Talk:2018 Swiss sovereign-money initiative

References

Hello. I added as much references as I can since I created this article. Please, do not hesitate to add some more or comment here on how to improve it. Thank you.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

The article's unnecessary and the content should be covered at Swiss referendums, 2018. Number 57 13:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia's guidelines ask its users to give their personal opinions about the 'necessity' of any given article? What about the category on popular initiatives in Switzerland?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

Comments from a confirmed sockpuppet struck. Number 57 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

For your information, see the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

International supporters

Hello. Do you think that the following information should be added on the article?

• Martin Wolf (reference);
• "Economists in Britain, the Netherlands and Germany also support the idea" (reference).

Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

Yes, the information is evidently relative to the subject and the sources are entirely acceptable. They can be added to the article without a problem. For the overall tone of the article, I comment further below. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Further information

Hello. For your information, the German-language version contains a lot of interesting material. Do not hesitate to have a look on Vollgeld-Initiative.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

Balanced presentation

The article suffers quite seriously from a one-sided presentation of the subject; specifically, it seems to support, and quite strongly too, the initiative of the referendum. I'll attempt to redress the imbalance over the weekend, while all interested parties are, of course, welcome to lend a hand. Yep, that June 2018 referendum will hopefully be an opportunity for people to learn a few things about the true nature of banking operations. -The Gnome (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The most important effect of the initative will probably be to make it clear that credits make deposits, although many bankers including the director of UBS Sergio Ermotti on Teleticino TV on 15 February 2017 still spread the old-fashioned theory that deposits make credits (defended until the 1970s). Any help, including yours of course, is welcome to improve the article. Thank you!
Adèle Fisher (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC).

The direction of money creation is already known practically everywhere in the banking sector. (See, for instance, this recent, seismic paper by the Bank of England.) But educating a wider portion of the people about this and at the same time turning them towards a completely pointless direction is wrong. The Swiss referendum is about an entirely baseless and erroneous understanding of banking and especially central-banking operations. The Positive Money crowd is doing a serious disservice to the struggle to educate people about Macroeconomics and Finance. It is a great pity, Mr Richard Werner. -The Gnome (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And the WP editors who are WP:NOTHERE and appear to be interested only in promoting their pseudo-greenie deflationist horsedung POV are not even able to find proper secondary mainstream coverage to establish notability or the noteworthiness of article details. They've been at this for years and they will sooner or later be banned when somebody feels like taking the time to document all this delusional disruption. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject of the article, i.e. the coming Swiss referendum of June 2018, is independently and eminently notable, as evidenced by numerous reliable sources. A great Wikipedia contributor might create an article that fails the notability criteria and a lousy contributor an article that meets them. Irrespective of who created the article, the page must stay up, lest we render a serious disservice to Wikipedia users. --The Gnome (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the consensus at this AfD is rather to keep the article. Deleting an article on the grounds that the creator is blocked or banned is absurd. An article should be deleted because of lack of notability, coverage, or a real and concrete reason. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin, both the editors contesting the deletion were previously canvassed by the now-blocked creator to comment at the AfD. Cheers, Number 57 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That is true, but as I already explained in the AFD that she just notified ever person that participated in her previous AfD. Since every participator in it had Keep !voted, she notified only Keep !voters. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There were two other participants who, whilst not !voting delete, expressed concerns that the subject may not have been notable (econterms and power~enwiki). These editors were only notified after I pointed out her canvassing in the AfD. Number 57 16:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no issue here. I readily concede that I was canvassed. But, while the party doing the canvassing should suffer the consequences of their action, the article should not be affected, because a subject's notability is not affected by actions or omissions of Wikipedia editors. -The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I undertook a bit of a serious clean up of the article so as to get rid of most of the biased tone. Work remains to be done over the weekend, but it will not be done on a Saturday night! :-) The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You have not improved the sourcing. This is not a notable subject. If it passes and changes the course of human history, then you can start an article on our descent to the merriment of medieval money. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported assertions ("this is not a notable subject") in the face of evidence is not constructive. Wikipedia demands that we support notability through sources; the sources exist, in abundance! The article has been cleaned up from bias and I will finish the work today. As things stand, the article has not been edited exclusively by a banned user, so WP:G5 no longer applies. This whole bizarre effort to erase from Wikipedia a comfortably notable subject has no basis on facts. Perhaps there is some kind of vendetta against the banned user, or it's something else going on, but I don't have time for any of that. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect naming

Quick note to confirm that this is not a referendum but a popular initiative (ie constitutional change, as opposite to challenging a law). Correct names could be Swiss Vollgeld initiative, Swiss Sovereign money initiative, or Sovereign money initiative (2018). Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 12:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

None of those are acceptable names. See WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Number 57 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes they are: "Choose the terms (..) according on which term is appropriate to the relevant country". In this case in Switzerland, where it happens to be a proposed constitutional change at the federal level, it is an initiative, not a referendum. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

Greetings, all. I hereby assert that editor SPECIFICO has engaged in a series of arbitrary, unreasonable, and (more prominently than all else) non-neutral edits in the article.

