This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
1. the Vatican has the only other square flag in the world. The Swiss flag is a red square with a white cross in the centre.2. provided they can gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days. If succesful, a national vote is held and voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kosack (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "Demographics" section of the article contains a quote from the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UNHRC is a joke of an organization consisting of Islamic fanatics and third-world dictator loons. I highly suggest removing their quote from this article if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously. The cited page makes the absurd claim that Swiss resistance to multiculturalism is "racist" and "xenophobic," citing some "professor" from an African banana republic. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting a racist and anti-Semitic organization dedicated to destroying Israel and Western civilization on such a highly-visible page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielwife (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I restored the following link to an official page of the Bundeskanzlei, entitled "Bundesstatus Stadt Bern" or "Federal status of Bern", , which is essential I think: the fact is that a project of law, in order to award to Bern the status of federal city, has been worked on and is now suspended. This information stresses the fact that Bern has so far no official status as a federal city, and the link should remain. Note that the German wikipedia has a page on this issue, . Sapphorain (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, once every year again. – And wow, there are a lot (!) of issues to raise here:
The note in the leading section does not say what you criticise in your undo change summary ("Bern is not federal city de jury"), since the note correctly says: "Bern is referred to as "federal city". Swiss law does not designate a capital as such, but the federal parliament and government are located in Bern, while the federal courts are located in other cities." This text is fully compliant with the given sources. – Please, read it carefully and correctly!
And it is called "de jure", not "de jury". This is Latin, after all!!
WP:CIRC ... Never ever valid!! There simply are too many (potential) errors on WP, as you prove by yourself.
MOS:LEAD: You add a subject and a source, which are not suitable for a lead section, since it discusses very particular details, namely the legal relationship of the Confederacy with the city of Berne and an intermediate and obsolete discussion, instead only the current constitutional reality. If you like to document these detailed, historic explanations then create a new paragraph, or even better, a new article about it. But such details are not suitable for an introductory text.
And please, try to be correct in your claims (e.g. Berne was never a federal city de jure, as you claim in a previous change summary: "Bern is federal city "de facto", but not anymore "de jure", ...").
Even the text you refer to – not surprisingly, after all – does not claim anything different! Quite the contrary actually: "Aucune réglementation adéquate ne définit à proprement parler le statut de la ville fédérale ni ses relations avec la Confédération (dans le domaine de la culture, par ex.); les seules règles qui existent sont celles qui régissent la sécurité et celles concernant l'Ecole cantonale de langue française de Berne." – Again, please read it carefully!
And finally, it does not make sense to use a different note about the same subject for the info box and the lead section.
Therefore, I reused the same note for the info box. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
1. Your note indeed says that Bern is "referred to" as federal city. "Correctly", though, I don't know, since no source is provided in this note.
2. No need to be conceited. I am reasonably fluent in Latin. The misspelling is only contained in the comment and came from an uncalled for spelling checker.
3. This comment is cryptic and doesn't make any sense to me.
4. The "current constitutional reality" dates back to 1999. The "obsolete" "discussion" you refer to took place between 2002 and 2004, and the mention of what came out of it (i.e. nothing) is perfectly fit for a lead section.
5. Bern was a federal city de jure in the 1848 constitution.
6. But it does. You apparently didn't read the sentence that just follows the one you mention: "Il faut donc créer une norme légale qui fixe le statut de Berne en tant que ville fédérale et énumère les tâches lui incombant à ce titre."
7. I agree. But this was already the case before I added the link to the legislation attempt of 2002-2004. If you wish to suppress this redundancy be my guest. But please don't remove the link I added.Sapphorain (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sapphorain: I actually baffled how I should consider your reluctance to understand the given arguments.
Actually, you did not add any new argument nor did you falsify any of the given ones above. Therefore any further response would actually be futile. But just for the sake of redundancy, once more:
If you would be more attentive, just a bit, you would have been aware of that there are two given sources since the note was produced.
Obviously. I am not surprised. Are you that lazy reader?! RTFM!
Yes, but your referred discussion has been finished (and didn't change anything!!) and does not contribute to a fast introductory understanding.
NO, IT WAS NOT. Prove it otherwise! Show me the constitutional text saying so! – Actually, you can't.
For holy sake! This text is the declared intention of the referred Federal project. NOT THE STATUS QUO. Tell me, what is so badly hard to understand in Il faut donc créer ???? Neither did the project complete. THERE WAS NO OUTCOME.
I will remove this link to an intermediate project, since it does not contribute any further understanding than the already given links. Quite the contrary as you just proved by yourself.
@ZH8000: We at least have one thing in common: I am also baffled by your reluctance to understand the given arguments. I am in addition baffled by the nerve you have to warn me for edit war on my talk page, being yourself, if this is true, the other warrior. The reason I reverted you is not only because you replaced the link I gave by partially correct/partially incorrect information, but mainly because you deleted in the process the crucial information on the 2002-2004 legal attempt: I considered I didn't have to painfully select what was good and what was bad in your contribution, since you deleted mine in the process. Anyway: for the time being I added a new section concerning the problem of the capital or federal city, without deleting any of your partially incorrect contributions on the subject. Sapphorain (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Obstinacy is not a virtue, indeed. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)