Talk:Switzerland/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

National Motto, Part 1

From the article: "National motto: One for all, all for one". Could you provide us with a source for this other than Alexandre Dumas? -- User:Docu

• A quick search on admin.ch yields Allocution de Madame Ruth Dreifuss présidente de la Confédération à l'occasion de la Fête nationale (also available in German and Italian) where Un pour tous, tous pour un is indeed mentioned as the national motto. Schutz 23:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm swiss, and I've never heard of it. Switzerland has no official national motto. Mme Dreifuss was pulling that out of her sleeve, it is Dumas. If there is anything that rings like a national motto, it would be "In the name of God, amen". This was the preamble of the Letter of Alliance, which was taken over to the constitution of 1848, and could not be kept out of the new constitution of 2000. It has attained sort of a proverbial ring, but it's not an official *motto* as such. dab 08:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've heard it before reading Ruth Dreifuss' speech on the web, so I doubt she made it up, but I can't find any other reference to it. I'll try to find something, maybe on http://www.swisshelpdesk.org/. Schutz 09:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course she didn't make it up. Alexandre Dumas did. It's a well-known phrase speech-makers are fond of, nothing more. — that said, some googling convinced me that it seems to be associated with the state somehow in the french-speaking part of Switzerland. eg.: http://www.distinction.ch/LD.Champignac/LD.Champignac.candid01.html : notre devise nationale, "Un pour tous, tous pour un !" — I assure you that, as a suisse alemanique, I have never heard of it. And even the french version seems to be only anecdotal, judging from the google results. dab 10:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence is pretty sparse; I'm going to send a few emails to some addresses @admin.ch, we'll see if they can find a reference. In the meantime, we can continue to assume that there is no official motto. Schutz 11:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the question is settled, thanks to http://www.swisshelpdesk.org (very quick, impressive and accurate service !). Short answer: UNUS PRO OMNIBUS OMNES PRO UNO is the official motto, which can be translated in French as described above and in German Einer für alle, alle für Einen. For a justification, look at the (beautiful) pictures of the dome at http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/in-fotografien.htm, in particular http://www.parlament.ch/Poly/Download_Fotos/in-pg-kuppelhalle-2-g.jpg: the motto is there, in Latin, in the middle. In addition, I received a (very quick as well) answer from someone from @admin.ch saying the same thing (they refer to the Bundeshauskuppel as well, but will send me a more complete answer). I'll update the article (Latin or English or both ?) shortly if everyone is happy. Schutz 14:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Latin+French+German+English, following the example of Belgium? Schutz 14:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have seen the inscription before, but I was not aware that it is anything like an official motto. good job! (to my excuse, there is not a single hit from admin.ch!)dab 14:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Truth be told I am dumbfounded, too. I think the motto warrants a paragraph of explanation. Otherwise I'm afraid we'll keep having people "fixing" it.Rl 17:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since I found a little bit of background material by googling using the latin motto (e.g. http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/mythen/english/schweiz.html ), and I'm still waiting for a more detailed answer from Bern. Where do you think it should go ? A new section ? Schutz 23:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to note how and when the motto was adopted, and put that note into History.Rl 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will wait until I get more info and work on that. Thanks. Schutz 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ah, but I suggest the latin is enough. otherwise, we'd need to give the motto in all four official languages, which would be over the top for something so obscure (only the romands seeming to have any awareness of it at all) dab 20:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather have no motto at all, but now that we're stuck with it, it would seem rather elitist to only quote the Latin version. At least an English translation in parentheses or something like that seems appropriate. FWIW, it turns out the motto may actually be pretty well known with the folks who went to school not too long after WW II, no matter what language.Rl 21:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the changes I made a few hours ago; I added the latin, German, French and English version. Any Italian or Romansh speaker around ? Schutz 23:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point made by dab was that there may be too many language versions already, not too few.Rl 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand that; I made the modifications so that we can see what it looks like. Personaly, I don't mind the multiple translations, but I can understand if a majority of people prefer to have only latin+English translation. Schutz 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

quite - I meant, of course, latin + english translation. NPOV would dictate to give a translation in either all four national languages, or in none at all, but I doubt that anyone will really care about it. The Bundeshaus inscription is, after all, in latin precisely to avoid having to choose either french or german. dab 10:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting reading, though I'm not quite convinced by [1] mentionned above, but, before debating this further, I supppose I should be writing an article about the "Federal Palace". -- User:Docu

Switzerland definitely has no official motto. See discussion (in German) under www.wikipeda.de ("Schweiz"). -- R. L. 20:21, 19 Jan 2006

You are very right, however, Switzerland has a traditional motto, which is still a motto. If the German Wikipedia provides more information than the discussion below and the newly created Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno article, please feel free to translate it and post it here. In the meantime, I have reversed your change. Schutz 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

National Motto, Part 2

I see that I missed some edits on the page about the motto, but since it was not accompanied by a discussion on this talk page, I thought I'd just repeat some of the points made in the edit summaries:

• A speech by Yves Christen, MP, confirms that the motto is correct
• A discussion on the German Wikipedia seems to conclude that there is no such motto.