SPECIFICO has removed large parts of informative text along with the respective sources, passing personal judgement on the content of the removed text. Here are samples, with diffs and SPECIFICO's self-revelatory summaries inside brackets:

1. "Removed blithering nonsense about Irving Fisher" (removed a Bloomberg article about the referendum's background)
2. "Remove commentary from primary-sourced staff working paper" (that was an IMF paper that was removed; nothing "primary" about it)
3. "Shorten and remove mixed up note that has some misinformation" (removed part of paper by UMKC economist; removed reference to other PK economists)
4. "Remove opinion cited to non-RS" (removed the source to the paper behind the referendum!)
5. "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website" (removed reference to similar initiative in the United States, known as the NEED Act)

And so on, and so forth. SPECIFICO has some very strongly held viewpoints about Economics, like lots of people have, but seems dead set on imposing those viewpoints on Wikipedia articles without the least concern for balance! All this, served with hostile, when not insulting, language, a standard piece of the repertoire, e.g. "You have nothing constructive to add there", "You belong in a nutshell", etc.

What does the community think should be done? Perhaps a proposal for a page ban or even a topic ban is in order. -The Gnome (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring all the personal aspersions, let me ask you what you think we should do with an opinion column that starts off by saying Irving Fisher won a "Nobel Prize" that didn't even exist until 20+ years after his demise? Do you think that's a reliable source? SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's one thing to correct an incorrect piece of information in a Bloomberg report (e.g. by placing a "sic" next to it) and quite another thing to delete it altogether. You deleted the whole report! Bloomberg simply provided a background to the story of the referendum; in it was one single mistake about Irving Fisher winning the Nobel "prize". But you deleted it because it presented "the other side" of the money argument, which you are doing battle with. It is time for you to learn to work within Wikipedia rules and customs. As it happens, I personally find the whole referendum project ridiculous. Nonetheless, my duty as a Wikipedia contributor is to offer a balanced overview of this issue, and of every issue. You, on the other hand, are working on a mission. We cannot have that. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That Nobel Prize thing was not from Bloomberg. Bloomberg checks facts and is generally RS. The Nobel bit was from somebody's opinion column on a non-notable local website. We don't deal with non-RS, obviously false, "facts" on Wikipedia by writing "sic" following them. Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The false bit of information, on which you hang your whole argument, could have been omitted. Plain and simple. Whether Irving Fisher had won the Nobel prize or an Emmy is information not affecting the report behind the referendum at all. The source simply cited the alleged inspiration behind terms used by the Swiss initiative. Of course, your stated intent is to rid Wikipedia of "nonsense", etc, so being on a "mission", you saw fit to delete the whole thing, so as not to allow falsehoods room in Wikipedia, or some such notion. That is and not encyclopaedic work. -The Gnome (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have taken the matter to the ANI noticeboard. This is the first time I submit such a report. I wish it would not turn out this way but I truly find it impossible to reason with SPECIFICO. And it seems I'm far from the only one. -The Gnome (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• SPECIFICO came close to edit warring with me, changing or reverting comments made by Martin Wolf, a respected economic columnist of the Financial Times, which I tried to add to this lemma. In contrast to a lot of critisism, he encouraged Swiss voters to vote in favor of this initiative. His arguments are noteworthy but against mainstream. His warnings about the present financial system are very serious and worth to be included here. SPECIFICO called part of it fluff.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my edit. What I did was ask you to come to the talk page per WP:BRD and present your view as to why the longer version of Wolf's opinion should be in the article. The longer comment, giving one man's view as to the general functioning of global monetary institutions and systems is off-topic and UNDUE. The shorter version is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried to reason with you, and I even tried to humor you (e.g. in the Talk Page of this article, during the AfD discussion, in my own Talk Page, etc). You, SPECIFICO, are incorrigible.

As to whatever small substance there is in your comment above, you're of course wrong yet again. I do not expect you to either understand that nor accept it. Instead, we will have more hostile and aggressive behavior and irrelevant WP:WIKILAWYERING. What a waste. -The Gnome (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

BBCLCD, I disagree almost entirely, as it happens, personally, with what Martin Wolf wrote, and have no respect at all for his opinions on matters monetary and banking. But I will fight as best and as long as I can so that the man's views, when and to the extent they are relevant, appear as appropriately in Wikipedia. I will not hound ideas that are notable. The ideas behind the Swiss referendum, the NEED Act, and other similar expressions of the anti-fractional banking camp, are all foolish, in my view, and it's a quite strongly held view, on the basis of logic, experience, and knowledge. I know quite well what Positive Money is about; and it's basically a foolish prospect based on half-understanding how modern money works. Again, I will NOT advocate those ideas of mine here. Wolf et al shall have their day here because here we have an encyclopaedia and not a personal forum. That last bit should be made understood by users such as SPECIFICO, one way or another. -The Gnome (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

