Former good articleSwitzerland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 6, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 20, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 17, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 21, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
January 9, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2004, August 1, 2005, August 1, 2006, September 12, 2007, September 12, 2008, September 12, 2009, September 12, 2010, September 12, 2011, September 12, 2013, September 12, 2015, September 12, 2016, September 12, 2017, September 12, 2018, September 12, 2019, and September 12, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023[edit]

Council of Europe figures (2012) suggest a population of around 30,000 Romani people in Switzerland. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://minorityrights.org/country/switzerland/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit semi-protected)) template. I would object to including 2012 information in the demographics section, and it is not entirely clear where in the section it would fit. HouseBlastertalk 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonal bodies[edit]

Can detail be added on how the various cantonal govermental organs (cantonal legislatures & executives) relate to one another? It does not appear they are vertically integrated as the Federal Assembly and Federal Council are. Are the elections of both organs held at the same time in parallel elections? Does this mean that its possible to have a cantonal legislature controlled by a different party than that which controls the cantonal executive? Criticalthinker (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is defined by each cantonal constitutions: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2001/523_fga/de. See also p.267 in: http://www.wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-political-system.pdf. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but can this be written about, generally? It appears that in all cantons that have a legislature and executive, they are elected separately, correct? Criticalthinker (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct. All cantons independently elect their legislature and executive. The party composition of the legislature need not have a direct influence on the composition of the cantonal executive. Rather, the executive is elected independently and the public usually votes for 7 or 9 "ministers" themselves rather than parliament electing them as is the case on the federal level. However, this process varies between cantons. LPZ (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French control[edit]

No doubt there was a French control over Switzerland between 1798 and around 1813. But in order to put that information in the infobox, we need to have reliable sources. The date 5 March 1798 (beginning) is plausible, but needs to be sourced. The date 7 August 1815 (end) is in my opinion far-fetched and almost certainly wrong (much too late), and a very probable earlier date also needs to be sourced. Sapphorain (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request: Vernacular language[edit]

Updated request

This is the updated request, reflecting the current state of discussion. Please continue the discussion at the end of the Discussion section.
Requested edit: In the Infobox country, please add

| languages_type = [[Vernacular|Vernacular language]]
| languages = [[Swiss German]]<ref>((Cite book |last=Coray |first=Renata |url=https://dam-api.bfs.admin.ch/hub/api/dam/assets/3543997/master |title=Schweizerdeutsch und Hochdeutsch in der Schweiz: Analyse von Daten aus der Erhebung zur Sprache, Religion und Kultur 2014 |last2=Bartels |first2=Lina |date=2017-10-02 |publisher=[[Federal Statistical Office (Switzerland)|Federal Statistical Office]] |isbn=978-3-303-01278-9 |series=Statistik der Schweiz |location=[[Neuchâtel]] |language=DE |trans-title=Swiss German and Standard German in Switzerland: Analysis of data from the census of language, religion and culture 2014 |format=PDF |access-date=2024-01-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029103218/https://dam-api.bfs.admin.ch/hub/api/dam/assets/3543997/master |archive-date=2023-10-29 |url-status=live))</ref>

Signature: 62.144.37.161 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is the original request, kept intact here for chronological reading, followed by the discussion.
Requested edit: In the Infobox country, please add

| languages_type = Vernacular language
| languages = Swiss German

Reasons:

  1. This language is not mutually intelligible with any variety of Standard German (which includes that it is also not mutually intelligible with Swiss Standard German)
  2. This language is spoken by ~80% of the Swiss citizens, ~60% of all people in Switzerland (including foreigners)
  3. As a spoken language, Swiss German (a variety of Alemannic) unquestionably dominates daily life (including business and broadcasting) in the Alemannic area of the country (commonly called: «German speaking» area), which is the largest in terms of population, economy, political power, and land area.
  4. This language is almost exclusive to Switzerland
  5. People who grew up in the Alemannic area of Switzerland typically consider Swiss German their native language, and Swiss Standard German a second language (usually the second language they learned first, followed by one or more of French, Italian, English, less so Spanish or Romansh).
  6. The language is thriving, including new media productions (mostly TV, music, less so in books), a subjective increase in courses / evening schools for immigrants (including Germans!) to learn the language, and so forth.
  7. Using any variety of Standard German (including Swiss Standard German) is frowned upon in the Alemannic area, unless addressing someone from Romandy, Ticino or the Italian-speaking part of the Grisons who does not understand Swiss German.
  8. The Swiss often refer to Swiss Standard German as «Schriftdeutsch» (literally: «writing German») to differentiate it from their beloved vernacular Swiss German (High and Highest Alemannic). There is no such distinction in Germany or Austria, where everything --spoken or written-- is simply referred to as «Deutsch» (literally: «German»), which is understood to mean the respective variante of Standard German (as opposed to a dialect or vernacular).
  9. While there is an ever-growing corpus of written fiction in Swiss German, it has not been standardised (neither in spelling, grammar nor vocabulary), as is typical of vernacular languages.
  10. While spoken Swiss German is cherished and well-regarded, even in business, written Swiss German only saw widespread adoption during the past 20 years and is not (yet) accepted in the realms of education, business, law or state. (Advertisement is an exception to this rule and sometimes employs written Swiss German.) This dichotomy between spoken and written language is also typical of vernacular language.

Similar such languages exist in Switzerland, albeit to a much lesser degree, with Arpitan in Evolène, Bavarian in Samnaun and Alpine Lombard in the Grisons and Ticino. I am frightfully ignorant as to the extent in which they are still passed on to new generations, dominating daily life (in their respective region) and thriving. They are, however, definitely not of any national importance comparable to Swiss German, with full-blown TV series production, et cetera.

