This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Swiss minaret referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 77 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2009 Swiss minaret referendum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2009 Swiss minaret referendum at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A news item involving 2009 Swiss minaret referendum was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 November 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
An 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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved.Unanimous consensus. ∯WBG converse 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
– 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Swiss minaret referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 77 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2009 Swiss minaret referendum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2009 Swiss minaret referendum at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A news item involving 2009 Swiss minaret referendum was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 November 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
An 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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved.Unanimous consensus. ∯WBG converse 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
– 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)
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)