Now I forgot to mention that the federal administration did reply, very quickly, to my request for documentation mentioned aboved. Unfortunately, by the time I received the documents, I had not much time for Wikipedia anymore, so I never used them. And of course, right now, one year later, I have a hard time finding them (or even remembering the details);-(. I will keep looking (I know I have them). In the meantime, I think the different links above are still a strong indication that the motto is indeed correct. As far as my understanding of German goes, the discussion on the German Wikipedia does not really give arguments to the contrary — please tell me if I am mistaken here.

Reisio: sorry for having been slow to write this entry, but I was checking in my emails to see if the people from admin.ch gave me any indication (there was none, everything is in the written documentation). But re-reading this section, it is my feeling that the consensus was in favour of the motto, and that new discussion should be required to justify a change, not to justify the status quo of the article as it was in early December. Schutz 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reference, Samuel Schmid this time: [2] Schutz 18:27, December 19 2005 (UTC)

the motto is correct as given. The fact is that most Swiss are unaware of it, as it plays virtually no role at all. All the more reason to give it here, so even Swiss people can learn something about Switzerland from our article. dab (ᛏ) 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What would personally satisfy me is (ideally) a letter (or email) from someone working at admin.ch (not something merely hosted by admin.ch, but the main admin.ch people) stating whether or not the motto is specified in any federal law, or if it is just something used traditionally (and then if it's used across the entire country). You're quoting politicians now, and I don't mean to inflict doubt upon you, but the president of my country, George W. Bush (along with most other popular politicians I can think of here), say some completely false things. They are not historians and they are usually not students of national law either - they're just making speeches to try and keep people sated. I hope Switzerland's politicians aren't like the USA's, but I am constantly reminded (by politicians worldwide) of how ignorant most are. ¦ Reisio 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion on de: is about the article here at en:. This is circular. So, we know that the phrase was written on the federal palace in 1902, and we know that several politicians have claimed it as national motto, and that people at admin.ch believe it is the national motto. We do not know where its status as such a motto was first set down, if at all. Maybe in the original constitution of 1848? I don't think GWB is a good comparison though; I doubt he could answer you which continent comprises the USA. But you are right that politicians less hopeless make mistakes too, and this motto business lacks a definite source. Pending further evidence, I would say the reply from admin.ch is good enough, but I would really like to learn about this bit of history. dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that motto is "set in stone" in either some law or the constitution. (Well, actually, it is "set in stone" in the cupola of the federal palace since 1902, but that we all know—see above. :-) But is that necessary? I don't think so. Schutz has so far quoted (I think) two politicians (Ruth Dreifuss (SP, left) and Samuel Schmid (SVP, right), both members of the Federal Council). Let me add a third: Yves Christen (FDP, center) in 2003. Methinks such a widespread consensus among politicians from different fractions is remarkable, even for Switzerland, and in itself supports the veracity of the claim that Switzerland indeed has a motto. Furthermore, I find it interesting that there is no discussion at all on fr:, where the motto has survived uncontested since May 28, 2003! Lupo 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh darn, I see that Schutz already had the Christen link. Where are my glasses? Lupo 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

we know … people at admin.ch believe it is the national motto

We do? I must've missed that, would you point it out? ¦ Reisio 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Schutz' statement that he got a reply from "someone at admin.ch". This is not more authoritative than Samuel Schmid or the others, it just corrobates that the "belief" is widespread in the Swiss administration. I agree we do need some sort of reference pointing out when and by whom the motto was adopted. I could imagine that belief in the "motto" simply "crept in" in a century of politicians passing the dome where it is inscribed. But Switzerland is so bureaucratic that I would be surprised if the precise status of the motto is not set down somewhere. dab (ᛏ) 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Promised, I will dig out the written response they sent me during the Christmas break. Schutz 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, right. :p Merry Christmas, then, all (or Happy holidays, if you prefer). ¦ Reisio 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas has arrived early this year, since I have already found the documentation. See new section below. Schutz 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

National Motto: official answer

So I have found the documents that were sent to me last year by the Department of defense, protection of the population and sports. The letter is signed by someone from the history department of the Federal Military Library. Here are the documents that I received:

• Cover letter, titled Devise nationale. No special information, except to mention that they send me documents that should be helpful for my research.
• One A4 page in German, with the title Devise nationale again, and just below "UNUS PRO OMNIBUS - OMNES PRO UNO", "EINER FÜR ALLE - ALLE FÜR EINEN", followed by the history of the motto.
• 2 pages in German, copies of the "Einer für alle" entry from a quotation dictionary (no direct mention of Switzerland, though).
• Title page of the Aeneid by Virgil, which seems to be where the original quote has been derived from
• A hardcopy of the page [3] where another politician, Max Binder, who was president of the National Council, cites the sentence.

