Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:20, 31 January 2006

An event mentioned in this article is a August 1 selected anniversary

Archive 1 | Archive 2 (attempt to discuss spelling of Swiss cantons)

Swiss Sports

Does anyone know the name of the Swiss Sport which is similar to golf? I've seen it played but can't remember the name of it. One person hits a ball off a tee using what looks like a cork on the end of a fishing rod. A number of other people then wait in the distance with wooden bats and try to hit the ball before it hits the ground. Any Swiss people out there who know what this is ?

Ouch! That comparison with Golf really hurts. Hornussen is very different. Lupo 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

International co-operation

I think the fact that Switzerland didn't become a member of the UN until 2002 says a lot about the country not wanting to commit itself. One should consider changing the formulation "The country has a strong tradition of political and military neutrality, but also of international co-operation, as it is home to many international organizations."

well, it's in the UN now. But "international cooperation" could indeed be further specified. dab 17:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

don't omit that Switzerland is not yet a member of the European Union!

The above line was written by User:212.254.98.175. I reverted your changes to Switzerland as most of the points, while not wrong, are already covered in the article or in sub-articles. For example Switzerland#Economy mentions the EU aspect, while the main article Economy of Switzerland lists its industries: machinery, chemicals, watches, textiles, precision instruments. Furthermore I disagree that most speak English, from my recent first hand experience. Many young urban Swiss may speak English, but not the older Swiss and those outside the main centres. -Wikibob | Talk 01:31, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

agree. we don't need to repeat the average canton size either. It may be worth noting that english plays an increasingly important role, particularly in urban centers, that even threatens traditional swiss multi-lingualism (i.e. young french & german speakers are increasingly likely to communicate in english rather than in either french or german). Switzerland's insularity in the EU however can well be mentioned, as it's becoming the primary focus of questions of external policy. The Economy section has "although Sw is not pursuing membership", as it were presupposing the reader knows it's not a member. But "not yet" implies future membership, which is of course controversial. dab 07:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

English might play an increasingly important role but is far from worth mentioning in an encyclopedia as of today. Currently it's nothing else but a fancy fashion quirk. How many of those individuals prefering to speak in English are there really? I don't know any and lived there long enough to have noticed a worth mentioning tendency such as this. Arsenio 19:17, 6 Dec 2004 (MET)

I suppose what dab meant is that English is the foreign language of choice. Have a bunch of French, Italian, and German speaking Swiss meet and you'll find that many try English if their mother tongue doesn't work. And that's pretty well established.Rl 21:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a global phaenomen, not a swiss one. Or? Arsenio 15:03, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Spelling

I have moved the discussion on the spelling of Swiss cantons into an /Archive 2. The vote is called off. I didn't think it makes sense to vote since apparently not many seemed to be involved enough.

As a result of the discussion/vote I suggest we use the following spellings:

Appenzell Innerrhoden, Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Aargau, Basel Stadt, Basel Landschaft, Bern, Fribourg, Geneva, Glarus, Graubünden, Jura, Lucerne, Neuchâtel, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Ticino, Uri, Valais, Vaud, Zug, Zürich

That is the official names in the main language spoken in the respective canton, except for Geneva and Lucerne where there is a very common English spelling (in accordance with the MoS.

Kokiri 18:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For all of those, do remember to create a redirect page which uses no accents or other characters which are not present on an English keyboard. Most native English speakers are unlikely to type a letter which isn't on their keyboard, even if it is possible to type it once you know how. What you've suggested seems to fit well with the way history articles are written, using the name of the place at the time and place of the events and referencing a later or earlier name if useful. Jamesday 03:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Following the previous discussion, I suggest to move the Zurich-article back to where it used to be: at Zurich. -- User:Docu

Agreed. It's not currently at a location with significant use by native English speakers. Should continue to give the correct local version in the first paragraph, of course. Jamesday 11:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is now a vote at: Talk:Zurich -- User:Docu

External links

Why the distinction between official links and other links? Switzerland-in-sight for example is produced by an official body of the government... I suggest we get rid of the two subheadings, unless somebody convinces me otherwise. Kokiri 21:57, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The distinction somehow came with the template, .. two other links are also somehow official. Besides, I agree with you. -- User:Docu

RSF linkage

I have removed the following external link:

World-wide press freedom index Rank 12 out of 166 countries (4 way tie)

This, because it isn't really about Switzerland. This link should go into an article on Press Freedom, or, if there was a paragraph on that in the article on Switzerland. Kokiri 21:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I've replaced it with something better now (as in many other articles). --Shallot 18:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google links

The following two links were recently added:

• Google Switzerland - regional Google version
• search.ch - regional search engine and phonebook search.ch

as I'm not convinced that they add much to the topic. -- User:Docu

Lake's name

Lake Geneva official name is "Lake Léman", should it bear its official name on the map? Because border line cuts lake in two between Switzerland and France, Lake Léman is more "politically correct".

I did not see on your map Lake Neuchâtel, which is the bigger lake in surface that is enterely in Switzerland!

Christian, from La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland

The map is probably from the CIA World Factbook, if there is a better one we are allowed to used, it might be good thing to change it. -- User:Docu

Strangely enough the lake is commonly called Lake Geneva in English. This despite Lac Léman or even Le Léman is used in the region. There's another case like this: Lake Constance which is called Bodensee in the region. The Manual of Style suggests we use the English names.

This convention on Misplaced Pages is contrary to some ideas of politically correct which prefer the use of the local word. Kokiri 21:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Military

Military_of_Switzerland#Discussion could use some work. .. User:Docu

{msg:EFTA}

The above frame in its current version suggest that Switzerland is part of the . Instead of listing EEA, it might be more useful to list the EU directly afterall there are numerous bilateral agreements. If you want to list EFTA, we might as well include OSCE and not detail the countries, afterall EFTA isn't that important any more. -- User:Docu

There are several reasons for creating this box and that it should apply to the four countries included, also Swizerland. The EEA was a treaty negotiated between the EU and EFTA mainly to provide the EFTA countries access to the EU internal market. Swizerland did reject the treaty, as was in their right. However for the other three EFTA signatory parties the EEA treaty is likely more important than EFTA itself today. Creating an EEA box would be kind of ridiculous as the EU countries would be applicable to both, and that the EEA is compatatively less important for the EU countries than vice versa. What the EFTA box does is that it visibly connects those west European countries which are NOT members of the EU. The properties of the EEA is evident and I think that the box could be left unmodified also for Swizerland, but if the feelings are strong about it could equally well be left out. -- Mic 12:31, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Why do we need a {msg:... for only four countries? Kokiri 14:20, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be better on Economy of Switzerland. -- User:Docu

Following the suggestions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countries, I replaced it with {msg:Europe} + plus a few international organisations. -- User:Docu

What is the reasoning behind directing the country link from the main article to a subarticle? Second, and more importantly, why was this move done just for one country? If there is consensus about a change like this it should be applied universally not unilaterally.-- Mic 10:01, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind if you change Template:EFTA back (which you alreay did), as you made Template:SwissEFTA, but we wouldn't want to add either of them unilaterally here, until we have consensus if it's really desirable to have several footers see (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia_talk:Page_footers). -- User:Docu

I disagree that EFTA is not important. It is the link between EU and Switzerland, even if Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. All other EFTA countries has a EFTA Template, and it is odd Switzerland doesn't have a {{EFTA}}. Maybe we should make a referendum in best Swiss tradition? ;-) Jakro64 16:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was a long debate at WikiProject countries. I think the result there (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Of_footers_and_Orcs) is now that the solution adopted here (adding the template only to the specialized page, e.g. {NATO} to "Military of .."), is being implemented elsewhere. -- User:Docu

Neutrality needs fixing?

I feel that the paragraph about wartime neutrality does not itself read in a very neutral fashion, and the bit about other countries and their neutrality does not, with all due respect, feel to me as if it belongs in this article, though it should perhaps be part of one elsewhere. But I'd be pleased to hear other views. Nevilley 19:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is/was a central concept and there could easily be several articles about it, but it's hard to decide how much detail (e.g. about Venezuela) is to be included in the summary here. If you feel like fixing it, go ahead. -- User:Docu

I have removed this bit, it's currently at Talk:History of Switzerland. IMHO there's room for this extra information in the extended article of the Swiss history, but I fail to see how this is relevant in the general article on Switzerland.

I removed this from the sentence on neutrality: and they did trade with all non US-allies during the World Wars, such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, selling large quantities of munitions (they are not the only ones who did this).

