Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss referendum "against corporate Rip-offs" of 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'not to delete'. there is no real consensus here as to what should happen with the information on this page but there is little support for outright deletion. Discussions concerning what to name the page or possible merging can continue on the appropriate talk page. J04n(talk page) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss referendum "against corporate Rip-offs" of 2013[edit]

Swiss referendum "against corporate Rip-offs" of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the incorrect title format, the article is not required as it duplicates Swiss referendum, 2013 (which any useful text can be merged into). Author of article claims it needs a separate one because other language Wikipedias have them, but no other Swiss referendum issue has a separate article on the English Wikipedia – all are included on single articles about the (often numerous) referendums in each year (there are some articles on single referendums, but that is because they were the only referendum that year). If we had a separate article for each issue, we could end up with over 500 articles as to date there have been 571 issues put to Swiss voters). Number 57 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

585, not 571, see the reference in my remarks below. Smirkingman (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you provided gives 569 referendums, plus I have included the two Helvetic Republic referendums. See here. Number 57 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Swiss Government website is the primary source. That spreadsheet contains 585 referendums, I'm not going to list them here. Bickering contributes nothing to the debate. 92.107.89.35 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the primary source, but the Excel sheet does only contain 569 referendums - the last one is listed as 569 p - 03/03/2013 - Loi fédérale sur l'aménagement du territoire. Where are you getting 585 from? (Genuinely interested as there may be some for which articles weren't created). Number 57 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The 585 initiatives, counter-projects, etc.. They are indeed numbered 1 to 569, but when there's an initiative and a counter-project, that's two items; 82.1 and 82.2 for example. I shall not reply any further on this particular point. Smirkingman (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I created this page because it has equivalent pages on the German, French, Esperanto and Alemannisch - for this specific referendum question. If there's a problem with the translation, or someone has a better one, then that's fine. However, this (rip-offs - and in context, corporate rip offs) appears to be the correct dictionary definition of "Abzockereit". See here: http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/deutsch-englisch/Abzocke.html . The French word, for instance is "remunerations abusives". It doesn't really matter if this is the first separate page for a Swiss referendum question on the English language wiki. This was a big deal in Switzerland, and one of the most significant corporate law reforms anywhere in the world on this topic. That appears another reason why it has specific pages in the languages I mention. Thanks very much, Wikidea 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is why you cannot include this in the existing article? Number 57 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one reason, this is the third highest ever referendum vote in Switzerland: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksinitiative_%28Schweiz%29#Angenommene_Volksinitiativen . Also, there are individual pages for all the other languages. Cheers, Wikidea 18:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As well as that not really being a valid argument, you are wrong about it being ranked #3 in terms of votes in favour. That table only shows a selection of referendums (People's initiatives that passed). There have been many more referendums which received a far higher proportion in favour. In just two pages of Nohlen & Stöver's Elections in Europe book (pp1906–1907, referendums from 1900 to 1919) I found seven referendums with higher approval levels. Number 57 19:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, I congratulate you on your research. You'll probably want to tell the authors of German Wikipedia who have written, "Dies war die dritthöchste Zustimmungsrate zu einer Volksinitiative in der Schweiz überhaupt.[1] and a journalist who they cite: Marc Brupbacher: «Die Demokratie explodiert». In: Tages-Anzeiger. 3. März 2013, abgerufen am 3. März 2013."
Life doesn't matter this much though. The page is important and should stand alone. Wikidea 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is true and thankfully Wikimedia UK were kind enough to buy me the book in question to have the data easily to hand. The German writer may be correct about it being the third highest approval rating of a People's Initiative, but People's Initiatives are only one of five different types of referendums in Switzerland. Number 57 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the third most popular people's initiative ever. Great. That seems like a good reason for it's own page. This is, once again, a very, very significant corporate governance reform. I'd be more glad if you'd use your knowledge - you're clearly a good researcher - to improve the page than delete it! Wikidea 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very misleading statement ("third most popular people's initiative ever") given that turnout was only 47%. I still fail to understand why this specific referendum deserves special treatment. Number 57 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you still don't understand - not that I'd say you were "pathetic" as you've called me - I'm afraid I can't help. Wikidea 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the concensus be Rename, I would suggest the initiative name be "Against the Rip-off", in order to remain as close as possible to the spirit of the original German title. ('die Abzockerei' is singular.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirkingman (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say Swiss executive pay referendum, 2013 is a good fit - "executive pay" is the term used by the BBC, the Guardian, Business Week, CBC, Euronews, Reuters etc. Number 57 21:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your proposed translation shows a complete lack of understanding of Minder's text, like your sources (Since when is a BBC journalist a reliable primary source to translate Swiss law? Why not the Sun and the Mirror whilst you're at it). I would suggest you read and grasp the original texts in [German], [French] and [Italian]. It's not a referendum on pay, it's about giving power back to the shareholders; if the executive does a good job, he'll get his huge bonus. Please, failing a sound command of one of our languages, be so good as to refrain from suggesting ridiculous translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirkingman (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do not neccesarily name things by their official names or translations of official names - please see WP:COMMONNAME. It's quite clear that English-language media are referring to this as a referendum on executive pay. Number 57 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The French is equally official and it is "remuneration abusives" - literally "abusive pay". But the context of each language is about abusive executive pay, or corporate rip off. If this is now a debate about the name, this is not the place for it. Wikidea 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thomas Minder states that the English title for his initiative is "against rip-off salaries". Email from his assistant:

Claudio Kuster <username_redacted AT minder DOT sh>

6 Mar 2013 23:52 (21 hours ago) to <username_redacted AT calvert DOT ch>

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your article posting. Could you please alter the name of our initiative to its official name: "against rip-off salaries"

Further, some dates are wrong. The initiative's launch date was 10/31/2006, the submission of the signatures on 02/26/2008. Proove: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis348.html

Thank you!

Freundliche Grüsse

Claudio Kuster Persönlicher Mitarbeiter Ständerat T. Minder

Trybol AG Rheinstrasse 86 8212 Neuhausen am Rheinfall

Tel. +41 52 672 23 21 Fax +41 52 672 19 40 username_redacted AT minder DOT sh

http://www.minder.sh

As pointed out above, we do not go by official names, but rather the common name. Number 57 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's rather questionable whether we need "compilation" articles like Swiss referendum, 2013 constructing a "three-part referendum" - in fact, these are three very different referenda held on the same date. The "family policy" one was a change to the Swiss constitution proposed by the government (with mandatory referendum); the "spatial planning" one on the other hand was a federal law proposal which only was put to the referendum because the opponents gathered the required amount of signatures (the so-called optional referendum). And the one discussed here, the Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «gegen die Abzockerei», is a different case again, a popular initiative requesting a change to the constitution (not originated in Parliament or in the government). - As there are many referenda in Switzerland, there are often several grouped together for voting at the same date, but that's all they have in common. In my opinion (and practice over in the German-language Wikipedia), all popular initiatives in Switzerland which have been put to vote merit an individual article. Although there are only about forty articles for Swiss constitutional initiatives over at de-WP yet, according to the notability guidelines of de-WP, they would all be notable. Of course, this is the English-language Wikipedia... but I think they are not less notable here. After all, every Swiss popular initiative is about changing the constitution. And I don't think that "over 500 articles" would be a problem if they're good articles. If this is the first one - well, we have to start somewhere :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57 has, once again without discussion, and when everyone including Thomas Minder obviously disagrees with him, moved the page (which comes after twice trying to delete the page altogether). And this after we have an official email, which effectively resolves the name problem. All because he created his little Swiss Referendum 2013 page, and he just can't seem to stand that it isn't the centre of attention. Serious WP:OWN issue. Wikidea 09:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now you have messed it up by moving to an incorrect title and leaving double redirects everywhere. As you seem to be ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, standard naming formats and making personal attacks, sadly I think my initial assessment of your behaviour may be correct. Number 57 10:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted this page to dispute resolution :( Smirkingman (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the proponents' statements were true, this is not a notable Swiss petition. No evidence has been presented that it's more notable than most of the 569 or 585. (The fact that the article was moved while under AfD suggests that the AfD should be continued until the article is stable for 7 days at the same name, or at least until the AfD link was stable for 7 full days.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, could you identify the statements on this page you consider to be false please? Minder's initiative is notable because it was accepted just as the European Union is proposing new laws to curb the bonuses of banking executives. France’s Prime Minister Jean-Marc_Ayrault ["was inspired by it"] and there has been considerable press coverage both in Europe and America. WP articles are assessed for notability on their individual merit, not by being more or less notable than articles in a similar vein. Your 7-day suggestion is wise. Smirkingman (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a bit: The list linked above, 585 initiatives, counter-projects, etc., is a list of all referenda ever held on federal level in