The most interesting document is without doubt the A4 page. It indicates links to Arnold Winkelried and the battle of Sempach, but, interestingly, seems to indicate that it is not linked to Alexandre Dumas. Now, unfortunately, my German is not good enough to understand the details without using a good dictionary. On the other hand, I have re-typed the page as a text file, but can not post it on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. What I can do, though, is send an email to the person who sent me this documentation, and ask for permission to post/modify the text. In the meantime, I can send it privately to people who are interested, if you leave a message on my talk page, or (preferably) if you contact me through the Wikipedia "Send an email" link. It'd be good if a native German speaker could summarise it quickly. We'll see where to go from there. Schutz 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, thanks for e-mailing me that text. Here's the summary (a full translation would be a copyright violation, too, but if someone insists, I could do one; I personally think it might be "fair use" for analysis and criticism, one of the rare cases where we would be allowed to invoke this rule without violating our cherished NPOV policy, for we usually must not criticize... :-). Anyway, as Schutz has pointed out, the unknown author does link the choice of the motto to the deed of Arnold von Winkelried, who is is said to have opened a breach in the lines of the Austrian footsoldiers in the Battle of Sempach by throwing himself into their lances, taking them down with his body such that the confederates could attack through the opening and win the battle. (Lupo's comment: in the document, they do state that this was a popular myth, but then re-tell the story using a grammatical form that implies that it was factual. However, the legend was recorded first in the middle of the 16th century; earlier accounts of the battle do not mention Winkelried or any such event.) They go on to explain that the Winkelried myth was used extensively in the 19th century to "illustrate the willingness of the [Swiss] individual to sacrifice himself for [the greater good of the Swiss] society [or confederation]". (Comment by Lupo: that sounds very 19th century to me. The Winkelried legend was used as a national identification myth, and much of the uses in the 19th century contained a strong glorification element intended to induce a sense of duty in the individual citizen. Methinks it was less "illustrate the willingness" as "educate the people to show such willingness" by idolizing Winkelried as a model to imitate—of course not literally.)

On the cupola of the federal palace, they just say that the motto was put there. They don't even give the date, nor any indication as to the reasoning. (Lupo: I presume that there must be some old documents where that decision is recorded...)

They mention that "Unus pro omnibus - omnes pro uni" [sic] (Lupo: is that Schutz's typo? Or is that "uni" as in university?) is a popular motto of some Studentenverbindungen, pointing out "Thessalia", founded in Prague in 1864.

My typo, indeed. Schutz 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Then they elaborate on the origins of the motto in Aeneid by Virgil, where Neptune promises a safe journey to Aeneas at the price of the life of one of his companions: "Unum pro multis dabitur caput" (One head will be sacrificed for many). They say they have no source for the extension "many for one".

They conclude by stating that they have not been able to determine whether there was any relation between this latin motto and Alexandre Dumas' "Un pour tous - tous pour un", but that they don't think so. (Lupo: they don't explain why they don't think so.)

They also write that (exact translation now) "the proverb "One for all - all for one" can be considered the official national motto, for it has been set in stone in the cupola of the federal palace". (Lupo: they use the German "Einer für alle - alle für einen", not the Latin.)

My personal comment on this is that I find this rather inconclusive. The history is not very satisfactory; I do not see any compelling evidence that the Latin motto was linked to the legend of Winkelried. I think it is likely that the motto appeared only relatively late (19th century), and it may just as well be linked to the new federal state that arose in 1848, if one interpretes "one" as the federal state and "many" as the individual cantons, which to me makes sense since under the Ancien Régime and earlier, the Swiss Confederation was a rather loose conglomerate of individual cantons that were, in fact, politically largely independent and often had diverging interests. Stating that it was the motto because it was written in the cupola looks like reasoning the wrong way. I take the inscription in the cupola rather as evidence that already in 1902 the phrase was prominent enough and associated closely—in the minds of the people (or at least the politicians or the leading, educated class)—with Switzerland to be considered a "motto". Hence, it was written there because it was the motto, not the other way 'round. However, when and why exactly this phrase should have become the motto remains unanswered. Lupo 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. What is the source of the A4 page? Is it something written now, as a reply to Schutz' inquiry, or have they xeroxed something they found in their library? And, in either case, who is the author? Will we be able to say now that the "history department of the Federal Military Library" thinks it is the national motto, or do we have the opinion of somebody living in the 19th century?? All we want to know is if the proverb was chosen as a "motto" before it was set in stone in 1902, or if they just liked it and wrote it on the dome as they built it, and everyone has been thinking "nice, that's our national motto" since then. Maybe we should inquire again about who said first it was a national motto, and if there is a written document (or even the constitution) mentioning the proverb dating to 1848. I have been unable to find the text of the 1848 constitution, even on admin.ch. How sad is that. dab (ᛏ) 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. It's a 20th century text all right (otherwise it couldn't mention the cupola), but who wrote it when, I have no idea. As for the 19-century tone of it all and of some of the arguments: well, that's what you get when you ask the military guys :-P I've always thought most of them were living in the past. But I agree we should ask for precisions. Lupo 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a xeroxed page; they probably did not make it just for me, but it is recent, and coming straight from a printer. It is more or less a summary of the other documents they sent me (see above). The closest word to describe it would probably be factsheet, even though, as mentioned, there are not many facts in there. I'll take care of asking for precisions, in addition to the copyright question. However, I don't expect an answer before early next year, of course. Schutz 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on Wikipedia.de:Hat die Schweiz ein Motto???