It doesn't make sense. The USSR was a US ally in the war and how did Swiss munitions get to Japan? Rmhermen 22:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Country name in Latin

Should the official name of the country, at one time set in Latin (to avoid debates which is the best version), be included in the table? BTW which other local versions are to be included? -- User:Docu

Maybe we should only have the Latin in big bold? At the moment the other languages seem to be in alphabetical order by language. Maybe it'd be more appropriate to have them sorted by size of local language (i.e. German, French, Italian, Romansh)? - admin.ch does this, too. Or alphabetically by local name? Kokiri 09:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorting in line with "Official languages:" would be fine. Could save us the language names in the header cell as well. Latin needs probably some explication, probably not just in the table, but also in the article itself. BTW what has been used as a source for the Italian and Rumantsh versions (recently changed). -- User:Docu

Actually, according to WP:Countries only local language names should be included. Once the Latin removed, the remaining are explained with the "official language" list further below, thus I suggest we use a caption with just the four official ones. -- User:Docu

Map

I replaced Image:Sz-map.jpg with Image:Map-of-Switzerland.png. -- User:Docu

I have replaced the CIA map in the Geography section with my own upload. I'm aware that the new map is quite large, but it's got a few more details (that makes me wonder whether it is in the right place). For comments on the map itself, please use my talk page. Kokiri 16:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried to arrange the two differently, as they don't stack easily. -- User:Docu

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove <br clear=all>, in some resolution, the map gets placed beside the next section's header. -- User:Docu

Repeating information of table in article

It seems logical that the summary table repeats information included in the article, especially as there isn't much space to provide a lot of detail in the table. - User:Docu

The language of the official name in big bold letters is well explained in the introduction in its own paragraph, relatively at the same location horizontally as that of the name in the Info box.

The official name is not in Latin. -- User:Docu

Uses include(d) coins, passports, www.admin.ch, seals. Thus "internally" may not accurately describe it. -- User:Docu

Also please explain your reverts, specially your removal of spaces in the Info Box.

--Cantus 06:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which space are you missing? Why are you using three tables instead of one? -- User:Docu

BTW The initial |- in the table is redundant. -- User:Docu

Municipalities in the Canton of Vaud

There is a new series of pages that could be converted into (more extensive) stubs, it can be found with Municipalities_of_the_canton_of_Vaud. -- User:Docu

Official Languages in Switzerland

As far as I know, only German, French and Italian are considered official languages. Rhaeto-Rumantsch is a national language, as the other three as well. This can also be read in the following article, extracted from: http://www.swissworld.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=601&sid=4059003&rubricId=14010

"Language rights

Language rights are enshrined in the Swiss constitution. German, French, Italian and Rhaeto-Rumantsch all have the status of national languages, but only the first three are official languages. Nevertheless, Rumantsch is used in official communications with Rumantsch speakers, who in turn have the right to use their native language in addressing the central authorities."

Posted by marcelo_schlindwein@yahoo.com

To be more precise, art. 70 ( German French Italian) of the Swiss Constitution says that "Rumantsch is also an official language for the communications between the Confederation and Rumantsch speakers". This, in my opinion, is more than enough to justify the presence of Rumantsch in the infobox as an official language. Schutz 09:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I wholeheartedly concur with including it. E Pluribus Anthony 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, while I still feel it should not be included as an official language, I do understand the reasoning that supports it and I apologize for making edits without checking the talk page. —rebug (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit that this is a tricky one; I have always heard that Rumantsch was a national, but not an official, language of Switzerland. But, in addition to the quote from the Constitution cited above, I think it would be a pity if Rumantsch was not mentioned prominently on the Switzerland page (that is, in the infobox), given that it is quite a unique specificity of Switzerland. Especially since the distinction of national vs official is a bit blurry. Schutz 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this before or after 1999? Is it about "Official Languages" or official languages ? -- User:Docu

Sorry! I've been reading some old stuff... I checked this information at the CIA-Factbook and admit you are right.--Mschlindwein 16:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

About demographics/languages: I think it doesn't make sense to put percentages that don't add up to 100%. I suggest to add: "Others 9%"

---

English

<<It should also be noted that English is a Swiss lingua franca, and, in fact, most, if not all Swiss, have some command of English. Many Swiss documents and websites are also available in English.>>

I don't agree with that. In the French-Switzerland, very few have good proficiency in English and many does not speak english at all. People in shops look at you very strangely when you try to speak english to them.. It seems to me that german-swiss are better at english. But that does not make english a lingua franca.

I don't agree. English is spoken by a lots of people. In cities, the young people, tourism employees tend to know English, but a large majority (IMHO) doesn't know English. Maybe in the german speaking part there are more people that speak english (but I know only in the cities): you can also see that movies in that part are most in original language (aka English), but in the other two parts, the movies are most shown in the territory language. I think in ten year we could use english as lingua franca. -- Cate 12:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think your not right, I m living in Geneva and not a lot of swiss speak english ( around the country ). But now for the work and the music it s easier if you speak english and often if you speak more than one language. The english speaker who don t learn a local language are not very like by the swiss but they think it s an opportunity to improve the english ( you understand ? ).

It s difficult for connection between the people with 4 languages and now the english are learning around the world, so why not. Think the french speaker, the german and the italien speaker accept to have the english like a lingua franca ? That is you don t know their cultur.

People could look you like a colonial when you speak just english, and not only in Switzerland. --Manu181 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It already happens. It is not uncommon to find french and german speaking swiss people talking together in English. We speak about swiss languages, so a swiss that speak to you in English is not a symbol of colonialism, but a try to better comunicate, instead of force the other to speak German. BTW, a lot of advertisments are in English, also on the government use frequently English names for reviews, programs, projects,..., instead of the old triple names. Eventually you can see some colonialism in Locarno/Ascona. Advertisment, store sign, restaurant menu are written mainly (or only) in German. People in shop speak with you in German! -- Cate 20:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You had not red what I wrote. And it s like I think, It difficult to know what I said because if you don t speak an other language, the people will not talk to you like me... I know many english people live in Switzerland and the people who came from US or England ( not the children who are born here ) but the older, don t like to learn french. But If they are children in Switzerland, job and Friend, in generally they will learn. I know some english speaker live in Switzerland since TWENTY years and they never learn french. Maybe that s not colonial, but just unpleasent. and I know that s not only in Switzerland. Now the people try to speak english, Why ? -> because why not. that is not the question. I answer about " English like lingua franca " English for " trade " (much better) Politicien use word in english. yes, because the american develloped informatic, buizness, music, world of work. So the word is the one of the inventor. why we use latin word for science, because the europeean use this language for science. It s not a question of english, it s a question of who are invented. If the chinese will invent somthing we use a chinese word, like kung fu. Colonialism ? It s the eternal story of latin and pangermany. The Italian are just 5 % of the population and the german 70%in the country. the german is the first language are teaching in school after italien or french. I think the ticinese don t speak german between them. It s a question of trade because the people like you speak his language. that not an obligation but it s better and you can have more.

--Manu181 10:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Name in French

Isn't it confédération helvétique?

No, according to http://www.admin.ch/ch/index.fr.html Schutz 03:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Confoederatio Helevetica is the name in latin for "politicatly correct" not support french or german.

But in french it s "confédération helvétique"

--Manu181 12:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was "confédération suisse"? (See the above external link.) Lupo 13:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Helvete is the name of the people. The both are right. but suisse is french. and the probleme is just about the languages. In german is schweiz and italian swizera ( something like that I don t speak italian ). So, between french speaker it s ok but if you are a foreigner it s better if you use helevetique, it s ok that s not a mistake. look the link. it s write .ch and not .cs also behind the car.

--Manu181 09:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The external link is the reference (it is the government website...). So you have the latin name and then the names in the four national languages given there. (In French : Confédération suisse). The .ch ccTLD and the CH behind cars do not come from the french Confédération hélvétique (which as far as I know is an inofficial frenchization of the latin name), but from the latin name. Using latin avoids the use of one of the national languages, which could upset part of the population. Now if you are a foreigner (or even a Swiss), you will most likely not use one of those terms, but simply, Switzerland, Suisse, Schweiz, etc. depending in what language you are talking. Glaurung 09:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was about the official name in French, not about what a foreigner might call Switzerland? The common term for the people living in that country in French is "les suisses". The use of "les helvètes" is archaic and not official, like the use of "die Eidgenossen" in German. And the Italian is "svizzera", the people are "i svizzeri". Foreigners typically call the country whatever its name is in the language they speak. D'ailleurs, tu habites où? Lupo 09:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Confédération suisse is the official name in French. Punkt Schluss ;-) les helvètes is indeed completely archaic. You can find it in Asterix chez les helvètes, though... Glaurung 10:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A londres depuis 2 mois pour apprendre l anglais mais je vis a Geneve.

• And When we speak about anglo saxons ? that archaic ? If the only source you have about culture is Asterix, you can shut down your computer.
• In the official website, it s write coefederatio helevetica. that s not latin but a shake of latin, german and romanche. Because the german are not latin, and romanche nobody can really where they from, It s more similar to spanish than italian ?
• Glaurung, we talk about governement not people.
• Sure, the swiss is the swiss and the french is the french. But maybe you know french speaker in europe are from the people of "Franc". Border and governement are an other story. helevete could be use like anglosaxon ou scandinave.
• If you write Confederation helvetique on the web you have a lot results. le president de la confederation helvetique is mor used than president de la confederation suisse.