Switzerland. Although I still don't think it would be a problem to say that they're all notable (585 or so articles - potential articles which might be created over time - are not an unmanageable number, and after all these are referanda of nationwide importance, every one of them), I think we could also restrict the notability to the popular initiatives amongst the referanda: these are requests by the electorate to change the constitution which have to be voted on, and the number of those which have been "zustande gekommen" (i.e. they gathered the required number of signatures and a vote has taken place or will take place) is currently 301, see de:Volksinitiative (Schweiz)... btw, I think it's a glaring gap in English Wikipedia that we don't have a dedicated article about Swiss popular initiatives (Volksinitiativen), ony of the major instruments of democracy in Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding the comment by Smirkingman, "There seems to be a confusion between "initiative" and "referendum", two totally different things", I think there's also some additional explanation needed: From a Swiss point of view, Smirkingman is of course entirely right. In Switzerland, the terminology is as follows: If the vote is about a proposed law which was challenged by gathering signatures, it's called a "referendum" (the opponents have "das Referendum ergriffen", as we say in German). If the vote, however, is a about a popular initiative, people don't call this a "referendum" in Switzerland. But in this context we have to note that such a vote is still a "referendum" according to English usage (i.e. "referendum" is still the appropriate English word to describe the act of entitled citzens voting on a particular issue, even if it's a change of the constitution). This fact, that voting on a popular initiative isn't called a "referendum" in Switzerland, might occasionally lead to confusion. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "initiative" and "referendum" exists in California, as well, although, to add to the confusion, there are "legislative initiative"s. I'm not sure "referendum" is the correct word for this — whatever it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, in the English language "referendum" is a generic term for any type of popular vote regarding a law, constitution etc., but of course I might be wrong (my native language is Swiss German). I think we could call this article "Swiss popular initiative..." instead of "Swiss referendum..." - though I'm not sure that is very meaningful for the majority of English-language readers (i.e. it's probably not general knowledge that "popular initiative" in Switzerland means "request to change the constitution leading to a popular vote"). There are no "legislative initiatives" in Switzerland as such, i.e. a popular initiative can only initiate a change of the constitution (introducing new content into the constitution, or modify existing parts), but not initiate (mere) federal law (as said above, federal law proposals can be challanged through referendum, though). This is of course a rather strange situation leading to a bloated constitution containing things that would better be placed in "mere" law - and there are proposals to introduce legislative initiatives, too... but I fear I digress; after all, this is a deletion discussion ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge since we already have an article. The vote per canton is probably relevant content, but should we do this for every referendum?, DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss_referendum,_2013 is about the referendum which took place on the 13th of March 2013. This article is about Thomas Minder's initiative which was submitted in 2008 (and it should be updated to reflect this). Smirkingman (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support a rename if this article is kept. Given that English isn't an official language in Switzerland, it's unlikely that the initiative was submitted as "against corporate Rip-offs" or "against rip-off salaries". Currently, it just strikes me as bad English to have either as an article title. Formal legislative titles tend not to use the term "against" (actions are implied in the text), "rip-off" (slang and POV) or quotation marks (requires additional context). Baring in mind the audience here, I think a more formal translation would be more appropriate than a direct transliteration - in spite of what the original author may want. Funny Pika! 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiss_referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013&oldid=1138811130"