In der englischsprachigen Wikipedia wird unter "Switzerland" behauptet, das offizielle Motto der Schweiz sei "Einer für alle, alle für einen". Stimmt dies? Wenn nicht, bitte löschen. Danke. W. Tell 2.11.2005

Das ist wohl eher das Motto der "Drei Musketiere" ;-) --Tschubby 18:33, 2. Nov 2005 (CET) Das ist natürlich korrekt - wer mal ins Bundeshaus geht, der sehe an die Decke in der Eingangshalle: Unus pro omnibus - omnes pro uno. Das ist aber nicht das offizielle Motto, wie in den USA (e pluribus unum) wo der Spruch - soweit ich weiss - Teil des Wappens ist. Man kann das also schon so stehen lassen. Ich würde aber die lateinische Form bevorzugen. --Sidonius 13:25, 3. Nov 2005 (CET)

Ich muss dir leider widersprechen: Das "Unus pro omnibus" etc. darf nur stehenbleiben, wenn man die von dir erwähnten Tatsachen auch in den Artikel schreibt. Alles andere leistet nur der Verbreitung von Irrtümern Vorschub. Die Schweiz hat nun mal, wie du selbst sagst, kein Nationalmotto wie z.B. Frankreich Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Es genügt ja nicht, dass im Bundeshaus wo was draufsteht. Sonst könnte man auch den Spruch Hominum confusione et Dei providentia Helvetia regitur nehmen; der ist doch noch viel bekannter. Also wenn schon, dann ganzen Artikel reinstellen, der die Frage klar beantwortet. --Seidl 13:59, 3. Nov 2005 (CET) Ich würde das ja gerne korrigieren, finde aber auf der englischen Seite über die Schweiz kein entsprechende Behauptung. Entweder wurde das schon gelöscht oder ich bin blind. Nach der History wurde jedenfalls schon seit einigen Tagen nichts mehr verändert. Vielleicht kann W. Tell das ja selber korrigieren.--Sidonius 17:35, 3. Nov 2005 (CET) Danke. Auf der englischen Seite steht unter der Fahne "Motto". Bis gestern war das Motto selbst abgedruckt, seit heute heisst es "none". Wenn man auf "none" drückt, kommt die alphabetische Liste der Mottos, und dort ist es immer noch drin. W. Tell 3.11.2005. Das ominöse Motto ist nun weg. W. Tell 15.11.2005

Clearly, Switzerland never had an official motto. R. L. 12/23/2005

Well, I am not a native German speaker, but I don't really see any real argument in the German snippet of text above. By the way, since it is the second time that the de: discussion is refered, it could be interesting if someone could replace the copy/paste of the German text by an English summary, with a link to the original text on de:. Anyway, at this point in the discussion, I don't think anyone can claim the use of the word "clearly". Schutz 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence; I just found today in a Swiss magazine a picture of an image dating from 1874, with title Gedenkblatt zum 19. April 1874. It represents a statue of Ms (Mrs ? Dame ?) Helvetia, with the Swiss flag on top, and the flags of the Cantons around the page. Below Helvetia is a plate saying Revision der Schweiz. Bundesverfassung, and below that, you guessed it, the sentence Einer für alle, alle für einen is carved in the stone. Unfortunately, it is very small and I don't have a scanner available. Again, this is not something that says officially "this is the motto, and it has been official since bla and bla", but it seems that it can be found at many places where you would expect an official motto to be. Schutz 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

