Talk:Women's suffrage in Switzerland

Untitled

Added translated material from the German version. Tjepsen (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason for delay - not!

"The principal reason for the delay of the Swiss relative to the other European countries is the importance of direct democracy in the political system. In fact, the introduction of federal and cantonal universal suffrage necessitated the vote of the majority of the electors, men in this case, for a referendum. Moreover, a new federal constitutional reform must likewise be approved by the majority of the cantons." I think it is not the "principal reason". Refer to Philippine women suffrage plebiscite, 1937, women's suffrage in the Philippines was settled in a special plebiscite held on April 30, 1937, in which only men could vote. Ninety percent of voters were in favor of the measure. Women had voting right before France and Italy although such right was granted by plebiscite in the Philippines. So I think that there were other reasons for such delay in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis309 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to agree to the previous poster, and point out a further example - women's suffrage was introduced !by popular vote! in California in 1911 - so same argument: it was only men voting there as well, and nevertheless they introduced the vote for women. The argument (that late introduction is due to direct democracy in switzerland) is apologetist in my view (sad to say it is also brought forward by (at least one) swiss political scientist themselves... :(. 188.98.177.13 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion/theories, strained correlations, or reference to similar cases is not a good reason to either include or remove any information in a Wikipedia article. Please focus on including or removing content based primarily on the statement of reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) while maintaining a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). While I have reviewed the content in discussion myself and do completely agree with it's removal (as there were no legitimate citations to back up the statement in question), I write this with the hope that you and future readers will keep these policies, as well as Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy (WP:NOR), in mind. A dc zero (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please adhere to basic wikipedia guidelines when editing this or any other article

I don't mean to be condescending in any way, but there this is a long article with a number of edits and it doesn't even begin to vaguely adhere to Wikipedia's content guidelines. Please read before editing if you are not at least vaguely aware of Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:CCPOL) or citation policies (WP:CITE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A dc zero (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit to improve readability: the "Advances and resistance 1900–1959" section should be summarized or otherwise sub-sectioned

As it is written, the "Advances and resistance 1900–1959" contains a lot of information. Some of this information could probably be trimmed for the sake of brevity, or at least sub-sectioned for the sake of organization and readability (assuming all of this information is even citable). Perhaps it could be re-organized around the World Wars, as much of the information within the section seems to reference one of the World Wars in some way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A dc zero (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this good for school

I need this for school and i dont know if this is ok pls tell me 2A02:C7C:A4F6:8B00:BDB7:A7E3:B4D9:75E5 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)