'Historical context' section is WP:OR

Creating 'historical context' by selecting old sources which Wikipedia contributors think are relevant is about as clear-cut a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy as can be imagined. Any 'historical context' needs to come from sources discussing the referendum which provide it. Failing that, the section must be deleted. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I shall delete the section. I suggest that anyone wishing to recreate a 'historical context' section finds sources which actually discuss the historical context of the referendum, rather than attempting to decide for themselves what they think is relevant. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I see this WP:OR has been reinserted, without the slightest attempt to respond here. So much for encyclopaedic content. Not that it will matter I suspect, since now the referendum has failed, the POV-pushers responsible for this tendentious essay will probably rather have it forgotten about. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Original research"?! Complete and utter nonsense. This transparent attempt to promote in Wikipedia agendas and personal opinion will meet the strongest possible resistance, at least from me, as long and as well as I can. The sources cited are all reliable per Wikipedia. Historical context is typical and standard feature in encyclopaedic articles. The"POV-pushing" is perpetrated by the likes of you specificolly. As an economist, I can easily see the trivial misunderstanding behind the Swiss initiative, but as a Wikipedia editor and unlike the likes of you, I'm not here to advocate either for or against any side in the referendum. We have a duty to present a neutral and balanced article about the referendum to Wikipedia users. You want to be on board for this, fine. You choose to pursue a holy crusade against false prophets, you will be resisted. -The Gnome (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What 'POV' am I supposed to be pushing? I have added nothing whatsoever to the article. All I have done is removed content which does not refer to the topic of the article. And I suggest you drop the hysterical tone, as it is doing nothing whatsoever to enhance your credibility. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no "hysteria" here, at least not from me. I'm simply trying to explain to you that POV-pushing is unnacceptable in Wikipedia. In every article about a historical event, every event that took place in history, it is trivially imperative to have some historical and social context, always of course on the basis of sources. We are dealing here with some initiative that went to the polls in Switzerland in 2018. Right - but where did that come from? What are the ideas behind it? Who are the people pushing for it? Are there and have ever been any previous, similar motions or actions? What has actually gone down before? Or elsewhere? And so on.

Providing answers to these questions is not only fully legitimate but our obligation. If you cannot understand this, you probably are new to encylopaedia editing or even use. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming your complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy towards original research. It is no in any shape or form the responsibility of Wikipedia contributors to 'provide answers' to questions we have ourselves asked. Instead, we look to see if sources directly discussing the subject matter of the article have asked such questions, and if (only if) they have asked such questions can we include their questions - and their answers. Deciding for ourselves what we personally think constitutes 'historical context' is a sure-fire way to introduce all sorts of bias (conscious and unconscious) into articles. We don't do that. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The questions I posed are not literally questions "we have ourselves asked". They were posed rhetorically to demonstrate what questions an encyclopaedic article is supposed to be answering. It's the same as asking "When was she born?" when discussing an article about a historical person. Pretending not to understand what the other party says is a disingenuous and of course trivially defeated line of "argument." But, now that you cannot claim misunderstanding, please tell us how exactly historical context should be avoided in Wikipedia so as not "to introduce all sorts of bias"!-The Gnome (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid bias? Find sources directly addressing the subject of an article. Read said sources. Summarise, as carefully as you can, what the sources say. Not guaranteed to avoid bias, but it helps. Deciding for yourself that the 'historical context' for a referendum taking place in Switzerland in 2018 can be found in "a six-page memorandum" written in Chicago in 1933 looks a sure-fire way to introduce bias to me. Unless of course the topic of the article is actually intended to be 'What a few Americans with a bee in their economic bonnet think about Swiss referendums'. In which case, the article needs renaming... 86.147.197.65 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, again. Citing the words of a long-dead economist to provide historical context for an article on, for example, austerity policies, would perhaps also seem to you as "a sure fire way to introduce bias" in the article. Yet, it's standard encyclopaedic practice.

It's actually standard scientific practice (SOTSOG and whatnot) but in your zeal to find bias where no bias exists you cannot accept this fact of life. And I already explained that, in real life, I have published articles ripping apart the nonsense promoted by people such as the referendum's instigators. So, accusing me of bias in favor of the referendum's proposal is a gift for me; it's one unexpected source of hilarity. Stop that, it tickles! -The Gnome (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If one would do a Google Scholar search on the Swiss Vollgeld Initiative and just look at the English language sources and their content, you'll find reputable sources mentioning multiple sovereign monetary reform proposals and their historical interconnections, including the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. Find below eight [correct: seven] sources mentioning and/or analyzing and/or commenting the Swiss Vollgeld Initiative, including, for most, links, bit of context and RS status of the authors.

• Eckrich, Lucille L. T. 2017. “Monetary Transformation and Public Education”. In Hartlep, Nicholas & Eckrich, Lucille & Hensley, Brandon (Eds.),The Neoliberal Agenda and the Student Debt Crisis in US Higher :Education. New York & London: Routledge. 233- 250.

Under the sub-heading “Macro-Level Monetary Reform and Transformation” Eckrich discusses the Dutch, Swiss and US proposals for monetary reform. See pages 234-7.

Lucille Eckrich is Associate Professor at the Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Illinois State University. She writes about, discusses and promotes sovereign monetary reform in the context of her concern about student debt.

• Huber, Joseph. 2012. “Monetary and Banking Reform: Bringing back in the Monetary Fundamentals of Finance”. Journal of Economy & Society / Gazdaság & Társadalom (Hungary), 4/1-2: 38–53.

Under the sub-heading “A new monetary reform movement in the making” Huber discusses over three pages English, Swiss, German and US efforts for monetary reform (44-47) and dedicates another four pages discussing their differences (47-50).

• Huber, Joseph. 2014. “Monetary reform as incremental innovation”. Sovereign Money: Website for New Currency Theory and Monetary Reform.

Huber groups the different national efforts together on page 2:

“Examples of well-designed programs of reform initiatives are the American Monetary Act and H.R. 2990 by the American Monetary Institute, the Bank of England Act in various presentations by Positive Money, the German Monetative reform program, and the proposition for a constitutional amendment by the Monetary Modernisation initiative in Switzerland.”