interesting. maybe it was introduced in 1874. The German Wikipedia discussion is not really relevant; these are just Wikipedians saying that it is or isn't the motto. They haven't got as far as inquiring at admin.ch, and our reply from the defense department certainly trumps anon opinions on Wikipedia. But clearly, the burden of proof is on us if we want to claim it is the motto, and the defense guys have not provided anything solid. dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No scanner needed. Would that be this one? Lupo 15:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Full-size image here. Painter: E. Conrad, ca. 1874. 55.2×44.4cm, colored lithography on paper. Lupo 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed, congratulations on finding this one (note however that your first link seems to point to a completely different image). Schutz 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Well, I only accessed the Google cache of the first link (which only shows the text), as that first link is on a non-standard port 16080 that I cannot access. Some source inspections then led me to the direct link of the full image. Lupo 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you remove the port number, you access the same pages, and this is the one I see: [4]. Anyway, this is not important, since you have found the full-sized image. Schutz 15:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Click "previous" once :-) Lupo 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's an independent confirmation that the phrase was in use (and in connection with the Swiss administration) in 1877 (see page 8 of the 291kB PDF). Lupo 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This publication, p. 14 refers to the federal council using the phrase on October 6, 1868. The source given is "Protokolle der Konferenzen in Sachen der schweiz. Wasserbeschädigten vom Jahre 1868", Bern, 1869. While this doesn't establish the phrase's status as a motto (or not), it gives an even earlier date for its use in connection with matters relating to Switzerland. See also p. 20 of the same publication: on October 14, 1868, the federal council had a call for donations in favor of the victims of the inundations of 1868 published in the newspapers, apparently under that motto again. The source given is "Aufruf des Bundesrathes [sic] an das Schweizervolk und an die Schweizer im Auslande, Bern, 14.10.1868, BBl 1868 Bd. 3, S. 519–521". Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also of interest is this publication from the Supreme Court of Switzerland (Bundesgericht). It's in French, but on page 2, under "I.1.3", they write "the traditional motto "one for all, all for one" has no constitutional or legal foundation. ... [they then claim it had something to do with the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291!] ... It [the motto] does not concern the relations between individuals and has no legal standing". (Their term is portée juridique; I cannot come up with a good English translation for "portée", although I understand what it means). Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We also might add Thérèse Meyer to the list of Swiss politicians who think this was indeed the motto of Switzerland. Lupo 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The supreme court document clinches it for me. We can either be hardliners and say Switzerland has no motto, or decide "traditional" mottos are okay for all states, or we can tag " (traditional)" or something on the end. ¦ Reisio 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would give it (in the Latin form, with the English translation), and link the Latin version to its own article Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno that would explain it all (and also cover other uses of that phrase as a motto by other organizations, as well as its Cameo appearance in The Truman Show [5]). On the use as the Swiss national motto, it might say something like

Switzerland has no official motto defined in its constitution or legislative documents. The phrase, in its German ("Einer für alle, alle für einen") and French ("un pour tous, tous pour un") versions came into widespread use in the 19th century and was increasingly associated with the founding myths of Switzerland to such a degree that "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno" was even set in stone in the cupola of the Federal Palace of Switzerland in 1902. It has ever since been considered the motto of the country, although nowadays it is widely known only among the French-speaking population. Politicians of all parties and regions acknowledge it as the motto of Switzerland.

Add some references to the image of the cupola, the different 19th century uses we've found, the Supreme court document, and the various speeches by Swiss politicians we've uncovered. Lupo 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea (especially since I thought about it too...). I have created the page, and followed more or less your suggestions, although I have not yet been able to add all the links and information but will continue this over the next few days (I have lost the reference to Samuel Schmid's speech for now — it looks like the website of the President of the Confederation is reset every year, and all the links become dead. How silly is that ?). I am not too sure about your assertion that "nowadays it is widely known only among the French-speaking population". Although it seems to be true on Wikipedia (based on a very small sample size !), I don't know if it is true in the general population. My guess is that almost noone knows about it, French-speaker or not. Schutz 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google search for +"un pour tous, tous pour un" +site:.ch and then discard all references relating to Dumas, and also discard all speeches by politicians. There are quite a few mentions by ordinary people leaving comments here and there. Then do the same thing with "einer für alle, alle für einen"... basically only used on websites of (typically right or far-right) political organisations. Of course, this doesn't prove anything... Lupo 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

