Talk:2009 Swiss minaret referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International reactions[edit]

Well, all the reactions listed are negative, but how about the positive reactions the ban provoked in Europe (e.g. Netherlands)? IMO, they also merit to be mentionned in order for this article to be informative and "neutral".. As they are now, the article makes the impression of being not completely free of political biases.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.233.107 (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add any - please make sure you include reliable sources so that your edits are not reverted. Codf1977 (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Danish People's Party has also supported the ban together with the Dutch Party for Freedom, as well as Marine Le Pen of the French Front National, and Roberto Calderoli of the Italian Lega Nord. Sources: [1], [2], [3] -TheG (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we are not looking for reaction from random characters of right-wing or neo-völkisch outfits. We are looking for reactions from acting government officials. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is simply stupid and makes no sense. Lega Nord is part of the Italian government, the Danish government has relied on support from the Danish People's Party since 2001, and the Austrian parties make up one third of the Austrian parliament. They are thus not merely "random characters of right-wing or neo-völkisch outfits", which is nothing more than a false and rather bigoted comment. (Please refrain from this clear POV agenda and such hateful characteristics.) -TheG (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is a pleasure to discuss with somebody subscribing to WP:SPADE. I have no qualms in telling you, therefore, that your above comment is idiotic nonsense. Obviously members of a national government are also members of the party. This doesn't make statements of their respective parties equivalent to statements of governments. Your comment on being "bigoted" or "hateful" is a joke. It the descriptions of the ideologies of the parties in question is taken from their respective articles, where they are fully referenced. If you want to argue about the characterization of Vlaams Belang, take it up on Talk:Vlaams Belang. If you have a statement from a member of a national goverment who is also a member of one of these parties, by all means cite them, but cite them using their office, not their party membership. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters if they are statements of governments or not they are statements from parties in those countries. The article is not misleading in any way it is clear who is making them and the comments are attributed to notable parties who all have there own WP article. The article risks looking POV if there are not views from both sides expressed. So I am reverting the last change. Codf1977 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you think it "does not matter" whether a statement is made on behalf of the official government of a sovereign state or on behalf of a private association? You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean that both sides need to be given equal weight, but that each side needs to be given adequate relative weight. Just because there are "two sides" to a question does not mean that they have equal notability or weight. Read WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, per WP:UNDUE we need to be careful not to give any weight to statements by tiny minorities who are generally ignored in this context by reliable sources. Hans Adler 09:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I do understand WP:NPOV - but removing all comments from one side of the argument just because they are not official comments as you did with this edit gave the impression of POV. I think the section heading "Reception in European right-wing populism" is POV and I am going to change that, I also what to know if the German response was an "official" one, it came from a member of a party in government but was it an official one or just a personal one - Reading the ref would seem to suggest it was more personal than official. The Swedish and French reactions were clearly official as they came from foreign ministers. Codf1977 (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in "international reaction" sections, we usually just quote government officials. My first edit was to separate the right-wing party comments in a standalone h4 section. After Gabagool reverted this, I chose to remove all non-government quotes altogether, to get in line with common Wikipedia practice. Currently, I have restored an improved version of the h4 standalone solution. When members of a nation's government (i.e., ministers or heads of state) speak to the press, it is usually perceived as statements by that government (not in a legally binding sense, of course, just in the sense of a press release). If the German statement does not have such a character, it should be removed. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with the current style of the matter. It was not I who edited to the style of "flags and points" which could make the impression that these were official responses from nations. I was even just about to propose the section to be edited to how it is now, but found it had already been done. -TheG (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UN Human Rights Council "defamation of religion" resolution does not mention Switzerland. The link to the Swiss minaret ban was made explicit only by the OIC, not by the letter of the resolution. It is thus misleading to imply that the UNHRC has condemned the Swiss sovereign for passing the ban. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That case is now accurately described in Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland#Negative (the last point), but someone applied it elsewhere where it wasn't accurately described and indeed doesn't say Switzerland was only expicitly mentioned by the OIC. I reverted the duplicate mention again. --Pudeo' 00:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry that I missed it in its previous form, although this was hardly strange as it was buried underneath tons of rather irrelevant comments by fringe parties. I have now restructured the section so that it is in line with my interpretation of WP:BALANCE. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! --Pudeo' 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) --benjamil (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, any article which cites the UNHRC for ANYTHING is not reputable nor can it in good conscience be sourced by anybody. Just more Islamists ruining Wikipedia for everyone else.75.170.23.127 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia[edit]