Joseph Huber is Chair of Economic Sociology at the Martin-Luther-University in Germany. He writes about, discusses and promotes sovereign monetary reform.

• Kroll, Matthias. 2015. "The Monetary System In Crisis: Monetary reform proposals, and a simple suggestion for a more effective monetary policy". Future Finance – Discussion Paper No. 1, 07/2015. The World Future Council.

According to the writer 'This paper provides a summary of the current challenges our monetary system is facing and offers an overview of the different ideas for reform, discussing their practical feasibility“. It mainly discusses the German Vollgeld proposal but refers also to the US, UK and Swiss variants of sovereign monetary reform.

Mathias Kroll is working on his Ph.D. thesis on financial theory and politics and is chief economist at the World Future Council.

• Lainà, Patrizio. 2015a. “Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf”. Economic Thought, Vol 4, No 2 (28 Sep 2015): 1-19.

Under the sub-heading “Legislation and Civil Movements” (16-17) Lainà mentions the sovereign monetary reform efforts in the US, UK, Iceland and Switzerland. He also, as yet one of the few, the umbrella organization International Movement for Monetary Reform, of which many national organizations are members.

Patrizio Lainà is a PhD student in International Political Economy at the Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland. “ The author is the Chair of Suomen Talousdemokratia (Economic Democracy Finland), which is an association promoting full-reserve banking“.

• Striner, Richard. 2015. How America Can Spend Its Way Back To Greatness. A Guide to Monetary Reform. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

This is an accessible book on sovereign monetary reform mentioning the US, German and Swiss proposals (pages 50-51).

Richard Striner is Professor of History at Washington College, Maryland, US.

• Svanbjörn, Thoroddsen & Sigurjónsson, Sigurvin B. 2016. “Money Issuance: Alternative Monetary Systems”. A report commissioned by the Icelandic Prime Minister’s Office. KPMG, Iceland.

The report, in its chapter “Political Development”, provides a review of “some of the most notable discussions on alternative monetary systems in the field of politics since 2008” like the ones in the US, Iceland, UK, Switzerland and the Netherlands, and illustrates that with a figure on page 16.

The authors are respectively partner and manager at KPMG Iceland.

Given the above sources I propose to reinsert the sub-section "Historical Context" as a relevant part of this entry. The Swiss Vollgeld initiative just did not come fully articulated from nowhere. Like most political proposals it has a history and there are academics who are aware of that history and mention it in their papers and monographs. If you like sources discussing at a meta-level how important historical context is for properly understanding society, I can provide you with plenty of RS epistemological investigations. --Schullerius (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that parts of the 'Historical Context' re-appeared in the 'Background' section I am withdrawing the above proposal to re-instate the 'Historical Context ' Section, but will in due course add something about the UK and Dutch initiatives which lead to parliamentary debates and in the case of Holland, to the request of a scientific report. --Schullerius (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

NEED Act

Should material about the NEED Act be included in this article? The bill has not yet been introduced to the floor. There were no other co-sponsors and there was no companion legislation in the Senate. and Kucinich (the only notable supporter mentioned) hasn't been in Congress for years. It appears to merely be a fever-dream of gold-bugs at this point, and I've seen no references that suggest that it influenced the Swiss referendum in any way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing should be in this article except content directly addressing the topic, from reliable sources. Because that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is such a false understanding of the requirement to be on-topic that it would lead, if allowed to apply, to catastrophic loss of encylopaedic information from Wikipedia. For more, see immediately above. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

For actual Wikipedia policy see WP:OR, WP:COATRACK etc, etc... 86.147.197.65 (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

These policies, that happen to be entirely familiar to me, have no bearing at all in this case because the article contains fully relevant information. I can take you one by one, if you care to make specific objections, instead of making generic assertions backed by irrelevant invocations of policy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, material isn't 'fully relevant' because you say so. Sources (on the topic of the article, and not on whatever pops into your head) decide that. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Simmer down. The material on the proposed Act is entirely relevant to this article because they are both based on the same exact premises, i.e. opposition to fractional banking and misunderstanding of central banks' operations. Everyone knows that historical context is relevant and present in encyclopaedic articles. What we have here is historical context, simple and plain. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Though the NEED Act might have garnered scant congressional backing and media coverage when it was presented, it still became belatedly (as happens sometimes with proposals whose time has come) an important and controversial topic in academia, banking circles, unions, fringe and mainstream media, political parties (especially the Greens/Green Party USA), social justice activist circles (Occupy WS), religious organizations, and last but not least, in the worldwide monetary reform movement now organized in an umbrella organization the International Movement for Monetary Reform (IMMR). If you google "NEED Act" & Kucinich (to filter out the 2007 Nurse Education, Expansion, and Development Act) you will find plenty of sources discussing the relevance of this US sovereign money system proposal and if you put it in Google Scholar you can zoom in on the higher level RS papers and monographs. In short, there are certain things with a modest beginning (not to claim here that the NEED Act has no history of its own), which might have a larger impact than initially expected, like, for example, a nation-wide referendum on introducing a sovereign money system in Switzerland. --Schullerius (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Afd