But that s not the question

Confederation Helvetique, It s an official name and more use between people

--Manu181 13:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Merci. Etant Suisse, tu devrais vraiment savoir mieux :-) Of course "confédération helvétique" is used, too, but it is not the official name. Oh, and by the way: I get about 905'000 hits for "confédération suisse", but only about 26'200 hits for "confédération helvétique". So much for which term is more common. Another note: most of today's population of Switzerland did not decend from the Helvetii. But that's all irrelevant. The official name of Switzerland is given by the Swiss government web site as "confédération suisse", and I should think they know best. Lupo 13:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Manu181, if neither me nor Lupo can convince you, would you agree that our country's constitution in french is the reference for the official name in French? Open the PDF document and search for Confédération Helvétique, you will find 0 hit. Do it again with confédération suisse and you'll find 47 hits. That should settle this discussion. Glaurung 14:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

On ne pourrais pas en dire autant de toi ;-) ( pas la peine de me repondre comme ca )

   * http://www.unige.ch/biblio/ses/plus/index.php?cat=167

It s the link of the university of geneva, they use confederation helvetique for the link to admin.ch

   * http://www.ssa.ch/liens/organisations_instjuridiques.htm

And that is the official link of the intelectual propiety of Switzerland. They have write Confederation Helvetique. (Confédération Hélvétique Code suisse des obligations Copyright.ch Site d'information sur la propriété intellectuelle ... )

->in french because I don t speak a good english, I m learning ( good website for learn ), and I don t want to have ( more ) mistake.

look the first question:

Isn't it confédération helvétique? the answer is: no

I think the link is right ( sure ) but the answer is false,

friendly --Manu181 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Heads of State & Gov't

The text of this page's article makes no mention of a head of government (the prime minister in, i think, all countries that have one; the same person as the head of state in many countries that have no PM.) Swiss Federal Council mentions the term head of gov't only in placing itself in Category:Heads of government. If the SFC is collective head of gov't as well as of state, the article should say so; if not, that article should forgo that category tag. --Jerzy(t) 05:52, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Council could use some expansion .. Anyways, Head of Government is not the Federal Chancellor. -- User:Docu

Republic?

Switzerland is one of the world's oldest, surviving republics. This is very misleading. First of all, Switzerland is not officially a republic, but rather a federation, so if anything, the individual cantons would be among the world's oldest republics. More importantly, the 1291 business is more of a national myth than real history. In any case, there is no direct connection of the present state with republics that may or may not have existed in the 14th and 15th century. Switzerland as a sovereign state goes back to 1848 and as such is of the same age as most European nation states. If nobody objects, I will change the text to reflect this. dab 17:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. That's small potatoes, though, compared to Letter_of_Alliance which embarrassingly claims that On 1 August 1291 the Eternal Alliance was formed, uniting Switzerland. Said letter is now widely believed to be fake, and whatever it united, it sure wasn't Switzerland.Rl 17:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

indeed! I have immediately changed that. It's also a bit much to have an english translation of the entire letter. It would be a better place to discuss the authenticity of the thing. dab 18:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good job. I don't mind having the entire letter there, it is on-topic and disk space is cheap.Rl 19:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

District (Swiss)

I've started translating de:Bezirk (Schweiz) to produce this temporary article, and plan to put it into the article namespace, but not until more of the redlinks have also been translated. It'll take me some time... -Wikibob | Talk 20:49, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

• Please use standard canton name!!! Switzerland is not only a german speaking country! So use Ticino, Vaud, ... -- Cate 12:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Second comment: I don't agree with your division. District definition varies a lot between cantons, so I don't see way standardize the district division. Let every canton to divide municipality by own divisions (if need). And I think for this pourpose the sub category swiss geography is better. -- Cate 12:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Infobox for villages, towns, etc.

There seems to be an infobox in preparation (Template:Infobox_Swiss_town):

{{Infobox settlement | name = {{{subject_name}}} | settlement_type = {{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | former | ] | ]}} | image_skyline = {{#ifexpr:{{#time:n}}<5 |{{#if:{{{snow_image|}}} | {{{snow_image|}}} | {{{image_photo|}}} }} |{{#if:{{{image_photo|}}} | {{{image_photo|}}} | {{{snow_image|}}} }} }} | imagesize = {{#ifexpr:{{#time:n}}<5 |{{#if:{{{snow_image|}}} | {{if empty|{{{snow_imagesize|}}}| 265px }} | {{if empty|{{{imagesize|}}}| 265px }} }} |{{#if:{{{image_photo|}}} | {{if empty|{{{imagesize|}}}| 265px }} | {{if empty|{{{snow_imagesize|}}}| 265px }} }} }} | image_caption = {{#ifexpr:{{#time:n}}<5 |{{#if:{{{snow_image|}}} | {{{snow_imagecaption|}}} | {{{image_caption|}}} }} |{{#if:{{{image_photo|}}} | {{{image_caption|}}} | {{{snow_imagecaption|}}} }} }} | image_shield = {{{imagepath_coa|}}} | shield_link = {{#ifexist:Coat of arms of {{{subject_name}}}|Coat of arms of {{{subject_name}}}}} | shield_size = {{if empty|{{{pixel_coa|}}}|60px}} | image_flag = {{{imagepath_flag|}}} | flag_link = {{#ifexist:Flag of {{{subject_name}}}|Flag of {{{subject_name}}}}} | flag_size = {{if empty|{{{pixel_flag|}}}|60px}} | image_map = {{#if: {{Infobox mapframe}} | {{hidden | header = Location of {{{subject_name}}} | headercss=height:5px; | content = <div class="center" style="margin-top:1em">{{Infobox mapframe|area_km2={{#ifeq: {{wikidata|property|unit|P2046}} | square metre | {{#expr: {{wikidata|property|raw|P2046}} / 10^6 }} | {{wikidata|property|raw|P2046}} }} }}</div>}} }} | mapsize = | map_alt = | map_caption = | pushpin_map = Switzerland#Canton of {{{canton|}}} | pushpin_label_position = {{{position|}}} | pushpin_map_alt = | pushpin_map_caption_notsmall = | coordinates = {{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|{{#invoke:Coordinates|coordinsert|{{{coordinates}}}|region:{{#if:{{{iso-code-region|}}}|{{{iso-code-region}}}|CH}}|type:city{{#iferror: {{Swiss populations NC|{{{iso-code-region}}}|{{{municipality_code}}} }}||({{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type}}}|former|{{{population}}}|{{Swiss populations NC|{{{iso-code-region}}}|{{{municipality_code}}} }} }}) }} }}}} | coor_pinpoint = | coordinates_footnotes = {{{coordinates_footnotes|}}} | subdivision_type = ] | subdivision_name = Switzerland | subdivision_type1 = ] | subdivision_name1 = ] | subdivision_type2 = ] | subdivision_name2 = {{{district}}} | subdivision_type3 = ] | subdivision_name3 = {{{within_municipality|}}} | established_title = | established_date = | founder = | leader_title = ] | leader_name = {{#if:{{{executive_name|}}} |''{{{executive_name}}}'' {{#if:{{{executive_number_of_members|}}} |<br>with {{{executive_number_of_members}}} members }}{{#if:{{{executive_members_list|}}}|])}} }} | leader_title1 = ] {{#if:{{{mayor_title|}}}||{{#if:{{{list_of_mayors|}}}|]}}}} | leader_name1 = {{#if:{{{mayor|}}}{{{mayor_title|}}} |{{#if:{{{mayor_title|}}}|''{{{mayor_title}}}''}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{mayor_title|}}}|{{#if:{{{list_of_mayors|}}}|]}}}}{{#if:{{{mayor|}}}|<!-- -->{{#if:{{{mayor_title|}}}|<br>}}<!-- -->{{{mayor}}}}}{{#if:{{{mayor_party|}}}|&nbsp;{{polparty|Switzerland|{{{mayor_party}}} }} }}{{#if:{{{mayor_asof|}}} |<br>{{nowrap|(as&nbsp;of&nbsp;{{{mayor_asof}}})}} }} }} | leader_title2 = ] | leader_name2 = {{#if:{{{parliament_name|}}} |''{{{parliament_name}}}'' {{#if:{{{parliament_number_of_members|}}}|<br>with {{{parliament_number_of_members}}} members}} {{#if:{{{parliament_since|}}}|, instaured {{{parliament_since}}})}} {{#if:{{{parliament_presidents_list|}}}|<br>])}} }} | unit_pref = Metric | area_footnotes = {{#if: {{wikidata|reference|P2046}} | {{wikidata|reference|P2046}} | {{{area_source|}}} }} | area_total_km2 = {{#if: {{wikidata|property|raw|P2046}} | {{wikidata|property|raw|P2046}} | {{{area|}}} }} | elevation_footnotes = | elevation_m = {{#if:{{{elevation|}}}|{{{elevation}}}|{{{altitude|}}}}} | elevation_point = {{#if:{{{elevation|}}}|{{{elevation_description|}}}|]{{{altitude_description|}}}}} | elevation_max_point = {{{highest|}}} | elevation_max_m = {{{highest_m|}}} | elevation_min_point = {{{lowest|}}} | elevation_min_m = {{{lowest_m|}}} | population_footnotes = {{#if: <!-- wikidata pop as of 31.12.18 is set --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-12-31}} | {{wikidata|reference|P1082|P585=2018-12-31}} | {{#if: <!-- a different wikidata pop is present --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082}} | {{wikidata|reference|P1082}} | <!-- no data from WD, use template paramenter --> }} }} | population_total = {{#if: <!-- wikidata pop as of 31.12.18 is set --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-12-31}} | {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-12-31}} | {{#if: <!-- a different wikidata pop is present --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082}} | {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082}} | <!-- no data from WD, use template paramenter --> {{{population|}}} }} }} | population_as_of = {{#if: <!-- wikidata pop as of 31.12.18 is set --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-12-31}} | 31 December 2018 | {{#if: <!-- a different wikidata pop is present --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082}} | {{wikidata|qualifier|single|raw|P1082|P585}} | <!-- no data from WD, use template paramenter --> {{{populationof|}}} }} }} | population_density_km2 = auto | population_demonym = {{{demonym|}}} | population_demonyms = {{{demonyms|}}} | population_note = | timezone_link = Time in Switzerland | timezone1 = ] | utc_offset1 = +01:00 | timezone1_DST = ] | utc_offset1_DST = +02:00 | postal_code_type = ] | postal_code = {{{postal_code|}}} | area_code_type = ] | area_code = {{#if: {{wikidata|property|P771}} | {{wikidata|property|P771}} | {{{municipality_code|}}} }} | iso_code = {{{iso-code-region|}}} | blank_name_sec1 = Localities | blank_info_sec1 = {{{places|}}} | blank1_name_sec1 = Surrounded by | blank1_info_sec1 = {{{neighboring_municipalities|}}} | blank2_name_sec1 = ]s | blank2_info_sec1 = {{{twintowns|}}} | website = {{#if:{{{website|}}} | {{URL|1={{{website}}}}} | {{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | former |<!-- none --> | {{#if:{{wikidata|property|P856}} |{{wikidata|property|P856}} |website missing {{main other|]}} }} }} }} {{#switch:{{{iso-code-region}}} | CH-LU = <br /> {{in lang|de}}, | CH-VD = <br /> {{in lang|fr}}, | CH-SH = <br /> {{in lang|de}}, |<br />}} {{#if:{{{municipality_code|}}}|}} | footnotes = }}<includeonly>{{main other|{{#if:{{{list_of_mayors|}}}|<!-- -->{{#switch:{{{mayor_asof|}}}<!-- -->|January 2014|February 2014|March 2014|April 2014|2014=<!-- -->|#default = ]}}}}<!-- -->}}{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|]}}|preview=Page using ] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| altitude | altitude_description | area | area_source | canton | coordinates | coordinates_footnotes | demonym | demonyms | district | elevation | elevation_description | executive_members_list | executive_name | executive_number_of_members | highest | highest_m | image_caption | image_photo | imagepath_coa | imagepath_flag | imagesize | iso-code-region | list_of_mayors | lowest | lowest_m | mayor | mayor_asof | mayor_party | mayor_title | municipality_code | municipality_type | neighboring_municipalities | parliament_name | parliament_number_of_members | parliament_presidents_list | parliament_since | pixel_coa | pixel_flag | places | <!-- ignore popofyear when it matches year in populationof -->{{#if:{{{popofyear|}}}|{{#if:{{#invoke:string|replace|{{{populationof}}}|^.*{{{popofyear}}}.*$||plain=false}}|NULL_|}} }}popofyear<!--end of popofyear test; parameter list continues--> | population | populationof | position | postal_code | snow_image | snow_imagecaption | snow_imagesize | subject_name | twintowns | website | within_municipality }}<!-- -->{{main other|{{#if:{{wikidata|property|raw|P1082}}|{{#if:{{{population|}}}{{{populationof|}}}|]}}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}}</noinclude>

