Talk:Switzerland

Banking

It seems 2 editors have a problem with my edits. Unfortunately, user:ZH8000 has added NEW edits while undoing mine. So i had no choice but to revert the WHOLE thing...I have not looked at the seriousness of his other edits (so I did not mean to revert it ALL at once).

Regarding the source of disputed edit (by ZH8000 only), it is stated in both articles cited (one is Russia Today and the other is a local Swiss newspaper) that London-based Tax Justice Network is the PRIMARY source of this report. I don't know about HIS agenda but ours is CLEAR (WP:fact and WP:Verifiabilty). Swiss romulus (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Russia Today =WP:BIASED...Tax Justice Network =WP:NOTADVOCACY.--Moxy 🍁 04:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A question if I may: WHAT exactly is TJN is advocating, in your view?

...And what about these sources which state broadly the SAME?? (e.g. CBS news, Swissinfo, Swiss TV and others):

Swiss banks have served as safe havens for the wealth of dictators, despots, mobsters, arms dealers, corrupt officials, and tax cheats of all kinds.

As of 2019, key criminal probes involving Swiss banks were the Petrobras bribery case, the Mozambique "tuna bonds", Credit Suisse "spygate" affair, Raiffeisen insider trading and UBS tax evasion in France.

If you prefer, I can replace it with above quotes. Up to you. Swiss romulus (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Besides, we don't think anybody in Russia's leadership position has a vested interest to criticize Swiss banks since they have/are sheltering $billions for the Russian oligarchy, political leadership (and mob probably)...don't take my word for it.Swiss romulus (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Swiss Romulus: To answer one of your first points, ZH8000 is a self appointed arbiter of what may or may not appear in any article on Switzerland. In particular he will not allow anything that is remotely critical of anything Swiss to stand. He is also a self appointed arbiter of the English used in such articles (even though he has severe competancy issues on that subject), hammering in his idea of English rather than the actual language's grammatical rules (in fact: many of his edits and posts are an obvious machine translation).

Finally, ZH8000 will use Wikipedia policy to hammer any other editor attempting to alter hi preferred version of an article while completely ignoring all policy himself (notably WP:OWNERSHIP. His claim that "According the WP:BRD rule, the reverted editor has to justify his disputed change on the talk page without reverting", is nonsense. WP:BRD is neither a rule nor Wikipedia editing policy. It is only an essay which states clearly at the top "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". In other words: you cannot be sanctioned for ignoring it (though you can be if you violate WP:3RR). 86.130.28.42 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (True). Swiss romulus (talk)

@Swiss romulus It seems that your strategy is to simply revert any edits that change something you do not like on this page instead of discussing it here first. Also, please dont just revert whole changes as here if you dont agree with parts of it, rather revert only the section you dont agree with or put it up for discussion here. I am not against adding critical statements about the Swiss economy or Switzerland in general but I suggest to add a balanced paragraph that includes all criticism instead of a single factoid from RT that is completely out of context and does not cover criticism of Swiss policies in a holistic way.

I also agree with Moxy that RT is heavily biased and should not be used a source here. --hroest 17:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mostly untrue, simply read again. Swiss romulus (talk)

References

@ Hannes Rost: Editor DonSpencer1 is rolling back all info about connection to illegal activities in banking in Switzerland. It's all well sourced info.

We agreed to keep details in sub-articles as long as it doesn't get deleted there, 99.203.25.117 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

At a minimum, we need one sentence explaining the problem. Feel free to reformate but don't delete. Thanks much. Swiss romulus (talk)

Swiss neutrality

Currently the article contains the sentence

Swiss neutrality has been questioned at times

this is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL and it does not even make any sense, please expand what this is supposed to mean and read up on what Swiss neutrality really means, namely not entering wars on either side: "Switzerland is not to be involved in armed conflicts between other states". So first, if there is criticism, I suggest to first include this into the corresponding article and expand there. I will remove the above sentence unless there is a good argument for keeping it and somebody can expand it to make sense for the reader. --hroest 17:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@ hroest: Your point is noted but we can't only "parrot" the official version. We must adhere to WP:neutral and include (at a minimum) a sentence that reports what reliable sources say about the subject (including mainstream Swiss media).

P.S.

I will repeat that sentence in main article's lead as per above.

Regards, Swiss romulus (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

economy section

Switzerland is ranked as having one of the most powerful economies in the world

That sentence meets WP:Weasel IMO and should be tagged as such. Switzerland is not even among the top 20 countries by GDP size (see G-20) but it certainly punches above its weight (I heard it is the ninth "financial power" however, whatever that means)?

Best. Swiss romulus (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Roger Federer most successful tennis player?

And why is not Rod Laver the most successful tennis player. He won the Grand Slam two times, Roger Federer 0 times He won the Davis Cup 5 times, Roger Federer 1 time Really, this statement about Roger Federer is clearly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nulli (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ColorCode

RedObviouseWeLikeOurApplesLikeInSnowWhiteOriginalMostOscarizedAutorVersion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.29.202 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

External Debt

First, who is the multi-trillion dollars of Switzerland's external debt OWNED to? Swiss romulus (talk)

Subsidiary question if I may: the vast majority of large Swiss corporations are "OWNED by (unidentified) FOREIGN ENTITITES" according to one source cited. WHO are they specifically (i.e. Who are the "Beneficial owners")? Forbe's list of richest people might help but this list is *uncomplete* IMO and the total sum of liabilities does not amount to the total assets, GLOBALLY speaking (even if you take World Bank stats about debt, etc). My point is there a large "missing amount". 😀

If I remember correctly, one source (titled "American funds buy-back Switzerland")<ref>"Les fonds américains rachètent la Suisse". Mary Varkadis (in French). 2015-12-09. Retrieved 2020-02-10. reveals that "one third of the amount cannot be appropriated to any country of origin" (because of the use of (offshore) shell companies for example?) and this amount was split evenly between the other identified country of "origins". 99.203.25.119 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if you really want to know, you can look at the breakdown in the SNB. It is mostly FDI and bank deposits (yes, bank deposits by foreign entities count as liabilities, and count towards "gross external debt"). But the number you presented is GROSS external debt, not NET external debt. Gross numbers in this case are irrelevant without the net numbers. When someone from outside Switzerland deposits money in a bank in Switzerland, it increases the gross external debt, but it doesn't change the net external debt. The fact that you're adding it without even understanding what it is means you probably shouldn't be adding it. Oh, and please keep your conspiracy theories out of this wiki and DO NOT EDIT WAR, if your changes were reverted, it is your responsibility to seek a new consensus before making any new edits. And you know this because you've been warned for edit warring before. Tahnk you. UCaetano (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

? Sir, you mean that "theory"?😀 If I see you edit warring I'll have to report you again. Thanks. Swiss romulus (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? But sure, please do report me. Oh, and removing the warnings from your talk page doesn't make them go away. UCaetano (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been edit warring based on your edit history and talk page several times.. Swiss romulus (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UT

Old 2019 estimates for 2020 GDP

Given what happened afterwards, invoking an old October 2019 estimate as a meaningful update for the 2020 GDP is a nonsense. Sapphorain (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)