I have nominated this article for deletion. Verified information is provided at the Swiss referendums, 2018 article, and there's no other well-sourced information of significance to be said. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Some subjects deserve their own article. This subject is one of them. Lists are not everything in Wikipedia. People who create and are fond of lists may think badly of subjects getting their independent article (as the original AfD nominator was and did) but reality says different. By "reality" you will understand "sources". Which you found the last time as "nothing substantial"! . -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources for the independent notability of the sovereign-money 2018 referendum : The Daily Telegraph ("Switzerland to vote on banning banks from creating money"); Global Finance ("Swiss To Vote On Reclaiming Fiat Power"); Reuters ("Sovereign money scheme would hurt Swiss economy"); Handelsblatt ("Castrating the Banks"); The Economist ("Shake your money makers"); Bloomberg Businessweek ("Why Swiss Vollgeld Vote Has the Central Bank Nervous"); Forbes ("Swiss Monetary Reform Referendum Is, Sadly, Driven By Ill Informed Loons"); Le Temps ("Les partisans de l'initiative «Monnaie pleine» lancent la campagne"); Die Tageszeitung ("Vollgeld, voll geil?"); La Repubblica ("Svizzera, un referendum contro privatizzazione della moneta e finanzcapitalismo"). There's more.

What's needed is well-sourced article content. Please contribute some SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the second time I provide sources verifying independent notability, yet you again dismiss them outright and without any specific comments on each one, or even one of them. What's needed are more neutrality and less emotion. But I hold not much hope for that. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because, contrary to what the SD nominator claimed (i.e. "This article [is] a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others"), the page has been edited by others, and quite substantially too. The page had been nominated for speedy deletion once before, during the AfD process about it, but the SD proposal collapsed as soon as it was submitted because it was revealed the page had been substantially edited by other editors. --The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: never mind, it seems that the speedy deletion nominator doesn't understand Wikipedia policy. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The claim that there have been "no substantial edits by others" is so obviously false that I can only conclude that the nominator didn't look at the article history. There may well be good grounds for deleting this collection of partisan WP:OR, but that isn't one of them... 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Up to you to show that the text constitutes original work, a claim so fantastic as to bring forth only hilarity. Non-partisan, balanced presentation? Yes. Historical context? Check. Sources? Check. Reliable? You bet. Complain away. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I find it funny that my efforts in this article (I did an almost complete make over of it, during the AfD) are labeled as "partisan". I have made it clear, though I didn't have to, that as far as I am personally concerned, the notions behind the referendum are silly, to put it mildly. I can back up my stance quite thoroughly but WP is not the place for that. So, anyway, accusing me of somehow promoting or supporting the referendum's nonsensical notions is madly funny!.. -The Gnome (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No it is not 'up to me' to show that the content is original. It is up to you to provide sources (ones discussing the subject of the article) to show that it isn't. As for your personal opinions on the subject of the article, they are no more relevant than mine. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinions were dragged out only because you labeled my efforts in the article as "partisan". This happens to be utterly ridiculous; in fact, it cannot get more ridiculous. And before you respond that you meant someone else, again I point out I did an almost complete make over of the article, during the previous AfD.

Onwards with your allegations: Which specific source you find to be NOT "discussing the subject of the article" and its context? Which sentence represents "original work"? You are challenged to do some real work, here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are too dense to understand that sources written many years before the subject of the article even existed cannot be discussing it, that's your problem. I'm not interested in responding to any more of your vacuous 'challenges', given how ridiculously easy it was to disprove your last one, and given the fact that you not only refused to admit that you were wrong, but then went on to restore the very content that you claimed had never been in the article. Per Wikipedia policy, you are responsible for demonstrating that material you add (or restore) is policy-compliant, and attempts to foist the work on other people aren't going to convince anyone. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's so "ridiculously easy" to prove I'm wrong that you, of course, won't bother. As to who's obliged to prove what, surely, you're joking, though one can never tell with what you infest upon us! Here's the deal: We contributors contribute - to the supposed best of our ability and always supposedly in compliance with policy. Whenever we do contribute, we do not add text (in the article's talk page or anywhere else) explaining what we did was according to policy! A more absurd notion in Wikipedia I cannot recall. We contribute and that's that. If it gets challenged, then we respond. See the arrow of causation?

Of course, the challenge has to be (and usually is) a little more specific than generic accusations. Or claiming, as you did without any substantiation whatsoever, that my edits have been "partisan." Next, I expect you to inform us that calling me "dense" is not a personal insult. Ho hum. -The Gnome (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Piling on, this is what the actual text of the rule says, i.a. : This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Whoa. I just noticed that the Speedy Deletion nominator is a Wikiadmin! Can it be that they ignore the full context of the WP:G5 policy? This is strange. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm undecided on the AfD, but I definitely object to the G5; The Gnome already spells out why. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It has valuable content, I don't care who created it! --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you point out valuable content that's cited to RS and related to the referendum, such that the notability of the subject is established? You may wish to document your conclusions at the AfD. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Gerrit. This Speedy Deletion proposal is going nowhere, since there is no cause for it: The G5 rule that was invoked does not apply here, as explained above. You could contribute, though, to the ongoing AfD discussion (it's taking place here). Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

If the 'historical background' to this referendum (i.e. what the Austrian School has to say about 'fractional reserve banking', what a memo read by 40 people in Chicago in 1933 about that subject said, and all the rest...) is of such great significance why does neither the German language nor the French language Wikipedia article make any mention of it? A cynic might well suggest that it was becuase the authors of such articles had actually read the coverage of the referendum, and not found in necessary to invent 'history' using sources that said nothing about it... 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure nobody tried to provide some historical background which then got deleted for good or bad reasons? --Schullerius (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to ask a "cynic," 86.147.197.65, what they might think, but a rational person, especially one familiar with Wikipedia, would have no trouble with different content across different languages. The reasons for that are trivially obvious. In fact, in many articles the difference is vast! As to your own personal conclusion for such a difference ("inventing history", etc), it violates the rules of simplicity in explanations, among many other violations committed so far in this wretched discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC time: Background and context, yes or no?