I'm not sure if it's part of WikiProject Swiss municipalities (an inactive sister project of WikiProject Swedish municipalities). Maybe they will help the many municipality mini-stubs for Vaud. -- User:Docu

Better map

Can anybody insert a better map of Switzerland, please? HE, November 2004

Economy - old statistics

This chapter has statistics from 1999, even 1996! Can anybody replace them? Thanks. HE November 2004!

Population and Density Adjusted

Corrected the Population and the Density

Source for the Population is the Federal Statistic Office of Switzerland: www.bfs.admin.ch

Also corrected the % amount of water surface to 4.2 %, wich I also got from the swiss Federal Statistic Office PDF-Document 4th page --212.254.248.201 01:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

I moved the box to template:Switzerland infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 19:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And now someone disabled that.--Jerryseinfeld 21:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It may be someone that have made a comment at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#country infoboxes as templates.--Jerryseinfeld 21:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough already. Guys? How is this template issue worth an edit war? Rl 08:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um, what is this even about? take a step back, people, ffs! dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check out the Village pump link above. There are good arguments for both having the Infobox as a template or in the article. IOW, it's a totally stupid revert war over nothing. Obviously, not everybody agrees. Improved template code may eventually make the point moot anyway.Rl 22:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

recent vandalism

it's not so much anti-Swiss as anti-Turkish. Since it is the Turks who have their reputation damaged by their government's continued denial of the Armenian genocide. While Switzerland, like any other civilized country, is simply recognizing the events as genocide, and also happens to have laws against holocaust denial (see here). It seems like many Turkish nationalists have a long road towards sanity ahead of them. Incidentially, while Perincek is facing charges, he is not imprisoned or anything, and as long as he doesn't show up in Switzerland again, it is unlikely he will have to take responsibility for breaking Swiss law. "FREE DOGU PERINCEK!" does seem a bit hysterical, in that context. dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Energy politics -> Main article: "Nuclear power phase-out"_Main_article:_"Nuclear_power_phase-out"">

In line with the other "main articles", wouldn't the one here be one about "Energy politics in Switzerland"? Besides, "Phase-out" is misleading as the following paragraph contradicts that.

Further, the inserted section is the full text copied-and-pasted from Nuclear_power_phase-out#Switzerland. Thus, it should be sufficient to link that section under "Miscellaneous topics". -- User:Docu

I see your point about the "main articles." The phase-out article is about all countries and Switzerland has decided against a phase-out. But, if you would look at the nuclear power phase-out there is more information about energy politics in Switzerland and there is space for even more. My hope is that some people here will contribute and not blackball me in providing some information about energy politics in Switzerland. BTW, it's a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias topic. If you had read the section at Nuclear_power_phase-out#Switzerland than you must have noticed that the contribution to the article here was not just randomly copy-pasted but carefully chosen and edited. You should take more care before you are removing other peoples contributions. --Ben /_C 12:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You can use the "Show changes" function in preview to see how much the two sections in the two articles differ. It appears to me that one sentence was moved and spelling was checked in the version here. Are there any other contributions I did overlook?

Are you going to fix all the "main article" links (here and elsewhere)? -- User:Docu

To your second question: yes I will remove the main article link after I have brought back the section you vandalized again ignoring my comments. I also noted that you blanked your talk page after I asked you there about your changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Docu&curid=179741&diff=20994023&oldid=20989331). I have to tell you that this is considered extremely bad style.

As for your first question about my changes... You just wanted to remove the "dab" and obviously by accident overlooked my changes. It is time now for you to move back and admit it before you do more things that you might regret afterwards. --Ben /_C 14:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I put the section again with small changes. Please see it and address problems here for discussion. I will ask an administrator for arbitration if you, Docu (or an anonymous user for that case) will remove it again without having discussed it here. --Ben /_C 14:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse the misunderstanding, but the main article link needing fixing was inserted in a series of articles (e.g. Germany#Energy_politics, Sweden#Energy_politics, Belgium#Energy_politics etc.) not just here (ok, possibly by other contributors).

Before removing the duplication, I did compare the text of the section "Energy politics" on Switzerland with "Switzerland" on Nuclear_power_phase-out. Please explain the difference between the two sections beyond the ones I noted above.

If the contribution in one article is condensed to point the other, this has nothing to do with vandalization, but is precisely what the "main article" link is for.

Further, after I had noted on my talk page that I responded here, you commented here too. Is there a part of your comment on my talk page we didn't address yet? -- User:Docu

I politely ask you if you have any objections to the section or not. I you are just wasting my time with egomaniacs than cut it out. If you have, you better explain yourself because I don't get your point. There is nothing bad in extending the article here with the information I put concerning energy politics in Switzerland. The nuclear power phase-out article is more extensive and will become more so when more people have contributed. I ask you again either to give precise reasons why you don't want the section or not waste my time any more than you already have. --Ben /_C 14:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

And Switzerland#Energy_politics and Nuclear_power_phase-out#Switzerland are different. It's not a copy-paste move and I request you stop asserting that. --Ben /_C 14:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are a few differences, I pointed out, but would you mind explaining the ones I missed, rather than digressing into an argument ad personam? Unless there are differences I missed, I think the section should summarize and point to the detailed section in the other article. -- User:Docu

Ok, sorry if I was too agitated and personal. I don't like it when people delete my contributions without giving reasons and/or falsely allege copy-pasting. I created the article about nuclear power phase-out a few days ago and I hope it will grow a lot. I changed Germany#Energy_politics, Sweden#Energy_politics, Belgium#Energy_politics and removed "main article" as you suggested. I also expanded at Nuclear_power_phase-out#Switzerland. What else can you find? It's not paper and the information is non-trivial. I admit I also hope people would come to the Nuclear_power_phase-out (I also put it on WP:DYK and several noticeboards) because I want to make it as good as possible, but that's only my right. I removed the link that was labeled "main article." --Ben /_C 16:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

As Nuclear_power_phase-out#Switzerland is now much more developed (Good work BTW), indeed the two are now different. I'd now add here a direct link to the section there and still condense May 18 2003 a bit. -- User:Docu

Thanks. :) --Ben /_C 13:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Media

Does Switzerland have a media? If so what are its policies about confidential sources? --E.S. (4.167.56.96)

Do you mean media law ? I don't know about the law per se, but there is something about the topic in the criminal code (code penal in French), see e.g. . Short answer is that confidential sources are protected, expect in some cases (if a life is threatened, or if the information could solve a murder or other serious crime). But there probably is more to the topic that just this one article, but IANAL. Schutz 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Politics - Zauberformel (magic formula)

The section on politics says:

From 1959 to December 2003, the four major parties were represented in the Federal Council according to the "magic formula", proportional to their representation in federal parliament: 2 Christian Democrats (CVP/PDC), 2 from the Social Democrats (SPS/PSS), 2 Free Democrats (FDP/PRD), and 1 from the Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC). This traditional distribution of seats, however, is not backed up by any law, and in the 2003 elections to the Federal Council the CVP/PDC lost their second seat to the SVP/UDC.