All this notwithstanding, I would still very much like to know how and when this phrase ended up as the Swiss motto, traditional or not, official or not. Lupo 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my fault, I should really push the people from the military department who originally sent me the information. Sorry about that. Schutz 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we have a better chance of getting some unbiased answers if we ask at the history department of the universities of either Berne or Fribourg (or maybe Basel). Lupo 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe we should copy what Venezuela has going on - says "none" with a footnote that says "Historical:…". ¦ Reisio 08:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What does historical mean for Venezuela ? Is the motto not used and not known anymore, or is like in Switzerland, where it just lacks an "official" document associated with it ? Schutz 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question for Talk:Venezuela. If we were to adopt something like that here, though, I'd most likely prefer something like "Traditionally: Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno". ¦ Reisio 10:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added a footnote, would that be a good way to explain things ? Schutz 10:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was fine, but now we're back at "none" with the footnote. I don't like that at all. Quite obviously, Switzerland does have a motto. Its only "flaw" is that it isn't an "official" motto defined in the constitution. Yet from all the evidence collected above, it appears clear to me that there is a traditional motto. Where is it defined that a national motto must be defined in a constitution or other legal document in order to be listed? Note that there is no dispute what might be the "motto" of this country. If we had several variants, then I'd agree with saying "none" and explaining what different variants were proposed by whom. But here we have widespread consensus among politicians (obviously not among us Wikipedians :-) about what is the motto, and a clear statement that it is traditional. Saying "none" just appears wrong to me. Lupo 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Politicians are not historians. ¦ Reisio 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? BTW, you dodged my question. here it is again: Where is it defined that a national motto must be defined in a constitution or other legal document in order to be listed? Lupo 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It means politicians are quite often idiots rallying around the flag saying whatever sounds good, so saying "we have widespread consensus among politicans" doesn't mean so much to me. I thought your question rhetorical. I don't have a definition nor would I bother seeking one out, but I imagine if I were one of the Swiss people that keeps coming around deleting the motto bit, I'd be thinking of a definition along the lines of "I'm Swiss, the motto has no legal standing (meaning our nation never agreed upon this motto), and...wait, what other justification do I need?". ¦ Reisio 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't speculate about the motives of the "Swiss people that keeps coming around deleting the motto bit". It is of course possible that they reason like you say, but it's just as well possible that they don't. We've already established that the traditional motto is not widely known among the general population. Frankly, until I researched it, I also thought there was none. Lupo 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "the motto of Switzerland" - instead of saying "this is the motto of Switzerland (footnote: ...except it's not, here's why)", it makes more since to just say "there is no motto, though some people have associated {phrase} as such". ¦ Reisio 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is going too far, I think. Given the amount of documentation that has been found and linked to, simply writing "Motto: None", even with a footnote, is misleading. And there is a huge gap between saying "It is not official, but traditional" and "... is sometimes associated ...". Schutz 13:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't have a map showing the area it's recognized and isn't. Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno#Motto of Switzerland claims it's mostly a French thing, and that doesn't exactly constitute a majority. My edit, I think, makes it both not incorrect and likely to not be altered every week by random users. Consider this: would you rather have someone associate you with something you may not be associated with (and are not legally associated with), then claim maybe you aren't, or have someone not associate you with something you may not be associated with, then claim maybe you are. ¦ Reisio 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's used and known also in the German-speaking part; however, it is not widely known there but mostly used only by politicians. Together with the many politicians who consider it the motto and the history department of the Federal Military Library who agrees, (and I could add some party web sites from Switzerland who also know it), I think it's quite a bit over the top to claim the motto was "none". On a related note: prove that Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit has a legal basis as the official German national motto :-P (Actually, I thought it would be easy, but so far I have not found a single official document saying so. It's written on the German Euro coins all right, and it's the first line of the national anthem, but that's it. It's not in the Grundgesetz, not found on http://www.bundesregierung.de/ (except as part of the national anthem), and a search on http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ also came up empty ... But don't go removing the motto from that article if you should not be able to prove it, ok? :-) Oh, and please note that I'm not suggesting that the first line of the Swiss national anthem was the motto... Lupo 15:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The same German-speaking part that spawned the de.wikipedia.org people that claim there is no motto? Politicians are not a reputable source, and the supreme court disagrees with the Federal Military Library. (nothing to say about the German motto...don't see how that's related or relevant) ¦ Reisio 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of the Supreme Court text. They do not say "Switzerland has no motto, Punkt Schluss.". They specifically say the "traditional motto has no legal foundation", but then go on talking about the historical foundation, even though I did not quote the rest of the sentence (maybe I should have. To put things back in context, the goal of the text is to show that the national motto is not (legally) binding on the citizens, not that it does not exist). I don't think that what people know is relevant to the correctness of an assertion; French speaking people may know more about it because of the close association with Alexandre Dumas, who knows. Hey, we may even find in an 19th Century document an unknown fact about the Swiss history, and even if noone alive today knows about, it does not render the fact incorrect. As for the politicians, I agree that they are not the best possible reference, but still... could they have been citing this motto for 100+ years without anyone telling them or commenting on the fact that they made a mistake ? Except here, I have not seen anywhere any doubt about the motto. In any case, from the encyclopedic point of view, I believe that the references cited in Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno carry much more weight than a random sample of de.wikipedia.org people (no offence intented for ranking them lower than politicians ;-). Schutz 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To Reisio: the guys over at de.wikipedia.org didn't even bother to do the most basic research on this whole topic; they just asserted that there was no motto. Even if politicians say whatever they want; if you have so many of them from parties from left to right saying and writing it, and nobody disagrees with them, then I do think they have a point. It is the traditional motto (as acknowledged by the supreme court document) and IMO deserves mention. The Germany case was an analogy: it looks to me that their "motto" isn't legally defined either, so if that's listed, then why not list the Swiss traditional motto? Lupo 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I demur, then - go ahead and change it back to what you like. Maybe add a comment (HTML) explaining the situation to would-be none-ers. ¦ Reisio 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Note that, however, in the meantime, I have sent an email to the history department of the University of Lausanne, trying to get more information and references from them, as you suggested to get more information from historians. I have never had any contact with them before, so I may not even get an answer, but it is worth trying anyway. If someone wants to do the same with other universities in Switzerland, please do — the more the merrier. Schutz 20:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, before I forget. I wrote to the Federal Military Library to ask for clarifications, a reference for the documents they sent me, and authorisation to publish them; unfortunately, the person who answered me last time does not work there anymore, so I got a new person to contact, to whom I wrote today. Stay tuned for possibly still more information ! Schutz 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Schutzcorrespondence4win ¦ Reisio 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very impressed on the depth of the discussion on the national motto of Switzerland. I read the whole discussion and I noticed that the german wikipedia was quoted several times as a source. On the german page of switzerland we decided not to mention the motto, because it is no official motto. This decision depends on your definition, what a motto of a country really is or wether it must be part of the constitution etc. Since the motto is not part of any swiss constitutional document or law (see source of the Federal Court) there is no motto for the german wikipedia. (a rather formalist approach) I don't want to mess with your business, but I think you should write "unofficial motto" instead of just "motto" under the coat of arms. Sidonius 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But it already says "(traditional)"? And it has a footnote? And an article explaining it even more? Were you looking at the latest version? BTW, as someone active on the German Wikipedia, maybe you could point me to where the German motto is defined officially? Lupo 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on National Anthem