There seem to be two opposing views on the broad content of this article. One side supports inclusion of 'historical context,' which means information on both the ideological origins of the referendum (it's hardly an original notion) and previous attempts at similar legislation. The other side supports doing away with all such material, since they deem it 'irrelevant,' to the point of being 'original work.' (One can educate oneself about each side's viewpoint from the discussions above.) At this moment, it's not important how many editors are in each side. What we should seek, IMVHO, is to begin a process of consensus, about this issue, if and only if, of course, the article itself is not deleted. What do all of you think? Should an RfC be initiated? -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How about rather than having a RFC, those contending that there should be a 'historical context' section for this article do what Wikipedia policy requires, and find sources which explicitly discuss the historical context for the referendum, rather than contributors deciding via WP:OR what they 'think' the historical context is? Because as far as I'm aware, nobody has stated that properly-sourced context shouldn't be provided. It just hasn't been offered. Since RFCs can't override Wikipedia policy on the requirement for sourcing of content, holding one would solve precisely nothing. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe Schullerius already got there (see immediately below), piling up on what the article already has. What say you about those sources and the context they provide? -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already made my position clear. If Schullerius wishes to make a specific proposal based on what these sources say, he/she should do so. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You're off the subject of this discussion. We're not talking about the merits of the sources potentially provided by this or that contributor. We're talking about the merits of having the historical context to the referendum. If you believe there should not be such context in the article, that's alright, everyone's entitled top their opinion, although you should perhaps explain why not, since Wikipedia is quite keen on context. I mean, this is what a useful encyclopaedia is all about, after all. The objective is to have consensus on having context; if we do, then we could open a new, separate discussion about what that context should be, at least in approximate form. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that content in this article has to comply with Wikipedia policy isn't 'off topic'. The reason the 'history' section was objected to was because it appeared to be WP:OR - no sources were cited stating that Austrian School, a 1933 memo on the U.S. financial system etc were seen as historical background for the 2018 Swiss referendum. If there are sources which state that they consider X or Y to be part of the background, we can of course cite their opinions on the matter, provided a proper balance is maintained. I don't see the need for a RfC on the principle of this, since it is exactly how articles are supposed to be made. On the other hand, if your idea is to hold a 'RFC' on the principle, and then use the result as an excuse to try to impose a 'history' section that isn't properly sourced (and therefore not policy-compliant) I will obviously oppose it. Not that opposition will be necessary, since RfCs can't override Wikipedia policy. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop trying to derail this attempt at a dialogue. Why do we need to be reminded of the need to "use sources"? It goes without saying that we will. Whatever edits are made about the subject's historical context, if we agree to have such content in the article, will strictly follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I lost score of how many comments you've made in this thread without a single constructive suggestion. I posed a question; got anything on it? "Nothing" is fine; noise is not. -The Gnome (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Make a concrete, properly sourced proposal for content. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Above I have offered RS docs giving 'background' & 'historical context' to the Swiss referendum, including RS status of their producers: Eckrich, 2017; Huber 2102 & 2014; Kroll, 2017; Laina, 2015; Striner, 2105; and Svanbjörn & Sigurjónsson, 2016. --Schullerius (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Well, this thread was derailed pretty fast, one more proof of the asymmetrical effect one editor can have on any Wikipedia process. Better short-circuit this and start the RfC proper. Consensus, even dialogue, seems rather difficult. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on the inclusion of historical context

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings, all. The article contains the historical context of the June 2018 referendum in Switzerland about "sovereign money," context found in the two sections titled "Background" and "Origin and proposal." There are objections to the material being in the article based on various arguments, such as that it relies too much or even entirely on primary sources, it's irrelevant, it gives undue weight to fringe viewpoints, and perhaps includes original research. There are also objections on the basis of the unreliability of the sources used. On the other hand, there are those who support the inclusion of historical context, and focus the argument on the legitimacy of the sources used.

Let's begin the process with the section titled "Background". Evidently, the referendum was not born suddenly and out of nowhere; the notions behind it (opposition to fractional banking, etc) have been around for a very long time. For instance, there exists information currently in that section about

The Austrians' objections to fractional banking

The 1933 Chicago plan to do away with fractional banking criticism of fractional banking

The introduction in the US Congress of a bill that included the same measures proposed in the referendum

The 2015 report by a gov't-appointed committee in Iceland that recommended measures similar to the referendum's

And the basic notions behind the Swiss proposal as put forward by its initiators and ideologues, using sources and direct citations from their work.

