Talk:Switzerland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Switzerland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  Quality: GA-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated


European Union[edit]

When will Switzerland is going to join the European Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.41 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly after the U.S. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.28.119 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Switzerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All the archived URLs failed, with the exception of the second-to-last source, which was merely fixed rather than archived. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Federation VS confederation[edit]

I know that this might not be an issue worth posting on the talk page, but I'll do it anyway just in case. In the "Old Swiss Confederacy" subsection in the "History" section, there are a couple times where the Swiss Confederacy is referred as a "federation". Because Switzerland's government clearly was not a federation until 1798 at the earliest, is this just a mistake or an act of vandalism that was never reverted, or is there another reason why the confederacy is referred to a federation? --1990'sguy (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think, in general you are right, in this chapter you could replace federation with confederation. But eventually it is a question of language usage in the sense of: a confederation (loosly coupled states) is also a federation1 (general definition: somehow coupled states), the same way as a federation2 (specific definition: strongly coupled states with one federal constitution) is also a federation1 (general definition). Or when you speak about the concept, then the author uses federation1, when it refers to the particular Swiss one, one speaks about the confederation. But yes, you could replace it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I changed the wording anyway so any misunderstanding would be avoided. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Switzerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Success! All work. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage[edit]

I have moved this message from my talkpage. Dr. K. 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

Regarding ETH it is a technical university try visiting there homepage and see the actual name spelled out. They also dont have subjects like Law, Medicin, religion, economics and psychology.

Regarding international reputation of the two technical universities, then they are not more famous than for example university of Zurich which is a member of "League of European Research" together with Oxford and Cambridge amongst others. And university of Zurich is just as highly ranked according to many rankings (ranked 54 in the world according to the prestigious ARWU) and is considered the best place to study fields like Law, medicin and economy amongst other fields in Switzerland.

There is no current sources (no footnote) to the statement that st. gallen and the other school is the leaders in business. I've just checked for my self and others are just as highly ranked in that field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beboj3140 (talkcontribs) 14:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see my last three edits at the article where I supplied reliable sources to support these statements on top of the ones already existing in the article. Also the reliable source calls ETH a "top university" not a "top technical university". Try reading the reliable source that I added to that effect. If there are other universities in Switzerland as good as these you can add them, but do not remove the existing ones which are supported by reliable sources. Dr. K. 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
but you have to be aware that i can easily find rankings contradicting to those you have found since 1000 exist therefore such things should not be on the page and is commercializing. also calling ETH an university is misleading since it it not an actual university. but fine i will find some sources and write Zurich is also a top university in the country and the leader in som fields

Resolving the debate over Swiss University Rankings in this article[edit]

Going nowhere. Restart discussion using a new thread if need be. --NeilN talk to me 13:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As seen above, there has been some ongoing discussion and disagreement on the language, rankings and relative importance of two Swiss universities: the University of Zurich and the ETH Zurich. So I believe it's important to remind ALL editors that Wikipedia is NOT a battleground for people to advance their own personal opinions or agendas. Editors are reminded that edit-warring to advance your own personal favorite universities over other universities, is not acceptable here and violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, those edits will likely be reverted anyway and persistent violations of those policies and guidelines will likely result in those editors being blocked. So please keep all your personal views about your favorite - or disliked - university out of your editing on this project.

Also remember, that any personal information you believe you have about those universities, doesn't matter. Per WP:NOR Wikipedia would cease to function if every editor could act as if they are an expert on the subjects of articles. This is why we require reliable sources. So please, no more arguments - or edits - based on what you believe is your personal knowledge of any of these universities. So either find good, independent and reliable sources - or please refrain from making those edits. Again, no agendas while editing!

To that end, I have removed redundant references to both universities. The rankings are listed and the sources all remain intact. That is more than sufficient. You must trust Wikipedia readers to see those rankings and appreciate BOTH schools and know that both schools rank high internationally, according to sources. This is not the place to advance or settle rivalries between universities.

