This article is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LuxembourgWikipedia:WikiProject LuxembourgTemplate:WikiProject LuxembourgLuxembourg
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
Given that the orginal 3rd partition was done on linguistic lines, the remainder of Luxembourg being 'German-speaking', perhaps the whole of Luxembourg should now be given to Belgium; the so-called 'German-speaking' part of Luxembourg, i.e. Luxembourg today, is hardly German-speaking, and proudly uses French as its official language. In view of the fact that Luxembourg thus cozies up to French, it has now no further reason to exist as a separate entity.
Perhaps it would be best to replace this with an objective source? Not to mention the author was stuck in New York and had no access whatsoever to sources or archives from Europe. The point being referenced isn't even the focus of the source being used and it is thus not very authoritative to boot. I fear that using this source may accidentally trick people in reading it and take it at face value, not realizing that it is just a propaganda piece.