[topranks]

I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets.

I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”.

The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will.

It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.

[QuietCF]

It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality. The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind. However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality.

Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof.

The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.

[convolvatron]

the assignment of semantics to a sentence isn't the imposition of some kind of subjective interpretation of some words that we shouldn't get bogged down in

its literally the assignment of meaning to those words. which is really pretty close to arguing about the truth of the sentence

just to argue semantics

[noxer]

"Swiss neutrality" is its own "thing" its not the same as "military neutrality" its a very broad concept that does include military neutrality but many more things that aren't part of the dictionary definition of the word "neutrality". I would point you to the wiki article that explains it but its very bad.

Anyway the overall conclusion people get when reading the statement that neutral countries DESPITE being neural joined sanctions (picked a side/no longer neutral) and that is wrong especially in case of Switzerland.

Its not semantics its factually wrong because if there would be an attempt to connect "Swiss neutrality" to the sanctions it would be the other way around. I.e. to stay true to the concept Switzerland would have to join sanctions because other wise it could be used to circumvent the sanctions from others which then could theoretically interfere with the idea behind Swiss neutrality especially if Switzerland or companies there would profit from this.

>The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will.

Indeed but its not just that, even if something is know (or known to be wrong) if no one in the accepted sources group actually explicitly write it out then there is no source and you can not add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors also like to write X as if it is a fact then if the is a source opposing it they write the opposition as a quote from the given author or source.

[ipaddr]

Russia has many countries from Israel to India to China to circumvent sanctions. Using that as the reasoning for the sanction is great political cover but it clearly showed Switzerland picked a side in this conflict.

[noxer]

Thats your opinion and you have zero evidence for it. While I have the official statement from the Swiss gov + the timeline of their actions. BTW they declined sanctions and only after the EU sanction where in place and they reviews them they decided to join (most) sanctions. There reason for the change were the actions of others (and not a 180° switch in foreign politics) its obvious and well documented.

Also sanctions are not "for" picking sides but for punishing wrongdoings (in this case breaking international law) they could easily put sanction on "both" sides if appropriate, in fact there are already sanction in place because of the Swiss neutrality, Swiss companies can not sell/export military equipment to Ukraine (or Russia).

The fact that other counties can be used to circumvent sanction is false argument. Switzerland is the financial hub of Europa and could diminish the effect the sanction have. Beside that the sanctions are designed to have an effect despite possible circumvention.