The way I remember it, the magic formula (Zauberformel) was no longer accurately represented due to a shift in votes from the CVP to the SVP. The December 2003 election of Christoph Blocher therefore assured that the actual representation matched vote percentages. The current paragraph makes it sound like the magic formula was no longer followed after 2003.

the "magic formula" referred to the 2:2:2:1 distribution, not to a mathematically proportional representation. 2:2:2:1 approximately represented party strength, and its long survival was considered a sign of stability. The SPS had to wait for 20 years to get their second seat, even after their relative strength would have justified one. The SVP only had to wait for one legislation period. The Zauberformel is history now, and the current distribution over-represents CVP and under-represents the Greens (a more adequate distribution would have been 2:2:1:1:1, the ones being FDP, CVP, Greens). But there is no rule that the council represents party strength. The Parliament could have continued the formula in the interest of stability. Electing Blocher turns out to have been a dreadful mistake, since the council has been practically paralized by infighting for two years now. dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

National Motto, Part 1

From the article: "National motto: One for all, all for one". Could you provide us with a source for this other than Alexandre Dumas? -- User:Docu

• A quick search on admin.ch yields Allocution de Madame Ruth Dreifuss présidente de la Confédération à l'occasion de la Fête nationale (also available in German and Italian) where Un pour tous, tous pour un is indeed mentioned as the national motto. Schutz 23:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm swiss, and I've never heard of it. Switzerland has no official national motto. Mme Dreifuss was pulling that out of her sleeve, it is Dumas. If there is anything that rings like a national motto, it would be "In the name of God, amen". This was the preamble of the Letter of Alliance, which was taken over to the constitution of 1848, and could not be kept out of the new constitution of 2000. It has attained sort of a proverbial ring, but it's not an official *motto* as such. dab 08:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've heard it before reading Ruth Dreifuss' speech on the web, so I doubt she made it up, but I can't find any other reference to it. I'll try to find something, maybe on http://www.swisshelpdesk.org/. Schutz 09:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course she didn't make it up. Alexandre Dumas did. It's a well-known phrase speech-makers are fond of, nothing more. — that said, some googling convinced me that it seems to be associated with the state somehow in the french-speaking part of Switzerland. eg.: http://www.distinction.ch/LD.Champignac/LD.Champignac.candid01.html : notre devise nationale, "Un pour tous, tous pour un !" — I assure you that, as a suisse alemanique, I have never heard of it. And even the french version seems to be only anecdotal, judging from the google results. dab 10:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence is pretty sparse; I'm going to send a few emails to some addresses @admin.ch, we'll see if they can find a reference. In the meantime, we can continue to assume that there is no official motto. Schutz 11:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the question is settled, thanks to http://www.swisshelpdesk.org (very quick, impressive and accurate service !). Short answer: UNUS PRO OMNIBUS OMNES PRO UNO is the official motto, which can be translated in French as described above and in German Einer für alle, alle für Einen. For a justification, look at the (beautiful) pictures of the dome at http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/in-fotografien.htm, in particular http://www.parlament.ch/Poly/Download_Fotos/in-pg-kuppelhalle-2-g.jpg: the motto is there, in Latin, in the middle. In addition, I received a (very quick as well) answer from someone from @admin.ch saying the same thing (they refer to the Bundeshauskuppel as well, but will send me a more complete answer). I'll update the article (Latin or English or both ?) shortly if everyone is happy. Schutz 14:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Latin+French+German+English, following the example of Belgium? Schutz 14:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have seen the inscription before, but I was not aware that it is anything like an official motto. good job! (to my excuse, there is not a single hit from admin.ch!)dab 14:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Truth be told I am dumbfounded, too. I think the motto warrants a paragraph of explanation. Otherwise I'm afraid we'll keep having people "fixing" it.Rl 17:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since I found a little bit of background material by googling using the latin motto (e.g. http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/mythen/english/schweiz.html ), and I'm still waiting for a more detailed answer from Bern. Where do you think it should go ? A new section ? Schutz 23:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to note how and when the motto was adopted, and put that note into History.Rl 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will wait until I get more info and work on that. Thanks. Schutz 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ah, but I suggest the latin is enough. otherwise, we'd need to give the motto in all four official languages, which would be over the top for something so obscure (only the romands seeming to have any awareness of it at all) dab 20:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather have no motto at all, but now that we're stuck with it, it would seem rather elitist to only quote the Latin version. At least an English translation in parentheses or something like that seems appropriate. FWIW, it turns out the motto may actually be pretty well known with the folks who went to school not too long after WW II, no matter what language.Rl 21:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the changes I made a few hours ago; I added the latin, German, French and English version. Any Italian or Romansh speaker around ? Schutz 23:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point made by dab was that there may be too many language versions already, not too few.Rl 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand that; I made the modifications so that we can see what it looks like. Personaly, I don't mind the multiple translations, but I can understand if a majority of people prefer to have only latin+English translation. Schutz 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

quite - I meant, of course, latin + english translation. NPOV would dictate to give a translation in either all four national languages, or in none at all, but I doubt that anyone will really care about it. The Bundeshaus inscription is, after all, in latin precisely to avoid having to choose either french or german. dab 10:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting reading, though I'm not quite convinced by mentionned above, but, before debating this further, I supppose I should be writing an article about the "Federal Palace". -- User:Docu

Switzerland definitely has no official motto. See discussion (in German) under www.wikipeda.de ("Schweiz"). -- R. L. 20:21, 19 Jan 2006

You are very right, however, Switzerland has a traditional motto, which is still a motto. If the German Misplaced Pages provides more information than the discussion below and the newly created Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno article, please feel free to translate it and post it here. In the meantime, I have reversed your change. Schutz 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

National Motto, Part 2

I see that I missed some edits on the page about the motto, but since it was not accompanied by a discussion on this talk page, I thought I'd just repeat some of the points made in the edit summaries:

• A speech by Yves Christen, MP, confirms that the motto is correct
• A discussion on the German Misplaced Pages seems to conclude that there is no such motto.

Now I forgot to mention that the federal administration did reply, very quickly, to my request for documentation mentioned aboved. Unfortunately, by the time I received the documents, I had not much time for Misplaced Pages anymore, so I never used them. And of course, right now, one year later, I have a hard time finding them (or even remembering the details);-(. I will keep looking (I know I have them). In the meantime, I think the different links above are still a strong indication that the motto is indeed correct. As far as my understanding of German goes, the discussion on the German Misplaced Pages does not really give arguments to the contrary — please tell me if I am mistaken here.

Reisio: sorry for having been slow to write this entry, but I was checking in my emails to see if the people from admin.ch gave me any indication (there was none, everything is in the written documentation). But re-reading this section, it is my feeling that the consensus was in favour of the motto, and that new discussion should be required to justify a change, not to justify the status quo of the article as it was in early December. Schutz 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reference, Samuel Schmid this time: Schutz 18:27, December 19 2005 (UTC)

the motto is correct as given. The fact is that most Swiss are unaware of it, as it plays virtually no role at all. All the more reason to give it here, so even Swiss people can learn something about Switzerland from our article. dab (ᛏ) 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What would personally satisfy me is (ideally) a letter (or email) from someone working at admin.ch (not something merely hosted by admin.ch, but the main admin.ch people) stating whether or not the motto is specified in any federal law, or if it is just something used traditionally (and then if it's used across the entire country). You're quoting politicians now, and I don't mean to inflict doubt upon you, but the president of my country, George W. Bush (along with most other popular politicians I can think of here), say some completely false things. They are not historians and they are usually not students of national law either - they're just making speeches to try and keep people sated. I hope Switzerland's politicians aren't like the USA's, but I am constantly reminded (by politicians worldwide) of how ignorant most are. ¦ Reisio 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion on de: is about the article here at en:. This is circular. So, we know that the phrase was written on the federal palace in 1902, and we know that several politicians have claimed it as national motto, and that people at admin.ch believe it is the national motto. We do not know where its status as such a motto was first set down, if at all. Maybe in the original constitution of 1848? I don't think GWB is a good comparison though; I doubt he could answer you which continent comprises the USA. But you are right that politicians less hopeless make mistakes too, and this motto business lacks a definite source. Pending further evidence, I would say the reply from admin.ch is good enough, but I would really like to learn about this bit of history. dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that motto is "set in stone" in either some law or the constitution. (Well, actually, it is "set in stone" in the cupola of the federal palace since 1902, but that we all know—see above. :-) But is that necessary? I don't think so. Schutz has so far quoted (I think) two politicians (Ruth Dreifuss (SP, left) and Samuel Schmid (SVP, right), both members of the Federal Council). Let me add a third: Yves Christen (FDP, center) in 2003. Methinks such a widespread consensus among politicians from different fractions is remarkable, even for Switzerland, and in itself supports the veracity of the claim that Switzerland indeed has a motto. Furthermore, I find it interesting that there is no discussion at all on fr:, where the motto has survived uncontested since May 28, 2003! Lupo 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh darn, I see that Schutz already had the Christen link. Where are my glasses? Lupo 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

we know … people at admin.ch believe it is the national motto

We do? I must've missed that, would you point it out? ¦ Reisio 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Schutz' statement that he got a reply from "someone at admin.ch". This is not more authoritative than Samuel Schmid or the others, it just corrobates that the "belief" is widespread in the Swiss administration. I agree we do need some sort of reference pointing out when and by whom the motto was adopted. I could imagine that belief in the "motto" simply "crept in" in a century of politicians passing the dome where it is inscribed. But Switzerland is so bureaucratic that I would be surprised if the precise status of the motto is not set down somewhere. dab (ᛏ) 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Promised, I will dig out the written response they sent me during the Christmas break. Schutz 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, right. :p Merry Christmas, then, all (or Happy holidays, if you prefer). ¦ Reisio 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas has arrived early this year, since I have already found the documentation. See new section below. Schutz 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

