling it as "Discussion" may be apt for many, but it is simply misleading to much of the users. Sorry for wandering off topic.