Should we keep or delete such content? -The Gnome (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Whether such content should be kept or deleted depends entirely on whether it can be properly sourced (e.g. to sources directly discussing the referendum), and whether it otherwise complies with Wikipedia policy on content (e.g. with regard to balance etc). As it stands, it is unsourced, and not therefore compliant with Wikipedia policy. I can see no point in holding an RfC on a hypothetical question, since it fails to address the issue which led to the objections in the first place. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit, this RfC is getting the whole process backwards. Articles are supposed to summarise reliable sources. Which means you find the sources first, read them, and then decide what content to include in order to accurately represent what the sources have to say. Pre-selecting unsourced content and then looking for sources to validate it is a sure-fire way to introduce bias, even if only unintentionally. I think it is quite evident that the 'history' material has been selected by people with a general knowledge of prior disputes about fractional-reserve banking, and the U.S. debate in particular, and little concern for the particular context for this Swiss initiative. Systemic bias writ large. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And since it appears that nobody is going to actually do the work of reading the sources, and then deciding what content should be included based on what the sources say, rather than on what particular contributors think the article should say, I can only vote for Delete. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The FRSbot invited me. It's reasonable to discuss the motivations for referenda, but is the 1933 Chicago Plan, for example, worth discussing when there are newer versions such as the Chicago Plan Revisited which get more press? EllenCT (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The background narrative can be properly sourced with the seven papers I have so far mentioned. Besides a) the 1930 Chicago Plan, b) the 2011 US NEED Act, c) the 2012 discussions and decisions by the Icelandic parliament and government, and d) the 2018 Swiss referendum, most of these sources also find the following relevant: e) the 2014 debate on money creation at the British parliament and f) the 2015-16 hearings, debate and motions at the Dutch parliament. In terms of the sociology of political movements these modest political events are not separable, local events, but are the result of an international "advocacy network" of individuals and organizations who are "bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchange of information and services” to advance the cause of sovereign monetary reform in the public interest. In such a framework the Swiss referendum can be seen as embedded in, and an expression of, an international political movement which has to be regarded in its multi-faceted entirety as most of the papers I have referred to do. Quotes from Snow, David et al (Eds.). 2013. "The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements." Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. --Schullerius (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In Laina (2015; p. 1) one can find a passage almost exactly stating the above idea of monetary reform as embedded in an international and historical context: "FRB [Full-Reserve Banking] has been proposed and even implemented as a solution to financial instability a number of times in the past. Thus, the idea of monetary reform should be seen as a historical continuum." --Schullerius (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I would add the following two mentionable events in countries (the UK and the Netherlands) where monetary reform had political impact:

• After a hiatus of 170 years the British House of Commons debated in 2014 the issue of “Money Creation & Society”, though this was not followed by any legislation.
• In the Netherlands the organization promoting sovereign monetary reform “Ons Geld” (Our Money) mounted in 2015 a citizen's initiative resulting in a parliamentary debate and a motion to have the Dutch governmental think tank the Scientific Council for Government Policy study the proposal to have “money creation returned to public hands”. As of June 2018 its report is still due. --Schullerius (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The material in the article about the referendum's historical context could potentially be improved and expanded. The main issue is that we need context, and not just information about the result. And it goes without saying that sources must always be Wikireliable. -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - the background for the topic "Swiss sovereign money referendum" begins in the "Origin and Proposal". The material above seems simply WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:OR here. While they are items in the history of finance and fractional banking, the cites make no mention of any linkage to the Swiss proposal that would WP:V indicate they were an influence. To show that these are background, one needs to have cites talking about the proposal that says what its background is. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The ideology and the objectives were the same in all the cited incidents in history. You might want to take another look at the text. It should now be clear that there is a direct, linear connection. It's always has been about fractional reserve banking and the (actually, quite misguided) opposition to it. People have been led in the past too, and not just in our day and age, to oppose wholesale the system of banking operations and modern central banking rather than the abuses of the system. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WP policies and guidelines say otherwise. Any connection is what WP calls original research. Please review the explanation at that link. This content is no good without an independent Reliable Source that draws a connection between this basket of whatnot and the Swiss Referendum. non-RS opinion that they're related does not support WP content. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Worry not. You seek more sources? More sources have been provided. You'll want even more sources tomorrow? More will be provided again. Same goes for the day after, and all the way forward. Why? Because the sources are simply abundant on the subject itself and, naturally, on the historical context of it, contrary to the alphabet soup you emote at every opportunity instead of specific pointers. At some point, though, the community will probably have enough of your dance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete SYNTH, POV, OR, COATRACK, no RS makes connection to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The statement that "no RS makes connection to the topic of the article" is hard to maintain given the seven RS sources provided above in the section "'Historical context' section is WP:OR", i.e. Eckrich, 2017; Huber 2102 & 2014; Kroll, 2017; Laina, 2015; Striner, 2105; and Svanbjörn & Sigurjónsson, 2016. I gave a) full names of the papers, including b) links, c) relevant quotes, and d) RS status of the writers. Nobody so far has engaged those texts to make the case that none of them pass the RS test. --Schullerius (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There are billions of RS documents in the world that do not directly relate to the topic of this article. RS is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to source article content. The definitive history of the elephant in Western Madagascar is RS but not valid content for this article. Same of billions of others. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just great. You're essentially saying that there are more sources out there that "do not directly relate to the topic of this article" than sources that do. I agree with you one hundred percent! And predict that we will not have this included in the list of what Wikipedia considers as non-arguments. Some ways of thinking are simply "worse than wrong." -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Summoned by bot. I started to try to clean this up so I could understand it and comment intelligently about the request, but it is somewhat confusing, and being new to the subject, I felt it was not a good use of my time to try to fix it. For example, the first sentence says the initiative was "intended to give the Swiss National Bank the sole authority to create money". Then below it says that "proponents do not want money creation to be under private control" and "They consider money created by the banks to create significantly adverse effects...". That's directly contradictory. Also, the mix of quotes and unquoted text tends to fall too far into WP:OR in my mind. The opinions taken verbatim from the sources should all be quoted. Also, the RfC should be updated since there's no background section anymore. You have to browse the history to find it. Beyond that, as long as each side is consistently presented, and properly sourced, I think it's fair to include pros and cons, whether the info is in a historical precedent section or listed as background. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The problem is that the "historical background/precedent" doesn't relate to this particular proposal or even to many of its details. The "history" text in dispute is more or less an amalgam of half a dozen rants and failed proposals about various banking issues that predate this referendum in some cases by many decades. It's like putting text on French medieval blood-letting into an article that describes how live-virus vaccines are manufactured in 21st Century India, because, well ... they both relate to disease. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that there's no linkage between the precedents. Pick the most egregious offender statement that you can identify as being unrelated, and post it here, as an example. If it can't be fixed by adding quotes and context, then I'd support removing it. At some point then we'd get to an article that should be satisfactory to all.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We would need Reliable Sources that explicitly make the connection. All we have is editors who kind of think they're similar and must somehow be in the air that the Swiss promoters breathed as they planned their failed referendum. And some of the mooted antecedents are vacuous in their own rights, e.g. the Dennis Kucinich bit. Ignoble US Congressional gestures are a dime a dozen. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Even being new to this discussion, I do see a thematic connection (precedent) between Kucinich's legislative activity and the Swiss initiative, but what bothered me more is that the term Vollgeld was not introduced earlier. It must have been accidentally edited out during a hasty edit. I put it back in the lede. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, the historical precedent is there. The connection which seems to elude some editors is there, blatantly and evidently, TimTempleton. Sources already cited are explicit about the connections.