Could we please add, ""Schweizerpsalm" (German) "Cantique suisse" (French) "Salmo svizzero" (Italian) "Psalm Svizze" (Romansh)", to the National anthems section? Blangland (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The infobox already links to Swiss Psalm, our (English-language) article on the song. There, in the lede, are all four title versions for the other languages, and we even include the lyrics (x4). I don't see the need to list five versions of the same song here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I do. As this page is referencing a country, this page should strive for accuracy.

Indeed, the swiss confederation has 4 names, not 1 name and 3 translation. The same goes for any official stuff (law, departements names, official allocution and of course the anthem)

So it seems quite obvious that when your talking about a contry whose multiculturality and multilanguality are a key part of switzerland itself, to include, according to swiss customs the four versions of the song, or at the very least there name.

Sorry for any language mistake 178.197.217.65 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

But this is the English wikipedia. The policy is to use English common names. Furius (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Switzerland Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023

Putting the language IPA as a footnote in the bolding title. — 216.49.130.5 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland is clearly Central European country

Switzerland is clearly Central European country in all famous great Western encyclopedias like E. Britannica, German Brockhaus and French LaRousse LaGrande etc.... We don't need to care about references some scholars own books, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thus it must rather follow the determination of other encyclopedias than the books of individual writers.--Pharaph (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Due to its location, Switzerland in terms of geography has been traditionally considered a part of BOTH Central Europe and Western Europe. However, it is often categorized as a Western European country due to its political, economic, and cultural ties with other Western European nation. Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources, and NOT tertiary sources like other encyclopedias. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Western Europe consist France, and the British Isles, and since 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) the Benelux countries.

Economic development could not determine cultural-geographic categories. Large European regions were determined rather as broader cultural borders, than simple Geography. For example: Ireland was always part of Western Europe, depite for a long time , it was a infrastructurally economicalkly very backward and poor country, however the rich Switzerland was cnsidered as Central Europe. According to economic historians, since the medieval era, the Central European German states (in average as a whole) were always slightly richer and economically more advanced than the purelly Western European France. IT also clearly prove, that the level economic or technological or infrastructural development simply can not make a country Western European.--Pharaph (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The UN categorises Switzerland as part of Western Europe (also written and referenced in that article). Encyclopedias don't decide stuff like that, the UN does. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to care about references... Of course we need to care about references. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. And the UN, for one, classifies Switzerland as "Western". But it's not likely to be profitable to argue about this here; our own Central Europe article goes on at length about the various classification schemes for Western/Central, so I think it's impossible to find some definitive conclusion to resolve the issue here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

UN categories still use old cold war era terms, when Europe was divided into communist and capitalist countries by the iron curtain. It lasted only for 40 years. According to most organizations of UN, Central Europe does not even exist, making Europe the only continent of the Globe, which does not even have a central part. However, what is more relevant and important, UNESCO (which is the scientific and cultural organization of the UN) rejected and revised that backward cold war era terms, and it uses the Central Europe term even for Switzerland. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22central+europe%22+switzerland+site%3Aunesco.org&ei=jBw8ZJDHMcqF9u8PyrWWmAM&ved=0ahUKEwiQvY7V467-AhXKgv0HHcqaBTMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22central+europe%22+switzerland+site%3Aunesco.org&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQA0oECEEYAVDeEVjNLWD7MmgBcAB4AIABQ4gB7geSAQIxN5gBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

