Talk:Crime in Switzerland

Dead References

1 to 3 are dead links. I didn't remove them because the text needs sources. Please fix it. 91.138.118.134 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

?

41 homicide victims and 125 convicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.39.39 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

41 completed homicides, the convicts are for both attempted and completed homicides. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Added sentence by IP w/o any source

An IP hopper recently added the sentence "Narcotics consumption was the most common reason why young people (aged 10-18) were arrested by the police under Swiss criminal laws" by giving the unformated reference, after (s)he tried to add several other unsubstatial statements about the seemingly abusive drug consumption by Swiss citizen, but totally misses to put it into a more general context – or to put it at least into a criminal context, actually this arcticle's subject.

Further the IP added also a See also-article link which is not related with Switzerland and therefore does not belong here.

(S)he does not take care about the correct formatting of the titles. It also does not surprise that the IP positions his badly researched statements always at the top of the main article, where it does not belong to consisting of just one sentence.

Further, and more important, (s)he also misses many more statements worth mentioning regarding drugs and crime in Switzerland, but this does not seem to be the intention by the IP.

Finally, the content of this sentence is obviously wrong since the referenced news article says nothing about the most common reason for arresting juveniles, but it just mentions the development. This could be aditionally and easily falsified by reading the tables below which show that the most common reason why young people (aged 10-18) were convicted by the police were because of thefts (1415 convictions) vice versa of 879 convicted youngster for narcotics possession.

Summa sumarum, IP's contribution harldy fulfills even the lowest quality we should expect here.

Therefore the whole contribution will be removed. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000: I see that you are up to your old tricks again.

First: claiming that all the people reverting you are the same person ("An IP hopper [singular]…"). There appears to be two IP editors at work here. One traces to the United States, the other two to the UK (and are likely a single editor with a dynamic IP). Neither has exceeded 3RR - yet.

Second: The original reference provided is a [[WP:RS|reliable source}} which states what the sentence in the article states almost exactly and unambiguously. You headed this section "Added sentence by IP w/o any source". But it is sourced and you even criticized it. This is exactly what you attempted at Vignette (road tax).

Third: You are currently at 6RR with your reverts which is categorically edit warring by any definition (Edit Warring complaint is next on my list).

Fourth: You have never provided a valid reason for you consistent removal of the content which is exactly your behaviour at Vignette (road tax), where you were formally warned for this. The non sense above is exactly that, but the original reference for the sentence was a far better one.

Having said all that: I would concur with you that the section 'Crime by type' is in the wrong place in the article. It would more appropriate after the background information, probably after or before 'Crime dynamics'. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And ZH8000 is officially in the wrong as he's been blocked. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs) First of all, the given statment ("the most common reason") is still wrong and your answers are still missing any proof for them. You are right insofar as I claim the same failure (missing WP:VER) here as well.

Secondly. It is at least astonishing to me that you always pop up after I critiziced an IP user's wrong contribution. Given that you have made only 197 edits so far, this seems to be extremely fishy to me.

Thirdly, mascerading behind several IPs is extremely easy (VPN/proxies etc.) and no valid argument to claim there are different people behind differet IPs – wherever they are supposed to be from.

Forth, therefore I am not astonished you mistook somebody else's contributions as a socket puppet of me. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

First: The statement is supported by the reference given. It was also supported by the previous reference given when there was more detail to the statement. Claiming that it is unreferenced when it is referenced is disruptive editing (think block here).

Second: It is no surprise at all. I am watching the articles that you edit. The edit history tools exist precisely so that other users can track disruptive editors such as yourself.

Third: The only place that you are permitted to make allegations of sock puppetry is at WP:SPI. You are required to provide evidence that the accused are connected. That several editors (IP or otherwise) disagree with you is never, ever, accepted as evidence. Persistent allegations anywhere other than WP:SPI is WP:ABUSE and WP:HARASSMENT. The assumption that different IPs or users are precisely that is the default position. For you to claim that, "[There is] no valid argument to claim there are different people behind differet (sic) IPs …" is entirely wrong. There is no valid argument, and there does not need to be. The IPs in question are different people in different countries. Accept the fact, because that is the position until any conclusively proves otherwise.