Hi. I included this article on the "Islamophobia" template. This was partly a response to an on-going debate at that template's talk page. The template has since been removed by two editors, and restored by one. I'm not very experienced with using templates, so I don't know if this is even feasible, but would it be a move toward consensus if we could place the template less prominently, e.g. halfway down in the article? Given the rather massive responses (see for instance [4] [5][6]) to the event tying it to islamophobia, I believe that the linkage - disputed as it may be - is still warranted. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the template does take quite a lot of space. Perhaps it could be reformed with [show] & [hide] brackets like most templates such as template:antisemitism so that would partly solve the problem. I do think the term Islamophobia is a bit controversial as in to be brought as the main template in an article like this – but on the other hand I can see why it's relevant to the template. I'll try to do the bracket things and see if anybody likes it better that wya. --Pudeo' 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia? There's nothing wrong for the Swiss not wanting minarets just like I can't build a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. It's their country they can do what ever they want. Does that mean I should coin a word Christianphobia and tag that onto the Saudi Arabia articles? So ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.66 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is a hateful and bigoted law, second of all, this is not a forum to discuss this stuff anyway. 75* 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the "Islamophobia" template which consists a blatant example of "hateful bigotry" and it is nowhere even near Wikipedia's ideal of neutrality. I will not comment on "hateful" or "bigoted" laws in real-life, because this is a matter of opinion and irrelevant here, but such blatant attempts of abusing Wikipedia for cheap propaganda really have to be stopped on sight. If people want to make the case that "Islamophobia" is a thing (as opposed to a propaganda term), let them quote secondary sources that make such a case, but they cannot just make their "point" by slapping self-rolled propagandistic templates on articles. Just because it is a "template" doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion, or can ignore basic content policy.
the neutral descriptor of this "controversy" is "resistance to Islam in Europe", and the article is properly so categorized. All resistance to Islam in Europe will be dubbed "Islamophobia" by people who think there shouldn't be any such resistance because it is "hateful and bigoted". One is a neutral description of what is happening, the other is an opinion. It is a no-brainer to conclude which is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia's voice and which is not. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swiss minaret referendum, 2009. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved.Unanimous consensus. ∯WBGconverse 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– At the federal level, Swiss citizens vote on about ten questions per year. As described in voting in Switzerland, the word referendum is only used to describe specifically mandatory referendums and optional referendums. Both of these refer to votes on decisions of the parliament. When the civil society propose a constitutional change, it is a federal popular initiative. Consequently, as naming conventions recommend to "Choose the terms [...] according on which term is appropriate to the relevant country", those should be titled "initiative". 83.228.178.55 (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For other editors, I think it's worth holding off on commenting on this RM until the SPI report is closed, as this discussion will be archived if the report comes back positive (and it looks pretty clear to me). Number 57 11:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppet investigation initiated by Number 57 has been terminated with no action taken against the account reported. -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on the basis that the edits were too old – I think it's pretty poor form to fail to mention this context, as in no way has the IP been cleared of being a sock. Number 57 08:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the investigation was terminated without any action taken, does this not officially absolve the reported IP? (At least on the basis of online traces.) Is the principle of the presumption of innocence absent in Wikipedia? Are you going to keep on insisting that the reported IP is a sock? Wouldn't that be equivalent to smearing? What am I missing here? I don't understand. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't absolve them. It's simply a case that it wasn't checked quickly enough to identify whether it was a sock or not. In terms of WP:DUCK, this is fairly clearly a sockpuppet based on behaviour. Number 57 09:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm opposed to sockpuppets as much as anyone, but, at the same time, I feel bound by the policies and official processes of this website. If the Wikipedia investigation did not come up with something, then we have nothing. Our personal opinions are all legitimate but they are not policy. So, let's close this down asap. It has been a totally legitimate RfC, as evidenced also by the responses it received. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the move has been proposed by an editor who appears to be a prolific sockpuppeteer is highly relevant to whether the discussion is valid or not. It's also noteworthy that your (infrequent) recent edits have a quite clear crossover with the sockpuppeteer in question... Number 57 15:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the SPI has yet to be concluded, talk of 'facts' seems premature. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the SPI has been concluded. Are we expecting anything else? -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not. It's a shame it wasn't checked quickly enough, and it's even more of a shame that other editors piled in to !vote here when this was highlighted as being an issue. With sockpuppetry, edits by socks are generally supposed to be reverted even if they are constructive because otherwise allowing them to stand encourages the behaviour to continue. Allowing this RM to continue is in a similar vein IMO – the sock has got what they wanted. In hindsight, given the obviousness of the sock, I should probably have closed the discussion immediately. Number 57 09:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, we are done here. That's good news. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve move. If a 'referendum' in Switzerland is something put to the people by the government, and an 'initiative' is something proposed by ordinary citizens, it is only logical to use the correct term in article titles. It isn't as if the term 'initiative' is particularly obscure, and redirects can of course be created for anyone searching for 'referendum'. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP with a strong crossover with the sockpuppeteer and use of the same unusual terminology for supporting the move as above... Number 57 16:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it is your intention to disrupt this discussion by accusing every participant of sockpuppetry? Or only ones you disagree with? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to ensure that any contributions from editor(s) who should not be editing here are dealt with appropriately. We've had enough disruption in this topic area. Number 57 16:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I suggest you stop disrupting this discussion. As an admin, you should be fully aware that throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry willy-nilly is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility at minimum. WP:SPI exists for a reason. Either use it (after finding better evidence than 'this person has copy-pasted the previous persons edit formatting') or shut up. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an accusation made at random – it's based on clear behavioural evidence. Hopefully one of the checkusers will respond at the SPI I've already filed. Number 57 16:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the change in nomenclature. This does not (should not) affect anything of substance in the articles. Redirects should be deployed for anyone looking for "referendums." We should also add a link in every one of those separate articles to "federal popular initiative", so that users learn about the difference. A simple but correct change, this. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are technically correct, but "initiative" seems more appropriate, given that in Swiss constitutional law there is a clear distinction between a "referendum" (opposing a statute) and an "initiative" (proposing a constitutional amendment). Sandstein 22:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons already given and because "initiative" is the form used in the German, French and Italian Wikis. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the correct term in the Swiss political process. — JFG talk 03:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Can we close this down already? It's July and snowing heavily. -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this discussion closed and by whom?[edit]

Irrespective of the merits of the case, the way that this discussion was closed looks highly irregular. The summary fails to show the outcome and the basis on which it was decided. It is difficult to avoid the impression that someone has allowed judgement to be affected by a tangential allegation of sockpuppetry. Please explain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to strikeout irrelevant comment [especially as I see now that it was misdirected]. However the main point still stands: the discussion ought not to be closed in anything less than a week. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the move header, so the move discussion will still show as open. There has not yet been an official closure, and the move has not yet run the full seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Small note: let's not forget that "seven days" is, under normal circumstances, a minimum and not a maximum. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum&oldid=1196550717"