Hopefully this will satisfy all editors. If not, rather than changing the article, please just express your concerns here and we'll discuss them until we find a satisfactory conclusion or at least reach some consensus. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the removed sentence: In addition, ETHZ "consistently ranks the top university in continental Europe" is not redundant to the world rankings because it is very different to them as it signifies first place repeatedly as opposed to number 20 or other worldwide. So it should be restored. Dr. K. 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
if the above is to be written then i believe it would be equally important to write that "University of Zurich is ranked among the world's top universities". University of Zurich is also Switzerlands highest ranked classical university. ETHZ is technically a technical university (which the name also implies) which means you can't study the classical subjects there. Beboj3140 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Before I address the latest editors' concerns, I will confess to some genuine surprise - and disappointment - that we're still having this discussion; because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas. It's good this discussion is taking place here, rather than being fought in the article. But again, I urge editors not to edit according to their personal biases. This really needs to stop.
Dr.K., I actually reviewed the source of the quote you'd like to include. The web link is run by a UK based company named QS, which aspires to be "the world’s leading media, events and software company in the higher education field." In their description they say: "QS links high achievers from the graduate, MBA and executive communities around the world with leading business schools, postgraduate departments at universities and with employers, through websites, events, e-guides and technical solutions." All that means, is they appear to be an aggregator site that simply reprints info from a university's own website. In this case, the entire paragraph, which includes: "Consistently ranked the top university in continental Europe" is basically lifted almost verbatim from ETH Zurich itself - as you can see here in the last page of a 2008 brochure published by ETH Zurich. So this claim is actually just self-promotion that comes from a biased primary source. Without knowing the real source of the claim - if there is one - its credibility, timeframe, methodology and/or independence from the university; it's pretty clear that this claim is just hyperbole and not fact. So it does not belong in the article. The article generally states the university to be among the top schools. That is supported by the sources. So that is all that can be said.
Also Beboj3140, ETHZ Zurich is a real university. It is not a technical school, or a technical university. It is a university. It awards bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees. It has associations with 21 Nobel Prize winners. As such it is one of the world's top universities. Just as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech are also both considered among the world's top universities as well, and neither is diminished or called just a "technical university," simply because you would not attend them to study "the classical subjects."
So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments. That section of the article is good as it is, because it references both universities with multiple sources and lists the high rankings of both schools. In an article that isn't even primarily about either school, that's more than sufficient. Should any readers requires more info, with all the links and wikilinks, they'll certainly know where to look. I hope this settles everything. X4n6 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
... because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas., So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments.
Assume Good Faith much? Can you explain to me why would I have an agenda about an article I never edited before, prior to 25 July, on a subject that is very remote to my interests? I came to this article after I noticed the other editor making a rather clumsy edit on Europe and I noticed he also made certain editorial errors here, so I endeavoured to correct them. I did not introduce any sources to this article; I only used the existing ones. I also put the phraseology of one of the sources in quotation marks to indicate that it was verbatim from the source.
When you removed the sentence you did not mention anything about aggregators or primary sources. You just talked about "duplication". You actually left the sources in the article and did not comment about them, indicating by your actions that you do not find them objectionable.
Now, when I first replied to you in good faith, addressing the only issue, the duplication issue, which you raised, you start attacking comments about "agendas" and "biases" without having any right or reason to do so because I only responded to the single issue that you raised. Please retract these unjustified attacks, otherwise you can continue this conversation on your own. Dr. K. 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You can't complain about WP:AGF and then not follow it yourself. Regardless of how you wish to characterize your involvement, I attempted to resolve a clear edit-war to which I was not even a party. That should be obvious to even the most casual observer. Are you denying it? Because starting with your first edit here, which was a perfectly reasonable edit btw, to here, here, here, here, here, here, not only were you warring, but you also passed the threshold into WP:3RR. And as an experienced editor, you also know that even when you believe (or may be right) - warring is still warring. As an experienced editor, you should also be familiar with WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Also even you must admit that is a pretty active edit log for a user who claims this is all "on a subject that is very remote to my interests." It also excludes your edit here, which came after I had believed we'd finally resolved this issue. So under the circumstances, my comment: ... because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas., So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments. seems more than justified and supported by the edit log.
But regarding your content dispute with me here, your response after the comment I posted which began this section, was instructive. You wrote: "it signifies first place repeatedly," and that was the red flag for me, as it made the quoted claim sound sketchy at best, but requiring more review at least. Because no university "consistently ranks the top university". Harvard constantly battles Yale. Or MIT, or Princeton or Stanford or the University of Chicago or Penn. Oxford constantly battles Cambridge. I'm unaware of any schools "consistently ranked the top universities" anywhere. So I researched the source and reported what I found, and lo and behold, the source appears to be the in-house promotional arm of the university making the claim. Quelle Surprise! So what I originally believed was a redundancy - because the high rankings were sufficient to suggest the quality of the university - and the "top university" appellation struck me as unnecessary in an article that wasn't even primarily about this or other universities - the additional research led to the additional conclusion that the quote itself was likely just self-promotional and undocumented puffery.
So I stand by both what I did and what I said. If you still feel attacked, as unfortunate as that is, it's also entirely on you. But it's certainly nothing I need to "retract", or even be concerned with; especially since you phrased it in such an uncivil manner. I am just reminded that "no good deed goes unpunished." But luckily, as this is ... "on a subject that is very remote to my(your) interests.": I'm sure you'll have no difficulty taking your own advice and I "can continue this conversation on your(my) own", while you move on. X4n6 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Quote from your diatribe above: Because starting with your first edit here, which was a perfectly reasonable edit btw, to here, here, here, here, here, here
So, not only you are continuing your PAs but now you have crossed into imaginary events territory. Your first two links link 1 and link 2 involve IP 161.38.221.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Unless you have clairvoyant powers how on Earth do you have the gall to connect me to that IP address? The next two diffs were consecutive and they only count as one edit under 3RR; so were the last two. Plus I was correcting factual errors made by the other editor and fixing citations through Internet Archive in many of these edits. So they were good-faith attempts to fix the other editor's mistakes, including fixing his original research, not edit-warring; not that I hold my breath you will recognise my GF, given your serial violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV during this conversation.
So to conclude: You add two random diffs from an IP user that you only know why you connected to me. Then twice you count consecutive edits to beef up your baseless accusation that I was near 3RR while failing to recognise and acknowledge the value of my edits.
On top of your walls of text, which were WP:TLDR and I didn't bother to read, these clumsy accusations show a propensity for personal atacks and violations of the civility policy. I am afraid that any further discussion under such adverse conditions, as you have created through your continuing violations of our core policies, would be a total waste of time. I think you can talk to yourself from now on. You have earned it.
Oh, and in the future, don't try to accuse other people of 3RR violations. It is obvious that your grasp of WP:3RR is not anywhere near satisfactory. Same goes for your misguided IP sockpuppet accusations. Dr. K. 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • While I would like nothing more than give you the point-by-point refutation and smackdown that you so richly deserve, why should I bother? It's now abundantly clear that you fail WP:POINT; suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; and are now just (Personal attack removed). X4n6 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Historical nonsense[edit]

In the History section it says ' Steadily harassed by the Germans, in 58 BC the Helvetii decided to abandon the Swiss plateau...', which doesn't make sense taking into account that the formation of the German people didn't take place before 10th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.214.193.220 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it is ambiguous: I corrected it, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)