Forth: It was an easy mistake to make given the edits and the contents of the edit summaries and talk page posts plus the apparent self admission. TheVicarsCat (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000's claim that "the given statment ("the most common reason") is still wrong and your answers are still missing any proof for them", is just another attempt to synthesise something from the reference that is not there to oppose a valid edit just as he attempted at Vignette (road tax). This is clearly disruptive editing and ZH8000 is clearly WP:NOTHERE (third, fifth and seventh points).

The reference given says, "Narcotics consumption was the most common reason why young people – classified as between the ages of 10 and 18 under Swiss juvenile criminal law – came into contact with the justice authorities last year.". That clearly and unambiguously says the same thing as, "Narcotics consumption was the most common reason why young people (aged 10-18) were arrested by the police under Swiss criminal laws". The point is therefore properly and validly referenced. 86.153.129.164 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

But they were not arrested as you write in the article! "To come into contact with justice authorities" is much weaker statement and can mean many things!! This can be as simple as a fine. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write it but it is a fair point. I would observe that in almost any jurisdiction, drug users are invariably arrested before being fined but that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. 86.153.129.164 (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"drug users are invariably arrested before being fined" ... an indeed very particular POV, an US-american perhaps. Definitely not true for Switzerland and juveniles and neither for huge part of the EU. And also very much depends on what kind f drug and what amount, of course. A much too over-generalized claim, at least. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Authorities

Opposite to some undereducated meaning among some posters, hospitals and universities are no public authorities, since they simply don't have "the right to exercise power". According text has been corrected accordigly. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the almost incomprehensible English. This is clearly your opinion. But then you have a long history of using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for your opinions for which you have already been blocked. I do not see any reliable source backing your opinion up. But this is not surprising as universities and hospitals are authoritative sources on many things and are certainly public as they are publicly funded. One of the authorities that you claim is a 'university hospital' so would fail your criteria on two counts. You are still guilty of WP:SYNTHESIS and probably WP:OR. Article reverted to what the source actually says. Don't alter it again without providing a reliable source supporting your WP:POV. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

TheVicarsCat is right. (Besides the original source clearly states that "FedPol" (i.e. Federal Police) has been consulted and been used as a source for that report.). Besides, as per above discussion and recent changes, cocaine use is ILLEGAL in CH, contrary to what ZH8000 claimed for weeks.

66.87.84.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Authorities is used here to mean that they are authoritative (or in other words "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable") not as in authorities as in law making bodies.Tobyc75 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tobyc75: ZH8000's appalling understanding of English continues to be source of frustration. Anything he writes is incomprehensible (See his post above for a prime example - fairly incomprehensible but it is just about possible to pick the bones out of it). It is believed that anything he writes is machine translated. Similarly, his comprehension of English is equally appalling since he doesn't understand what sources are actually saying and attempts interpret them using his limited grasp of the language. In this case he doesn't understand what 'authority' means (or rather: understands one meaning but not the other so is prepared to edit war on his defective understanding).

Having just been to hospital today for an investigation into my liver, I would rather hope that the doctor carrying out the investigation is an authority on livers (let alone the hospital)! TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Corruption

I don't see any problem with Tobyc75's edit. I suggest ZH8000 reads the cited sources before making any ridiculous comments, again. Also,please don't add numerous irrelevant tags. 99.203.24.87 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sudden addition of multiple tags

@ZH8000: you added a almost every tag available to the top of the article. Please come to the talk page to discuss the specific issues that you think need to be addressed. With an unusually large number of templates suddenly added it's going to be hard to figure out what you disagree with.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Rape

I believe the definition of rape may have changed within the last couple of years in Switzerland to include other genders or rather to become gender neutral. I am not confident of making changes to this as English is my only language to use to check the facts. Colin Wheeler (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)