--Ősterem (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not so-- The search "central europe" switzerland site:unesco.org gives 7390 cites see this link, but "western europe" switzerland site:unesco.org gives 16,600 web sites more than twice as many, listed here. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A fairly unimportant issue and one even Swiss people like myself are unwilling to spill much ink on. (I'm quite literally Swiss on it.) Those terms are all extremely relative and context-driven. I don't think there is any need to change the already very accommodating wording of the current introduction. Trigaranus (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Traditional cultural borders of Europe: https://i.redd.it/gv1nxbz5imu71.png Ősterem (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If you learn about art history, architecture you can clearly see that Switzerland is not Western, but Central European country. countries of the former Holy Roman Empire, especially German ones are traditionally Central Europen, let's don't forget that 80% of Switzerland were German in the early 19th century yet. Due to artistic taste and architecture, It is hard to see any "Western European" in Switzerland. Ősterem (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia must follow the basic statement in the led of "switzerland" articles of ALL famous great Western Encyclopedias (let it be French English German spanis or Italian language), which are define Switzerland as Central European country. ALL OF THEM.

In such beginning basic statement that a country is located in XY part of a continent in the LEAD of the article, Wiki had to follow the consensus of the great encyclopedias (as encyclopedical consensus) instead of the statements/opinion of some individual authors in various books. Of course you can and must use the references of books in the body of the text to support the statements of the text, but please do not use them for such very basic statement in the beginning of the lead.--Pharaph (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows it's own policys. It does not need to follow any consensus of any encyclopedia. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Everybody could start a reference war (it is not edit war) I can collect 2000 book references from Google Books searcher to support the Central European Switzerland idea, and you can collect 2000 references of backward cold war era thinkers (where Central Europe term does not even exist on the map!). That's why I said that individual authors of books in this regard are not relevant in the LEAD of the article, if the encyclopedic consensus does not support that at all. You can (and must) use book references from of individual authors to support all sentences in the body text, but please, the most basic info in the LEAD must more based on encyclopedic consensus. --Pharaph (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Lead follows the MOS:Lead Guideline, which is the consensus on how the lead section should be. If your 'encyclopedical consensus' is something else, then it won't and shouldn't follow that. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Than the rules must be rewritten, the rules are not carved in stone, with consensus and enough support we can rewrite the rules of the lead section. All other major national encyclopedias consider Switzerland as central European country, the only exception is Wikipedia, which does not follow that consensus in the lead. At least such basic info like the location of a country must follow encyclopedical consensus instead of simple book references. Present info of Switzerland sounds UNENCYCLOPEDIC. 78.139.57.121 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't Germans not invade Swiss in WW2

Why didn't Germans not invade Swiss in WW2? 102.46.158.75 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

See here. Nobody (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Basel is not located on the Swiss plateau

The second paragraph of the introduction says that the major cultural and economic centres of Zürich, Geneva and Basel are located on the Swiss Plateau. This is of course not correct what concerns Basel. I don't know if the original writer wanted to mention Bern instead. (I preferred writing this here instead of directly editing because it's quite a major article still.) 217.64.242.138 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

2 "Environment" sections

This article has 2 environment sub-sections which need to be merged (one is under the "geography" sub-sectionand the other under "education and science").. Swiss romulus (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Gaeta

In the Federal state section of the article it says:

"It came with the expectation of serving the Holy See, and the Swiss were still obliged to serve Francis II of the Two Sicilies with Swiss Guards present at the siege of Gaeta in 1860."

However, according to Foreign soldiers in the risorgimento and anti-risorgimento : a transnational military history of Germans in the Italian armed groups, 1834-1870 (page 175-176):

"After the “revolt of the Swiss” on 15 May 1859 in Naples, the Swiss formations were dissolved that August, and the soldiers were left the option either to return home or to stay in southern Italy. The formally “Swiss” regiments were replaced at the end of 1859 by new “foreign regiments”. The ranks were filled by those Swiss soldiers that had chosen to stay and by newly arrived recruits, mostly from Austria and southern German states."

So were the Swiss obliged to serve the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies at the Siege of Gaeta or not? Howard🌽33 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

British English

Is British English the best and most appropriate choice for most Swiss pages? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say so. Tuna^VeniVidi_Vici 01:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is. Nobody (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

French control

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)

Cantonal bodies

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

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)

 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. HouseBlaster^talk 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Vernacular language

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)

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)

 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)

 Fixed and  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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

 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)

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)

(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?

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)