Talk:Luxembourg rebellions

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

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Why is this up for merging? This is simmer to the German Revolution, it was one major event with many smaller rebellions. All pages are well sourced and well organized. This should not be merged. LuxembourgLover (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to split out every detail into separate edits. The Banner talk 09:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Aftermath[edit]

Why was this edit reverted? It is important to say what happened after luxembourg. After the rebellion and the 1919 Luxembourg referendum led to stability in Luxembourg, this directly led to economic growth. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about health. The summary of the source says nothing about the rebellions. Unless the sources directly mentions the rebellion(s) or the referendum, it should not be used. And it is far more likely that the stability and economic growth was due to the end of the war. The Banner talk 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box[edit]

This was clearly a military conflict. It was a rebellion and coup and an infobox is important. I don't understand why it was reverted, I also think the pictures work. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Once again reverting an edit and calling it “nonsense” is not a good explanation. This was a war and saw a French invasion of Luxembourg, by all accounts this was a military conflict. The infobox lists all the leaders on both sides. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every article needs or deserves an infobox and WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a sound justification of itself. It should consider whether the circumstances are the same and whether it is best practice in this context. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, information added should be supported by the body of the article. For many of the commanders/leaders added, this is not the case. I don't belive there is a case to be made for adding an infobox here. There is an onus to gain consensus, which clearly does not exist at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ask me I think the info box should be used, it would at least help summarize the Luxembourg Army’s organization and easy show what units rebelled. Also I think the two pictures could be added. LuxembourgLover (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If have many times questioned your competence before, I question your competence again. This was not a war with a clear Party A fighting Party B. There was no open combat at all.
    Beside that, you placed a photo about a police unit. In your description you suggested that this was a unit that stayed loyal to the government during all the turmoil. But the photo dates of 1910, years before the period in question. That makes the picture misleading and nonsense. The Banner talk 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the Luxembourg Rebellion was not a conventional war, it indeed involved military actions, including the intervention of French troops which actively engaged with republican and communist forces in Luxembourg. This involvement justifies the inclusion of an infobox typically reserved for armed conflicts, reflecting the structured nature of the events, similar to other historical conflicts documented on Wikipedia.
    Regarding the images, due to the limited availability of contemporary visuals directly depicting the events, I selected images that provide historical context and relate closely to the subject matter. This approach is consistent with how other Wikipedia articles, such as Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Attica Prison riot, and Battle of Athens (1946), utilize images to of locations. I also propose creating a map that can visually represent the geographical and strategic elements of the rebellion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Soldiers moving into town is not the same as open warfare. But when there was actual combat, please provide sources for that. (Arrests, being in the way or being threatening is not combat). 2) Regarding the links: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That there are other articles about fights, does not make the French intervention a fight. Especially unsourced and without evidence of actual battles or casualties. 3) Pictures should have an encyclopedic purpose. They are not for decoration. And certainly should not claim something they do not depict. The Banner talk 23:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany, France, and Luxembourg forces fought in the rebellion, an info box could be used to show that.[1] Also I still think the location of the event and a picture of a military unit could be used. One of the main sources uses the same picture.[2] LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source I can not check, but the second source says nothing about fighting. The Banner talk 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source pertained to the fighting and countries involved, while the second related to the picture. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ow, and your attempts to add a communist rebellion to the articles November 1919 and 1919 is plain cringe-worthy. There was communist-led turmoil in November 1918. There was other turmoil in January 1919. But nothing in November 1919. The Banner talk 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POLITE, last time I check saying “ow your edits are cringe” is not the nicest thing the existence. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, WP:CIR is not polite but a cause of concern that can cause you to loose your editing rights. The Banner talk 10:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please direct me to the guideline that permits disregarding rules of civility based on a person's competence? As per my last review of the policies, making remarks such as 'your edits are cringe' is generally considered inappropriate. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should address the arguments not the person - ie You are being rediculous, could be seen as uncivil because it is directed at the person but This is a ridiculous argument because ... addresses the argument. It is also best to explain why the argument has been characterised in such a way. Bottom line though, your arguments are not convincing anybody. No matter what one tries to label these events as, it does not mean that an infobox must or should be used. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But please note Wikipedia:CIR. Deb (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Goiing back to this, the war did see the involment of France, Garmany, and Luxembourg. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the relevance of this involvement? The rebellions were not part of the war. The Banner talk 21:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1941 Iraqi coup d'état and the Palm Sunday Coup uses the military infobox despite not having any casualties. Three countries fought in this rebellion, I think we can add an infobox. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And you can see that in both examples there were military forces on either side of the turmoil. That is not the case with the Luxembourg Rebellions. The Banner talk 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the January 1919, it was. I has been called a coup or mutiny LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Corps of Volunteers did nothing. They did not take up arms. As is stated in the article: (...) and the deputies called in the Corps of Volunteers but the soldiers refused the orders to disperse the crowd.. So no warfare whatsoever. The Banner talk 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right under that the article states “…The crowd then rushed to the Chamber, where the overwhelmed deputies called on the Corps of Volunteers to clear the audience. At this point, the Volunteers refused to obey orders. Suddenly, Luxembourg’s (admittedly very small) military was in full-blown mutiny.” RTL is one of the largest[3] news companies in Luxembourg, I think it is a reliable source. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mutiny was that they did nothing. And that the RTL is one of the biggest news agencies in Luxembourg is nice, but does nothing to alter the facts in the sources. The military did nothing. End of story. No battles, shootings, parades. Just nothing. The Banner talk 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many coups where bloodless LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a group of 2000 that saw a major politician demanded a republic. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it says “Whatever their motive, the well-armed and disciplined French troops moved in, forcing the Luxembourgish Volunteers to disperse and disarm. The French occupying force now took charge of Place d’Armes, Place Guillaume, the Chamber of Deputies and the barracks of the Corps of Volunteers, while banning any popular gatherings in the capital.” LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? The Banner talk 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This proves that the volunteers took up arms and rebelled against the government LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in your opinion doing nothing is the same as taking up arms? Are you sure you are competent enough to edit Wikipedia? The Banner talk 23:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I checked, if a group has to be 'disarmed' by a foreign military, it most likely did something noteworthy. Either way, considering that half of the Luxembourg army, along with the French and German militaries, was involved, I think we should include an info-box. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please stop your POV-pushing? The Banner talk 09:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m submitting this for a third opinion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your arguments fails so you bring in others. Now I have not only a Competency-concern but also a WP:POV-concern. The Banner talk 23:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have been arguing for the past 5 days, I think a third opinion is needed. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is over whether or not this article should have an infobox. A lot of the preceding argument is based on editor views/interpretations of whether this is a military conflict. Whether or not this is a military conflict or something else is immaterial to the question of whether or not this needs or must have an infobox at all or, more specifically, it must have a military conflict infobox. There is nothing in WP:P&G to mandate that an article must have an infobox or that the military conflict infobox must be used if an event is a military conflict. The inclusion of an infobox in an article is a matter of consensus. However, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the infobox is a suppliment to the lead. If the lead is a succinct and adequate summary of the key points of the article at a glance, then it is reasonable to argue that an infobox would be redundant. This is the case here. There is no consensus here for including an infobox. There is no consensus that an infobox would improve the article. LuxembourgLover, your comments have not convinced anybody. You already have a third opinion and perhaps a fourth (Deb). There is no source based argument to support the addition of an infobox. There is no P&G argument to support that an infobox is needed. There is a reasonable argument in P&G presented that it is not needed. Othersuffisms are not of themself a strong argument. It is only when they point to best practice as judged by the broader community in appropriately similar circumstances that they might carry some weight. Otherstuff arguments herein do not meet this measure. They carry no weight. This is a WP:DEADHORSE. It aing going to voom, even if you put 40,000 volts through it. It is a WP:EX PARROT.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether the article should have an infobox, I have no firm opinion. I just don't like to see LuxembourgLover spending all his/her time trying to get as many mentions of Luxembourg into Wikipedia as possible and sulking when it doesn't work out. Take time to cool off - there are more useful things you could be doing and you will learn the ropes in time. Deb (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Looks like there are already enough opinions for a 'no infobox' consensus, but here is my response from 3O. I feel that, at this stage in the article's development, adding an infobox would be premature and efforts would best be spent expanding and sourcing the article body. I particularly feel that the infobox added in this edit is inappropriate: it is too large and noisy, clamours for attention against the entire first half of the article, and contains unsourced information which does not appear elsewhere in the article. Like other cases where an editor directly adds content to the lead instead of the article body, this is a really bad practice. If an infobox is to be added in the future, I would suggest using {{infobox civilian attack}} (based on the material presently in the article) as it is more compact and tidy, and avoids the totally unnecessary flag icons. Note that the infobox should summarize key facts and The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). With the lead only two sentences long, all the key facts (at this point in the article development) are already available there at a glance without the larger and more difficult to read infobox. For further reading, see the essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes ("Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of overzealous editors interested in uniformity across the encyclopedia over the consideration of what best serves an individual article."). This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Kreins, Jean-Marie (2003). Histoire du Luxembourg (in French) (3rd ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. p. 89. ISBN 978-2-13-053852-3.
  2. ^ https://today.rtl.lu/luxembourg-insider/history/a/1690130.html
  3. ^ https://journalists.feedspot.com/luxembourg_news_websites/

Republic[edit]

How does Wikipedia determine if a county is a county? Was the Luxembourg Republic a county or just an idea? The Committee of Public Safety was real and Servais was proclaimed President. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, sources, sources.
And demanding a republic is not the same as creating (de facto and de jure) a republic. The Banner talk 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have this source that says the committee of public safety declared one and apointed a presedent. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says that he was president of "Committee of Public Safety", not of a republic.

In front of a crowd of anti-monarchists, the right-wing deputies fled the Chamber, leaving those remaining to declare a Committee of Public Safety, with Servais proclaimed President.

You should be more accurate and not state things not stated in the source. The Banner talk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "The Committee then proceeded to proclaim the Republic of Luxembourg." LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that Republic was over before is seriously started. But still it was just a committee saying something, nothing done with lasting effect. The Banner talk 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so should we clarify a "declares Republic or country" as a country. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't as it is not backed up by the source. Only that a committee declared something that had no further effect. The Banner talk 22:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A failed coup does not make it a country. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luxembourg_rebellions&oldid=1220883810"