Thank you. --195.52.63.102 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Unable to implement—A reference was not included with the request. Any change made to the infobox must be accompanied by more than the suggesting editor's say-so concerning a claim statement's purported validity. Also, please note that when the |languages= parameter is activated along with an already-existing |official languages= parameter, the resulting text displays in the infobox as "Other languages".  Spintendo  22:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed and recycle Reopened. While listing it as «Other languages» would be tolerable, I tested the combination of |languages_type= with |languages= as used in the requested edit and it rendered as expected in the Wikipedia:Sandbox, just like it does in the Infobox Country of Guyana, too. One suitable source is published by the Swiss Federal Statistics Office, who authored it in cooperation with the Institute of Multilingualism of the University of Freiburg (Switzerland). All of the following statements are according to that source (unless explicitly noted otherwise):
  • «Swiss German [as opposed to Swiss Standard German] is omnipresent in the German-speaking part of Switzerland».
  • This diglossia is «identitätsstiftend» (literally: «identity-giving») for the population.
  • In all of Switzerland, 63% use Swiss German regularly.
  • That number is 87% for the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
  • Only 7,5% in the German-speaking part of Switzerland do not employ Swiss German (as opposed to (Swiss) Standard German) as a main language. «main language» is defined as: «The language in which you think, and of which you have your best command.» (My comment for some context: The German-speaking part of Switzerland accounts for ~2/3rds of the population and territory.)
  • These data were acquired as part of the federal 2014 census.
The <ref> code for that source was added in the updated request (see section above). Please re-evaluate my edit request.
Thank you :-) --62.144.37.161 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely NO. It's written that way in the constitution. Linguists say so, also. As you say, it's a diglossia, therefore German is totally correct. BTW: I am Swiss for many Generations, as opposed to the initiater. Pedriod. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article 4 of the Swiss Constitution merely names the national languages. It does, however, not make any other statement regarding languages.
  • You seem to be mistake about something: Nobody has any intention of removing «German» from being listed as an official language. This is purely about adding one more language, and about adding it explicitly not as an official language.
  • By agreeing that it is a pronounced diglossia, you can hardly argue that one of the two is irrelevant or even non-existant. The statistics prove otherwise, anyway.
  • While I stated my preference, I also indicated previously that I will not argue about whether it should best to be listed as «Other language» or «Vernacular language», which is to say I support both (a case of preferred vs unpreferred indifference).
  • The infobox is incomplete without listing «Swiss German», which is a «main language» for the majority of people in the country.
(Swiss German comment expressing my refusal to accept anyone's lineage as an argument in our discussion: U suscht lan i mi nöd la vo dinere Nebelkerze verwuusche 🤷‍♀️). Please do source future statements and keep things fact-based. Thank you :-) --62.144.32.184 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually very simple: German means both, the standard and written language, as well as the vernacular or spoken language; in other words: it implies the diglosia. Both are German languages. There is no need to change anything. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution specifies «German» as a national language. This is to be understood as «(Swiss) Standard German», and it does neither include nor imply «Swiss German».
According to Article 70 Section 1 of the Constitution communication with the federal state happens in German (and French, and Italian, and sometimes Romansh), which is to be understood as Swiss Standard German. This is why you do not have a legal right to receive official federal communication in Swiss German, and you do not have a legal right to address the federal authorities in Swiss German. (There may be accommodating arrangements as a courtesy for those who genuinely cannot speak Standard German (nor French, Italian, or Romansh), but signs of goodwill don't imply a legal right.) The same is true for every cantonal constitution (in case it includes German to begin with). If you seriously doubt that, feel free to ask a lawyer; this is so basic, that they should all know it, no matter their specialty. It is also a level of discussion I'm not willing to waste my time with, so this shall be my last reply.
My position is «Add Swiss German to the infobox one way or another, but do not add it as an official language.», so please count this message as an advance vote in case there is to be a WP:3O later on.
Thank you. --62.144.38.55 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"which is to be understood as Swiss Standard German." – NO. Period. That's the source of your fundamental error. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit semi-protected)) template. Pinchme123 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think adding Swiss German / Züritüütsch as a vernacular language would be a good idea, given that it's the main language of interaction between people in town, presumably before English in second and Standard German in third place. (Not sure if I have to list my ancestor's heimatorts here, he he.) Trigaranus (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Fellers, that's what you get for editing with a massive migraine... Somehow I had got my signals mixed and, in a minor (?) brain fart, conflated this discussion with another one from a few years ago that was about Zürich. I know it looks bad, but before anyone chalks this up to me being just another self-absorbed hipster from Züri, let me assure you that I am actually from a small village in Aargau. I am also fully aware that this is true for about half the stuck-up Züri hipsters you'll ever meet, but I hope you'll take my humble admission as a sign of good faith) Trigaranus (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC), oder?[reply]
I agree. Swiss German is the main language of interaction -- period. Overall, the majority of the population uses Swiss German, as opposed to (any kind of) Standard German, as their «main language» (see the statistics I cited above). This holds true even when including Romandy, Ticino and the Grisons, simply because the German-speaking part of Switzerland is so large and Swiss German is so very omnipresent there.
However, do not conflate Züritüütsch with Swiss German -- Züri West will get mad, and needlessly provoking anger like that doesn't rank too high in terms of Swissness and Konkordanz ;-) (and of course, that conflation is also objectively wrong…).
Thanks for expressing your opinion in the matter :-) --62.144.38.55 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designation of capital city in the infobox[edit]