Random example: Wolf [claims] we need to make the system safer [by] strip[ping] banks of the power to create money, by turning their liquid deposits into 'state' or 'sovereign' money. That is the idea backed by the Vollgeld initiative. An alternative way of achieving the same outcome would be via 100 per cent backing of deposits by claims on the central bank, an idea proposed by free-market Chicago School economists in the 1930s. Actually, they’re the same, in effect. And that this is a Chicago School / Friedmanesque monetary policy.

That's simply stating the obvious: The Chicago Plan and the Vollgeld initiative had the same exact theory supporting them and the same objectives. That's historical precedent. Trivial, really. -The Gnome (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that nakedcapitalism is not a Reliable Source. It's a blog. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

At least, I made you look into the source. Only something good can come out of it. Anyway, if nothing else, your interventions can be used to freshen up on Wikipedia policies. To wit:

Firstly, blogs are indeed generally unacceptable per WP:UGC (in the case of WP:BLPs, they are never acceptable, per WP:BLPSPS). But sometimes there are fully legitimate, acceptable exceptions: [Blog] material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications, per WP:RSSELF. Amplifying that, [Blog] material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, per WP:USENET.

Secondly, here's a clear warning from Wikipedia: Self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'. While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. That's WP:USINGSPS.

Thirdly, to get rid once and for all of the "argument" used boringly often about this article, primary sources can be used in Wikipedia usually in articles about [the article's subjects] themselves or their activities, per WP:USESPS, which is exactly what we did in this article in presenting the Vollgeld group's views, intentions, and ideology in their own words. Yet you kept objecting to having their texts included, because "they are primary sources."

Now, specifically about the cited text from Naked Capitalism: (A) The website has been called in The New York Times "one of the must-read financial blogs." I guess they find the analysis worthwhile. (B) The cited text was written by a political economist, who's professor of International Political Economy at City University, London, and non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. I'd say the man qualifies.

Of course, there are many more sources besides Naked; I already said I offered it as a random example of sources. Here is for example The Telegraph making the connection between the proposal in Iceland to "abolish private money-creation" and Vollgeld; here's Handelsblatt relating at length the ideological inheritance of the Chicago plan bestowed upon Vollgeld; here is the historical connection between the NEED Act proposal attempted by Dennis Kucinich in the US and Vollgeld; and so on.

Ergo: The historical context section is well sourced. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. This seems pertinent and well sourced. Just the Wolf quote alone already covers the gist. This isn't a topic that people are apt to arrive already with a lot of understanding, so being explanatory/educational seems like a good idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Swiss minaret referendum, 2009 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

For everyone's information the discussion closed with a practically unanimous consensus to change the term "referendum" to "initiative" in article titles, as appropriate in the Swiss legal context, plus some other minor changes in wording. -The Gnome (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The Icelandic proposal?

The article text refers to The Icelandic proposal although no Icelandic proposal is mentioned before. Could someone write a line about this proposal or edit the current text? Thanks a lot!Bertux (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Still missing. --Error (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD?

This article looks like a WP:COATRACK and WP:PRIMARY sourced WP:OR narrative concerning a routine and trivial referendum that was overwhelmingly rejected some years back. Anyone care to explain why it should be considered WP:NOTABLE before we go to AfD again? SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)