National Motto: official answer

So I have found the documents that were sent to me last year by the Department of defense, protection of the population and sports. The letter is signed by someone from the history department of the Federal Military Library. Here are the documents that I received:

• Cover letter, titled Devise nationale. No special information, except to mention that they send me documents that should be helpful for my research.
• One A4 page in German, with the title Devise nationale again, and just below "UNUS PRO OMNIBUS - OMNES PRO UNO", "EINER FÜR ALLE - ALLE FÜR EINEN", followed by the history of the motto.
• 2 pages in German, copies of the "Einer für alle" entry from a quotation dictionary (no direct mention of Switzerland, though).
• Title page of the Aeneid by Virgil, which seems to be where the original quote has been derived from
• A hardcopy of the page where another politician, Max Binder, who was president of the National Council, cites the sentence.

The most interesting document is without doubt the A4 page. It indicates links to Arnold Winkelried and the battle of Sempach, but, interestingly, seems to indicate that it is not linked to Alexandre Dumas. Now, unfortunately, my German is not good enough to understand the details without using a good dictionary. On the other hand, I have re-typed the page as a text file, but can not post it on Misplaced Pages for copyright reasons. What I can do, though, is send an email to the person who sent me this documentation, and ask for permission to post/modify the text. In the meantime, I can send it privately to people who are interested, if you leave a message on my talk page, or (preferably) if you contact me through the Misplaced Pages "Send an email" link. It'd be good if a native German speaker could summarise it quickly. We'll see where to go from there. Schutz 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, thanks for e-mailing me that text. Here's the summary (a full translation would be a copyright violation, too, but if someone insists, I could do one; I personally think it might be "fair use" for analysis and criticism, one of the rare cases where we would be allowed to invoke this rule without violating our cherished NPOV policy, for we usually must not criticize... :-). Anyway, as Schutz has pointed out, the unknown author does link the choice of the motto to the deed of Arnold von Winkelried, who is is said to have opened a breach in the lines of the Austrian footsoldiers in the Battle of Sempach by throwing himself into their lances, taking them down with his body such that the confederates could attack through the opening and win the battle. (Lupo's comment: in the document, they do state that this was a popular myth, but then re-tell the story using a grammatical form that implies that it was factual. However, the legend was recorded first in the middle of the 16th century; earlier accounts of the battle do not mention Winkelried or any such event.) They go on to explain that the Winkelried myth was used extensively in the 19th century to "illustrate the willingness of the individual to sacrifice himself for society ". (Comment by Lupo: that sounds very 19th century to me. The Winkelried legend was used as a national identification myth, and much of the uses in the 19th century contained a strong glorification element intended to induce a sense of duty in the individual citizen. Methinks it was less "illustrate the willingness" as "educate the people to show such willingness" by idolizing Winkelried as a model to imitate—of course not literally.)

On the cupola of the federal palace, they just say that the motto was put there. They don't even give the date, nor any indication as to the reasoning. (Lupo: I presume that there must be some old documents where that decision is recorded...)

They mention that "Unus pro omnibus - omnes pro uni" (Lupo: is that Schutz's typo? Or is that "uni" as in university?) is a popular motto of some Studentenverbindungen, pointing out "Thessalia", founded in Prague in 1864.

My typo, indeed. Schutz 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Then they elaborate on the origins of the motto in Aeneid by Virgil, where Neptune promises a safe journey to Aeneas at the price of the life of one of his companions: "Unum pro multis dabitur caput" (One head will be sacrificed for many). They say they have no source for the extension "many for one".

They conclude by stating that they have not been able to determine whether there was any relation between this latin motto and Alexandre Dumas' "Un pour tous - tous pour un", but that they don't think so. (Lupo: they don't explain why they don't think so.)

They also write that (exact translation now) "the proverb "One for all - all for one" can be considered the official national motto, for it has been set in stone in the cupola of the federal palace". (Lupo: they use the German "Einer für alle - alle für einen", not the Latin.)

My personal comment on this is that I find this rather inconclusive. The history is not very satisfactory; I do not see any compelling evidence that the Latin motto was linked to the legend of Winkelried. I think it is likely that the motto appeared only relatively late (19th century), and it may just as well be linked to the new federal state that arose in 1848, if one interpretes "one" as the federal state and "many" as the individual cantons, which to me makes sense since under the Ancien Régime and earlier, the Swiss Confederation was a rather loose conglomerate of individual cantons that were, in fact, politically largely independent and often had diverging interests. Stating that it was the motto because it was written in the cupola looks like reasoning the wrong way. I take the inscription in the cupola rather as evidence that already in 1902 the phrase was prominent enough and associated closely—in the minds of the people (or at least the politicians or the leading, educated class)—with Switzerland to be considered a "motto". Hence, it was written there because it was the motto, not the other way 'round. However, when and why exactly this phrase should have become the motto remains unanswered. Lupo 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. What is the source of the A4 page? Is it something written now, as a reply to Schutz' inquiry, or have they xeroxed something they found in their library? And, in either case, who is the author? Will we be able to say now that the "history department of the Federal Military Library" thinks it is the national motto, or do we have the opinion of somebody living in the 19th century?? All we want to know is if the proverb was chosen as a "motto" before it was set in stone in 1902, or if they just liked it and wrote it on the dome as they built it, and everyone has been thinking "nice, that's our national motto" since then. Maybe we should inquire again about who said first it was a national motto, and if there is a written document (or even the constitution) mentioning the proverb dating to 1848. I have been unable to find the text of the 1848 constitution, even on admin.ch. How sad is that. dab (ᛏ) 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. It's a 20th century text all right (otherwise it couldn't mention the cupola), but who wrote it when, I have no idea. As for the 19-century tone of it all and of some of the arguments: well, that's what you get when you ask the military guys :-P I've always thought most of them were living in the past. But I agree we should ask for precisions. Lupo 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a xeroxed page; they probably did not make it just for me, but it is recent, and coming straight from a printer. It is more or less a summary of the other documents they sent me (see above). The closest word to describe it would probably be factsheet, even though, as mentioned, there are not many facts in there. I'll take care of asking for precisions, in addition to the copyright question. However, I don't expect an answer before early next year, of course. Schutz 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on Misplaced Pages.de:Hat die Schweiz ein Motto???

In der englischsprachigen Misplaced Pages wird unter "Switzerland" behauptet, das offizielle Motto der Schweiz sei "Einer für alle, alle für einen". Stimmt dies? Wenn nicht, bitte löschen. Danke. W. Tell 2.11.2005

Das ist wohl eher das Motto der "Drei Musketiere" ;-) --Tschubby 18:33, 2. Nov 2005 (CET) Das ist natürlich korrekt - wer mal ins Bundeshaus geht, der sehe an die Decke in der Eingangshalle: Unus pro omnibus - omnes pro uno. Das ist aber nicht das offizielle Motto, wie in den USA (e pluribus unum) wo der Spruch - soweit ich weiss - Teil des Wappens ist. Man kann das also schon so stehen lassen. Ich würde aber die lateinische Form bevorzugen. --Sidonius 13:25, 3. Nov 2005 (CET)

Ich muss dir leider widersprechen: Das "Unus pro omnibus" etc. darf nur stehenbleiben, wenn man die von dir erwähnten Tatsachen auch in den Artikel schreibt. Alles andere leistet nur der Verbreitung von Irrtümern Vorschub. Die Schweiz hat nun mal, wie du selbst sagst, kein Nationalmotto wie z.B. Frankreich Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Es genügt ja nicht, dass im Bundeshaus wo was draufsteht. Sonst könnte man auch den Spruch Hominum confusione et Dei providentia Helvetia regitur nehmen; der ist doch noch viel bekannter. Also wenn schon, dann ganzen Artikel reinstellen, der die Frage klar beantwortet. --Seidl 13:59, 3. Nov 2005 (CET) Ich würde das ja gerne korrigieren, finde aber auf der englischen Seite über die Schweiz kein entsprechende Behauptung. Entweder wurde das schon gelöscht oder ich bin blind. Nach der History wurde jedenfalls schon seit einigen Tagen nichts mehr verändert. Vielleicht kann W. Tell das ja selber korrigieren.--Sidonius 17:35, 3. Nov 2005 (CET) Danke. Auf der englischen Seite steht unter der Fahne "Motto". Bis gestern war das Motto selbst abgedruckt, seit heute heisst es "none". Wenn man auf "none" drückt, kommt die alphabetische Liste der Mottos, und dort ist es immer noch drin. W. Tell 3.11.2005. Das ominöse Motto ist nun weg. W. Tell 15.11.2005

Clearly, Switzerland never had an official motto. R. L. 12/23/2005

Well, I am not a native German speaker, but I don't really see any real argument in the German snippet of text above. By the way, since it is the second time that the de: discussion is refered, it could be interesting if someone could replace the copy/paste of the German text by an English summary, with a link to the original text on de:. Anyway, at this point in the discussion, I don't think anyone can claim the use of the word "clearly". Schutz 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence; I just found today in a Swiss magazine a picture of an image dating from 1874, with title Gedenkblatt zum 19. April 1874. It represents a statue of Ms (Mrs ? Dame ?) Helvetia, with the Swiss flag on top, and the flags of the Cantons around the page. Below Helvetia is a plate saying Revision der Schweiz. Bundesverfassung, and below that, you guessed it, the sentence Einer für alle, alle für einen is carved in the stone. Unfortunately, it is very small and I don't have a scanner available. Again, this is not something that says officially "this is the motto, and it has been official since bla and bla", but it seems that it can be found at many places where you would expect an official motto to be. Schutz 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

interesting. maybe it was introduced in 1874. The German Misplaced Pages discussion is not really relevant; these are just Wikipedians saying that it is or isn't the motto. They haven't got as far as inquiring at admin.ch, and our reply from the defense department certainly trumps anon opinions on Misplaced Pages. But clearly, the burden of proof is on us if we want to claim it is the motto, and the defense guys have not provided anything solid. dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No scanner needed. Would that be this one? Lupo 15:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Full-size image here. Painter: E. Conrad, ca. 1874. 55.2×44.4cm, colored lithography on paper. Lupo 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed, congratulations on finding this one (note however that your first link seems to point to a completely different image). Schutz 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Well, I only accessed the Google cache of the first link (which only shows the text), as that first link is on a non-standard port 16080 that I cannot access. Some source inspections then led me to the direct link of the full image. Lupo 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you remove the port number, you access the same pages, and this is the one I see: . Anyway, this is not important, since you have found the full-sized image. Schutz 15:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Click "previous" once :-) Lupo 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's an independent confirmation that the phrase was in use (and in connection with the Swiss administration) in 1877 (see page 8 of the 291kB PDF). Lupo 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This publication, p. 14 refers to the federal council using the phrase on October 6, 1868. The source given is "Protokolle der Konferenzen in Sachen der schweiz. Wasserbeschädigten vom Jahre 1868", Bern, 1869. While this doesn't establish the phrase's status as a motto (or not), it gives an even earlier date for its use in connection with matters relating to Switzerland. See also p. 20 of the same publication: on October 14, 1868, the federal council had a call for donations in favor of the victims of the inundations of 1868 published in the newspapers, apparently under that motto again. The source given is "Aufruf des Bundesrathes an das Schweizervolk und an die Schweizer im Auslande, Bern, 14.10.1868, BBl 1868 Bd. 3, S. 519–521". Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also of interest is this publication from the Supreme Court of Switzerland (Bundesgericht). It's in French, but on page 2, under "I.1.3", they write "the traditional motto "one for all, all for one" has no constitutional or legal foundation. ... ... It does not concern the relations between individuals and has no legal standing". (Their term is portée juridique; I cannot come up with a good English translation for "portée", although I understand what it means). Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We also might add Thérèse Meyer to the list of Swiss politicians who think this was indeed the motto of Switzerland. Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The supreme court document clinches it for me. We can either be hardliners and say Switzerland has no motto, or decide "traditional" mottos are okay for all states, or we can tag " (traditional)" or something on the end. ¦ Reisio 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would give it (in the Latin form, with the English translation), and link the Latin version to its own article Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno that would explain it all (and also cover other uses of that phrase as a motto by other organizations, as well as its Cameo appearance in The Truman Show ). On the use as the Swiss national motto, it might say something like

Switzerland has no official motto defined in its constitution or legislative documents. The phrase, in its German ("Einer für alle, alle für einen") and French ("un pour tous, tous pour un") versions came into widespread use in the 19th century and was increasingly associated with the founding myths of Switzerland to such a degree that "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno" was even set in stone in the cupola of the Federal Palace of Switzerland in 1902. It has ever since been considered the motto of the country, although nowadays it is widely known only among the French-speaking population. Politicians of all parties and regions acknowledge it as the motto of Switzerland.

Add some references to the image of the cupola, the different 19th century uses we've found, the Supreme court document, and the various speeches by Swiss politicians we've uncovered. Lupo 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea (especially since I thought about it too...). I have created the page, and followed more or less your suggestions, although I have not yet been able to add all the links and information but will continue this over the next few days (I have lost the reference to Samuel Schmid's speech for now — it looks like the website of the President of the Confederation is reset every year, and all the links become dead. How silly is that ?). I am not too sure about your assertion that "nowadays it is widely known only among the French-speaking population". Although it seems to be true on Misplaced Pages (based on a very small sample size !), I don't know if it is true in the general population. My guess is that almost noone knows about it, French-speaker or not. Schutz 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google search for +"un pour tous, tous pour un" +site:.ch and then discard all references relating to Dumas, and also discard all speeches by politicians. There are quite a few mentions by ordinary people leaving comments here and there. Then do the same thing with "einer für alle, alle für einen"... basically only used on websites of (typically right or far-right) political organisations. Of course, this doesn't prove anything... Lupo 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

All this notwithstanding, I would still very much like to know how and when this phrase ended up as the Swiss motto, traditional or not, official or not. Lupo 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my fault, I should really push the people from the military department who originally sent me the information. Sorry about that. Schutz 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we have a better chance of getting some unbiased answers if we ask at the history department of the universities of either Berne or Fribourg (or maybe Basel). Lupo 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe we should copy what Venezuela has going on - says "none" with a footnote that says "Historical:…". ¦ Reisio 08:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What does historical mean for Venezuela ? Is the motto not used and not known anymore, or is like in Switzerland, where it just lacks an "official" document associated with it ? Schutz 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question for Talk:Venezuela. If we were to adopt something like that here, though, I'd most likely prefer something like "Traditionally: Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno". ¦ Reisio 10:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added a footnote, would that be a good way to explain things ? Schutz 10:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was fine, but now we're back at "none" with the footnote. I don't like that at all. Quite obviously, Switzerland does have a motto. Its only "flaw" is that it isn't an "official" motto defined in the constitution. Yet from all the evidence collected above, it appears clear to me that there is a traditional motto. Where is it defined that a national motto must be defined in a constitution or other legal document in order to be listed? Note that there is no dispute what might be the "motto" of this country. If we had several variants, then I'd agree with saying "none" and explaining what different variants were proposed by whom. But here we have widespread consensus among politicians (obviously not among us Wikipedians :-) about what is the motto, and a clear statement that it is traditional. Saying "none" just appears wrong to me. Lupo 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Politicians are not historians. ¦ Reisio 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? BTW, you dodged my question. here it is again: Where is it defined that a national motto must be defined in a constitution or other legal document in order to be listed? Lupo 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It means politicians are quite often idiots rallying around the flag saying whatever sounds good, so saying "we have widespread consensus among politicans" doesn't mean so much to me. I thought your question rhetorical. I don't have a definition nor would I bother seeking one out, but I imagine if I were one of the Swiss people that keeps coming around deleting the motto bit, I'd be thinking of a definition along the lines of "I'm Swiss, the motto has no legal standing (meaning our nation never agreed upon this motto), and...wait, what other justification do I need?". ¦ Reisio 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't speculate about the motives of the "Swiss people that keeps coming around deleting the motto bit". It is of course possible that they reason like you say, but it's just as well possible that they don't. We've already established that the traditional motto is not widely known among the general population. Frankly, until I researched it, I also thought there was none. Lupo 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "the motto of Switzerland" - instead of saying "this is the motto of Switzerland (footnote: ...except it's not, here's why)", it makes more since to just say "there is no motto, though some people have associated {phrase} as such". ¦ Reisio 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is going too far, I think. Given the amount of documentation that has been found and linked to, simply writing "Motto: None", even with a footnote, is misleading. And there is a huge gap between saying "It is not official, but traditional" and "... is sometimes associated ...". Schutz 13:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't have a map showing the area it's recognized and isn't. Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno#Motto of Switzerland claims it's mostly a French thing, and that doesn't exactly constitute a majority. My edit, I think, makes it both not incorrect and likely to not be altered every week by random users. Consider this: would you rather have someone associate you with something you may not be associated with (and are not legally associated with), then claim maybe you aren't, or have someone not associate you with something you may not be associated with, then claim maybe you are. ¦ Reisio 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's used and known also in the German-speaking part; however, it is not widely known there but mostly used only by politicians. Together with the many politicians who consider it the motto and the history department of the Federal Military Library who agrees, (and I could add some party web sites from Switzerland who also know it), I think it's quite a bit over the top to claim the motto was "none". On a related note: prove that Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit has a legal basis as the official German national motto :-P (Actually, I thought it would be easy, but so far I have not found a single official document saying so. It's written on the German Euro coins all right, and it's the first line of the national anthem, but that's it. It's not in the Grundgesetz, not found on http://www.bundesregierung.de/ (except as part of the national anthem), and a search on http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ also came up empty ... But don't go removing the motto from that article if you should not be able to prove it, ok? :-) Oh, and please note that I'm not suggesting that the first line of the Swiss national anthem was the motto... Lupo 15:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The same German-speaking part that spawned the de.wikipedia.org people that claim there is no motto? Politicians are not a reputable source, and the supreme court disagrees with the Federal Military Library. (nothing to say about the German motto...don't see how that's related or relevant) ¦ Reisio 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of the Supreme Court text. They do not say "Switzerland has no motto, Punkt Schluss.". They specifically say the "traditional motto has no legal foundation", but then go on talking about the historical foundation, even though I did not quote the rest of the sentence (maybe I should have. To put things back in context, the goal of the text is to show that the national motto is not (legally) binding on the citizens, not that it does not exist). I don't think that what people know is relevant to the correctness of an assertion; French speaking people may know more about it because of the close association with Alexandre Dumas, who knows. Hey, we may even find in an 19th Century document an unknown fact about the Swiss history, and even if noone alive today knows about, it does not render the fact incorrect. As for the politicians, I agree that they are not the best possible reference, but still... could they have been citing this motto for 100+ years without anyone telling them or commenting on the fact that they made a mistake ? Except here, I have not seen anywhere any doubt about the motto. In any case, from the encyclopedic point of view, I believe that the references cited in Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno carry much more weight than a random sample of de.wikipedia.org people (no offence intented for ranking them lower than politicians ;-). Schutz 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To Reisio: the guys over at de.wikipedia.org didn't even bother to do the most basic research on this whole topic; they just asserted that there was no motto. Even if politicians say whatever they want; if you have so many of them from parties from left to right saying and writing it, and nobody disagrees with them, then I do think they have a point. It is the traditional motto (as acknowledged by the supreme court document) and IMO deserves mention. The Germany case was an analogy: it looks to me that their "motto" isn't legally defined either, so if that's listed, then why not list the Swiss traditional motto? Lupo 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I demur, then - go ahead and change it back to what you like. Maybe add a comment (HTML) explaining the situation to would-be none-ers. ¦ Reisio 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Note that, however, in the meantime, I have sent an email to the history department of the University of Lausanne, trying to get more information and references from them, as you suggested to get more information from historians. I have never had any contact with them before, so I may not even get an answer, but it is worth trying anyway. If someone wants to do the same with other universities in Switzerland, please do — the more the merrier. Schutz 20:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, before I forget. I wrote to the Federal Military Library to ask for clarifications, a reference for the documents they sent me, and authorisation to publish them; unfortunately, the person who answered me last time does not work there anymore, so I got a new person to contact, to whom I wrote today. Stay tuned for possibly still more information ! Schutz 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Schutzcorrespondence4win ¦ Reisio 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very impressed on the depth of the discussion on the national motto of Switzerland. I read the whole discussion and I noticed that the german wikipedia was quoted several times as a source. On the german page of switzerland we decided not to mention the motto, because it is no official motto. This decision depends on your definition, what a motto of a country really is or wether it must be part of the constitution etc. Since the motto is not part of any swiss constitutional document or law (see source of the Federal Court) there is no motto for the german wikipedia. (a rather formalist approach) I don't want to mess with your business, but I think you should write "unofficial motto" instead of just "motto" under the coat of arms. Sidonius 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But it already says "(traditional)"? And it has a footnote? And an article explaining it even more? Were you looking at the latest version? BTW, as someone active on the German Misplaced Pages, maybe you could point me to where the German motto is defined officially? Lupo 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think this is a good article. A few suggestions:

Under economics please record that those treaties with the EU were all ratified by referendum. It says Bern negotiated them in order to get around the people's reluctance to join the EU (true) but the people ratified those treaties with (as I recall) a majority in all cantons except Ticino. They are not so isolationist.

Maybe put in the link http://c2d.unige.ch/ which is the centre for research into direct democracy at the Uni of Geneva.

Here's a slightly harder one: set out Neidhart's thesis that the facultative referendum (that's the 50000 signatures within 100 days one) is the cause of the "Vernehmlassung" process whereby every interested party gets a say about a proposed law. The art of governing the country is to avoid a referendum. (Some say Switzerland doesn't have a government, only an administration.) This is responsible for laws passing with usually 80 to 100% of MPs in favour. Statistically 6% (not 7 as in some references) of laws do wind up with a referendum and of them half go into the WPB (around 70 laws over the last 120 years). The chance of a law actually suffering a referendum is proportional to the number of MPs voting for it: for example it turns out that if only(!) 67% of the lower house agree to the law it has (purely statistically) a 50% chance of going to referendum.

It seems pretty clear that it is the facultative referendum which is also the fundamental driver which causes all four major parties to get into cabinet. 150.203.2.85 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Swiss franc vs Swiss Frank

made small change to the currency ( original saying swiss franc, changed to swiss franks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.90.247 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

... and I reverted it, since "franc" is the correct English spelling. Schutz 15:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the path to featured article ?

The article has been relatively stable for quite some time now; we could maybe think about bringing it to featured article status ? In any case, there are a few things that should be done even before starting a peer review, including: (please complete list, or strike if done): Schutz 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Inline citations. Schutz
• Fact check and general work-over. Lupo
  • As an example, take the "History" section: it's first paragraph currently says "At the Battle of Morgarten on November 15, 1315, the Swiss defeated the Habsburg army and secured quasi-independence as the Swiss Confederation." I'm not sure that this is correct. It wasn't until the battle of Sempach that they had firmly established themselves as an entity the Habsburgs couldn't squash. Also, they were not "quasi-independent". They were (and would be until 1648) a part of the Holy Roman Empire; all they achieved before was maintaining, ensuring, or gaining a status as reichsfrei regions. After the Swabian War, the situation was ambiguous: formally still a part of the empire, yet certainly "reichsfrei", they were even exempt from the jurisdiction of the Reichskammergericht, the supreme court of the empire. But they became a formally independent nation only in 1648.
  • Another minor example: the mention of the ancien régime two paragraphs down the page, in the context of neutrality. That doesn't make much sense just like that. I haven't yet gotten around to rewrite the article Ancien Régime of Switzerland, but it should be noted that the Swiss "neutrality" (a) did not prevent the Swiss cantons to have mercenary troops fighting on all sides in Europe, and (b) the lack of military operations on their own behalf can be explained by two factors: on the one hand, the Swiss' military supremacy had waned with the advent of heavy artillery, and on the other hand, common foreign politics of the cantons during much of the time of the ancien régime was effectively paralyzed by the tensions between Catholic and Protestant cantons (which, as the article rightly points out, led to the religiosly motivated battles of Villmergen).
  • I haven't looked in detail at the rest of the article, but I think we still have a long way to go to get this up to FA quality. Lupo 10:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; even if we don't get there in the near future, it is still good to start improving... Schutz 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What if a Swazi visited Switzerland and a Swiss visited Swaziland?

I'd like to know how each of them would react, and what they'd say. Factor how they live in their home countries to how they'd describe their visiting countries.

Their country names sounded similar, so I thought I'd ask.--Shultz 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this homework? Lupo 15:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

not even; the names are entirely unrelated, one to Schwyz and the other to siSwati, what teacher would ask something like this as homework?? dab (ᛏ) 15:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Compare & Contrast. Would someone care to let us know, please? I can't get it out of my head until I get answers, sorry. --Shultz 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

we've answered it, haven't we? there is no connection whatsoever. dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I mean, if a Swazi took a trip to Switzerland, and a Swiss took a trip to Swaziland, what would they possibly say about the countries they visit? --Shultz 17:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

what? What's the difference from, say, a Swiss taking a trip to Zimbabwe, or a Swazi taking a trip to the Netherlands? They are not going to confuse their nations if that's what you mean. Maybe you should ask, rather, what will happen if George W. Bush visited either Swaziland or Switzerland, but I doubt the similarity of names makes a difference there, the man can hardly keep track of what continent he is on. dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article talk pages are for discussing the content of articles. They shouldn't really be used for off-the-wall chat, like this and also . You've also created goofy redirects in the past ("Judenmouse" redirecting to Judenrat). -- Curps 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

such questions are, however, welcome at WP:RD. And if people are willing to answer them on talkpages, why not ask? dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Voting in Switzerland

It has been suggested that Voting in Switzerland be merged to this article. I think that it should be inserted under Direct Democracy as a stub but still retained as its own article. The Switzerland article is quite long as is. What does everyone think? Hdstubbs 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right. Add a blurb & continue to link to main article. ¦ Reisio 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I think there is too much material to cover (with 23 or 26 voting systems with subtle differences...) to integrate it completely in the main article. Schutz 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be made sub-article of Politics of Switzerland and Swiss Federal Constitution. The article is lacking sources, and should make clear which procedures are constitutional and which are simply which are cantonal, and which are merely communal, incidential or projected (such as internet voting). I'd say it merits a cleanup tag. dab (ᛏ) 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)