Hello all- I noticed that in the infobox, Switzerland's capital was presented as a two-line list, the first line reading "None (de jure)", and the second "Bern (de facto)". Initially I just wanted to nix the italics, as both terms are part of the English lexicon and needn't be treated as foreign words. But I found the presentation to be awkward, and the "None" to be unnecessary due to the "de facto", especially as the latter had a pop-up/tool-tip note, so I deleted the "None (de jure)" altogether. 1AmNobody24 reverted my edit, with this edit summary: I disagree with your changes. It's not unnecessary, The capital is normally designated by law and in Switzerland it isn't. This is fact, so your change is wrong. If you disagree, take it to the talk page. So here I am. Disagreement notwithstanding, my change was not "wrong", though I can see where some readers might not see the "None" as redundant. For the moment, I have removed the italics again. Eric talk 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times before. See this comment. If you want to learn more about it, see here. None (de jure) is accurate. Nobody (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I neither stated nor implied that it was inaccurate. Thanks for the link to the January 2022 discussion, I wondered if the topic had been discussed before. I now see that it has been a couple times. The anonymous IP editor makes good points, as does Zhantongz, in what looks to be the final comment there. Worth noting that the AHD and the Cambridge Dictionary give seat or center of government as their primary definitions of the word capital. Eric talk 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Capital of Switzerland could be expanded into a full explanation of the situation? Furius (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Capital of a country is decided by its government, no one else. Using descriptions from dictionaries to determine what the Capital is would be original research. There are sources that explain why, in 1848, they didn't decide on a capital per law (de jure). [2] in the article is one. This also explains it. Nobody (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to claim otherwise, no one is trying to "decide" what Bern's status is, so admonitions regarding "original research" are irrelevant here. I posted the links to the dictionary entries for edification, nothing else. Those entries explain how speakers of the English language employ the term capital, regardless of what anyone might assert a city's official legal status to be. No one is trying to override the Swiss constitution by citing a dictionary. Eric talk 21:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you tried to change the accurate description of the situation to a less accurate one, because you found it awkward and unnecessary? Makes no sense to me. Nobody (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking "none (de jure)" is not redundant, since the de jure situation could be that some other place was the capital (as with Palestine and Montserrat). On the other hand, I note that in the cases of Taiwan, Portugal and Canton of Zürich, which are exactly analogous to that of Switzerland, we consider a note explaining the situation to be sufficient. Furius (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: Thanks for the input. @1AmNobody24: No need to tell us you are having trouble making sense of things. Eric talk 22:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't explain your edit better, then you don't have to start being condescending. Nobody (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for @Eric's edit has been very clear: saying "Bern (defacto)" already implies that the "dejure" situation is different, so there is no need to specifically state that. None of your comments have really engaged with this. I raised the obvious objection in my comment, but, as I note, the counterargument to that objection is that in many identical cases we don't include "none (de jure)". (and past discussions have found that even the Swiss government is far from clear on the matter) Furius (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I agree it could be moved to the note with an explanation. But I don't know know what kind of consensus would be needed for this / How big of a discussion. Nobody (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in English Wikipedia, the ordinary definition of English words should be used, unless a relevant context requires otherwise. Swiss government has also referred to Bern as its capital from time to time, though not in legal texts. From my point of view, there is no reason why Ottawa is the capital (without note) of Canada but Bern is only the de facto capital when both countries' laws specify the "seat of government" and not "capital". Canada does have a National Capital Region legally defined, but NCR is not Ottawa: Ottawa does not include all parts of NCR and NCR does not include all of Ottawa's municipal boundary. Or as I noted before, Paris and London lack even the seat of government designation.
The Swiss situation is interesting, but I stand by my old comment that such situation is not that unusual to warrant special treatment in Infobox and it seems like a Swiss "exceptionalism" to specify it that way. Going strictly by legal text would result in a lot more countries having a note contrary to the usual understanding on how the English word "capital" is used and recognized by people and government. Zhantongz (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024[edit]

Albert Einstein is not Swiss, but he is listed in this article as being a Swiss scientist. The link to his page clearly shows that he was born in Ulm, Germany. 76.75.11.234 (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Einstein was a Swiss citizen from 1901, which is why he is listed as a Swiss scientist. If you still believe he shouldn't be, you may wish to attempt to form a consensus before re-opening the request. Irltoad (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories