Talk:Liechtenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] bid for winter olympics

first of all, sorry for my bad english. as an inhabitant of liechtenstein, i can't imagine that vaduz is considering to place a bid for the winter olympics. even in whole liechtenstein, not a quarter of the infrastructure necessary for winter olympics is available. for example, there isn't a ice skating stadium in whole liechtenstein or a ski ressort large enough for a downhill race or a bobsleigh track or ski jump... in my opinion, somebody made that up


[edit] "Double Landlocked"

Now the editors have gone and mentioned TWICE in the opening paragraph that liechtenstein's neighbors are landlocked. That is ridiculous. Not only is "double-landlocked" not a word, the fact the country is landlocked itself is, in any case, meaningless. With the fact noted twice in the very opening, someone should be sure to put in a few paragraphs about the wars Liechtenstein has fought to get its products to the coast. lol. I cant believe that gets in twice in the opening, but references to the important 'Liechtenstein Brand' effort of the last few years was vandalized out.


[edit] Original research and potential Winter Olympics bids

Interesting stuff in the article, but much appears to be orginal research or at least in need of citations. For example, is there any documentation that the Principality is making a bid for future Winter Olympics--or even that it has a number of good football players in the Swiss leagues? 207.69.139.160 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallest countries

Where LS is listed as one of the smallest countries, shouldn't Sealand be on that list? Thus pushing LS back one.

[edit] EU membership

The article states that Liechtenstein has been a member of the EU since 1995. However, I can find no evidence that they are actually a member of the EU. According to the EU website they are not a member. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/index_en.htm

Liechtenstein is NOT a member state of the EU! But Liechtenstein has been a membe of the EFTA since many years. EFTA is the European free trade association. It is a alternative to the EU. Today onle 4 countries are members of the EFTA. Inclusive Switzerland.

[edit] Taxation

It is stated in the article that the maximum corporate taxation is 18, but later states that corporate taxation can be between something and 20. Can someone verify this please.

[edit] General Formatting

I thought we were still trying to hack out a general format for country articles over at talk:Netherlands? --maveric149

Yes, that's right. However, I find it hard to see any problems with that page, having edited it myself a number of times. What usually helps for me is editing a similar thing, which may help me to find some problems or additions for the template. So I chose this article to work on, and put in a temp subpage, such that others could see it as well (could have done it on my HD as well, agreed).--jheijmans
That's fine -- I also have found this to be rather useful with the elements articles. The template has evolved quite a bit since the original one and I am starting to feel very good about it. --maveric149

[edit] Right to Vote

Question about the wording of the paragraph:

In a referendum on July 1, 1984, male voters granted women the right to vote in national (but not local) elections—a victory for Prince Hans Adam.

This is ambigious and could mean that the right to vote for woman was a victory for Prince Hans Adam or the fact that they didn't didn't get the right to vote at the local level was a victory for Prince Hans Adam.--enceladus 03:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In a referendum on July 1, 1984, male voters granted women the right to vote in national elections—a victory for Prince Hans Adam's position. This right, however, does not extend to local elections.

Better? - Nunh-huh 03:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sounds better. I wasn't willing to change it as I wasn't sure which of the two it was.--enceladus 03:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Liechtenstein did not become sovereign in 1806. The dissolution of the Empire is not the beginning of sovereignty. The renaming of the orginal unmittelbare estates of Schellenburg and Vaduz "Liechtenstein" is when a sovereign Liechtenstein comes into existence, and even before that the constituent parts were sovereign.

The empire was a Feudal polity comprised of hundreds of sovereignties. Carrying out feudal obligations constituted recognition of Suzeranity. Suzeranity and Sovereignty are not the same thing. Even before the abdication of the Emperor, the prince of liechtenstein had Landesherrlichheit and Landeshoheit "Lordliness on Land" and "Sovereinty on Land", thereby the geo-political entity Liechtenstein was sovereign.

You are mistaking the Empire for something it wasn't. It was basically a political corporation with Emperor as chairman/president. Not like ancient china and rome and egypt where the leader ruled considering himself a god.

"Double landlocked" is not a real word, even if it almost captures a concept we dont have a word for.

I believe "double landlocked" is explained in the article (and elsewhere) as having all of its neigbors also landlocked. You would have to travel into or through at least two other countries to get to a coastline. 207.69.139.160 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the history page might (or might not) do well to mention all the territory seized from the House of LIechtenstein in Czechoslovakia after world war one, and the fact that for decades, Liechtenstein citiens werent even allowed to enter that country. Also, the lawsuit by the current Prince concerning the tresures and land. I dont know, its up to you.

At least, it should be explained that the House of Liechtenstein bought Schellenburg and Vaduz ONLY to be admitted as a voting member of the Imperial diet - You couldnt have a vote if you didnt own "soverein" land. (thats why the family never stepped foot in the principality for like many decades after they bought it).

Tridesch

[edit] Liechtenstein family - origins and Moravian land holdings

If the family, as stated, originated in Silesia, I am hardpressed to explain the existence of Schloss Liechtenstein by Vienna since the 11th or 12th century. Additionally, I am certain that the family maintained at least its possessions in southern Moravia (Lednice(Eisgrub and Valtice/Feldsberg) until 1945.

The castle you mention here is in the Vienna Woods and is still owned by the Royal Family who reside in Vaduz. Whilst that family also held personal possessions in the Austro-Hungarian Empire they were just that, personal, as opposed to State (Liechtenstein). As is well-known the Communists confiscated virtually all private property in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. One decree I read said everything over an acre. Christchurch 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The Liechtenstein family did originate in Silesia and did also have possessions beyond it in Moravia and Austria and elsewhere wihin the empire too. I think its expansion was just very rapid. The article already agrees with you insofar as the 1945 thing.
Evidence of origin please. Christchurch 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Liechteinstein family originated in Lower Austria. Their original castle is said to be Burg Liechteinstein in Maria Enzersdorf south of Vienna. Martg76 18:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. See my comment, above. Christchurch 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

This new notice board might be of interest to editors here. You can help with our current projects or ask for help with yours, and ask any related question on our talk page. Hope to see you there, Kusma (討論) 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community Graphic is WRONG

Hi all

The graphic describing the communities describes the "Oberland" and the "Unterland" wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liechtenstein.geohive.gif It is just the other way round.

See Art. 2 of the Community Act (Gemeindegesetz), which is on-line availiable on www.recht.li:

"Das Fürstentum Liechtenstein umfasst die Gemeinden Vaduz, Balzers, Planken, Schaan, Triesen und Triesenberg in der Landschaft Vaduz (Oberland) und Eschen, Gamprin, Mauren, Ruggell und Schellenberg in der Landschaft Schellenberg (Unterland)."

Otherwise, the graphic is fine.

NicReithner

[edit] Disputed Land

Liechtenstein has disputed land within Czech and Poland. In Czech the land was declared German in WWII, but after the war it was never returned to liectenstein. As well, in Poland the polish government refuses to acknowledge liechtensteins claim. PLEASE IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ON THE ISSUE PLEASE ADD. -- GPriest.

Czechoslavakia & Poland are nowhere near Liechtenstein! Suggest you look at a map. Unless, of course, you are speaking about the personal property of the Royal Family. Christchurch 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] german?

"It is the only country with a majority of German-speaking people that does not share a border with Germany (though there are substantial German-speaking minorities in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Namibia)."

Thats pretty pointless. It suggests that people who speak German also have to come from today (!)Germany - like they emigrated to Liechtenstein, Austria, and Switzerland??? In fact, people there already spoke "German" before a Federated German state was formed. --84.159.142.76 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But they are often ethnic Germans. Liechtensteiner people are of German descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yes but germany isn't THE country of the ethnic germans only because it's called germany. it's more like there is the "region" of the ethnic germans containing four countries an one of them is called germany... sorry for my bad english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.180.65 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP per capita correct?

in the statistics listed on the right liechtenstein is listed as having the 26th highest GDP per capita at 25,000 however it does not appear on the GDP per capita list, are we sure this figure is correct? i am going to post in the GDP per capita page and request that it be added if it is correct, just need some confirmation --Arakash 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently the infobox reads that Liechtenstein's GDP (PPP) is listed as $2,850million (2006 estimate) but doesn't give a rank. The infobox is messed up because of this. Trying to rectify this, I clicked around wikipedia, specifically to

This is rather confusing. Can anyone clarify this situation and provide a correct rank? (both net and per capita) I don't want to accidently halve the economy of a sovereign nation without a good reason. LukeSurl 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The 25,000$ per capita figure is from CIA factbook of the year 1999 which is very outdated. Not just due to economic growth, but the value of the dollar.

The $25,000 figure also makes no mathematical sense. PPP $1.786 billion (not million)/35000 is approximately $51,000/person, not $25,000.151.200.181.104 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Main article..."

Either use the tag or inset it. Skinnyweed 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation ??

How do you pronounce the name of the country?? -Natrajdr 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I always say it "Litch-en-stein". LukeSurl 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is pronounced 'Lickt-en-schtein'. Christchurch 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on who you talk to, I would go by the first pronounciation, or at least that's the German I've been taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm from liechtenstein therefore you should trust me :) the pronounciation is difficult because there isn't an appropriate sound in english for the german [ch]. in the phonetic alphabet, it would be [ç]. liechtenstein ist pronounced liç-ten-shtine. the stress lays on the first syllable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.231.214 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section

I deleted the following section from the article, because it sounds like a hoax and is written in bad English:

Entertainment - Al Walser
Al Walser is Liechtenstein`s first and only worldwide entertainment export. Also known as " The voice of the Principality of Liechtenstein " - Radio Liechtenstein. First half black citizen ever with legendary Grandfathers, Counseler Dr. Werner Walser and legendary musician Franco. Also former drivng force behind the Pop sensation Fun Factory.
http://www.alwalser.com/ webpage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIf4dAqSzY Video Bio

Mr Walser does seem to exist however, as a quick Google search reveals (and his grandfather seems to be consul, in case anyone wonders). If anyone thinks the info should be in the article, go nuts. Blur4760 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy?

I would not describe a political system where a non-elected Prince has arbitrer powers over all government activities as democratic. Many countries that are not described as democracies are in effect more democratic than Liechtenstein is. 84.90.18.136 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein Military Defense and Obligations of Switzerland and/or Austria

I've shifted the contents of Military of Liechtenstein and Foreign relations of Liechtenstein onto this page, because they were just a waste of a click. The latter could potentially have a bit more, but in that case someone can always move it back to its own page later. - IMSoP 22:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the defence of Liechtenstein. Well, I am not registered with the wikipedia, however, I am Swiss, I am a lawyer and I am very, very puzzled as to since when are we responsible for Liechtenstein's defence? I am certain that no defence agreements exist. Please refer to page for a list of various treaties signed between Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Nothing on collective security. As such, please, alleaviate my doubts and show me the document that proves that Switzerland is indeed responsible for the defence of its tiny neighbour. Yours, ~Michael

  • Hi Michael. It appears that there is a conflict of authorities here. It is very likely that your information and conclusion are correct, however I did find this information (Link) on the CIA World Factbook, which states that the defense of Liechtenstein is the responsibility of Switzerland. I can't rectify these two positions, as the CIA World Factbook is a recognized authority, and your citation does seem to be authoritative. Is there an official military organization for Liechtenstein, such as a civilian auxiliary or a reserve force? Is there any official Swiss documents that indicate they acknowledge or dispute military responsibility for the defense of Liechtenstein? Streltzer 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also found this link on the official English-language Liechtenstein website (Link) which seems to indicate that Liechtenstein has some military and quasi-military forces or personnel, probably a border guard force. For other events, such as natural disasters, Liechtenstein appears to have mutual-aid treaties with both Austria and Switzerland. However, it is clear that none of this constitutes a military defense obligation. So the question is still unanswered. Streltzer 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The CIA Factbook is wrong on this particular subject, I assert it in all clear conscience. I have, furthermore, never heard that the CIA World Factbook is authoritative (it is compiled by a national intelligence agency). To delve deeper on the subject of authority, I have picked up various mistakes (some of which concern Switzerland and which I can gladly list) in the World Factbook. To return to your question, there are no Swiss government documents on defense of Liechtenstein, because no treaty was ever signed. Liechtenstein has no military and it has adopted a policy of internationally recognised neutrality similar to the Swiss one, a neutrality which has been formally recognised in the course of World War 2. As such, as weird as it may sound, Liechtenstein is not defended by anyone. ~Michael, message left on 04/08/07
      • Michael, I certainly agree the CIA factbook is not authoritative, but it is by far not the only government sponsored source asserting that Switzerland is responsible for Liechtenstein's defence: The European Commission's webpage: Among the areas where Liechtenstein relies on Switzerland are currency, defence and certain regulatory functions, e.g. in the area of civil aviation. The UK Foreign and Commonwealth office's webpage: Liechtenstein does not have an army and Switzerland has responsibility for its defence. Foreign affairs and International Trade Canada's webpage: Liechtenstein's defence is the responsibility of Switzerland. etc. You can find more sources if you Google liechtenstein defence. I would tend to believe that access to several non authoritative sources is still better than no sources at all. If you are so convinced by the (indeed weird) claim that Liechtenstein is not defended by anyone, please back it up with some source that explicitly makes that statement. The fact that you couldn't find the mention of any defence treaty on Liechtenstein's official bilateral relation page doesn't mean there is none. This page may not contain the comprehensive list of all treaties and agreements in application. Indeed, the News section of the same website contains references to agreements, e.g., the agreement for mutual assistance in disasters mentioned by Streltzer, which are not present on the bilateral relations page. This seems to suggest that the latter is not representative of all agreements/treaties/etc between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Gb1291 20:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is very authoritative and rarely makes mistakes. After all it did get this one right. It, even by itself, is more than enough to use as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.202.48 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the claim that Liechtenstein is undefended (and defence not the responsibility of Switzerland) is repeated in the article List of countries without armed forces. I've added a {{Fact}} tag to the claim. I've no idea what is factually correct, but if people are gonna disagree with reliable sources such as the CIA World Factbook they're gonna need some very good sources to do it! Indeed, I suggest it might be better to remove the claim altogether from List of countries without armed forces.

Also, I've added a Military section to this article. It could use a little expansion. --kingboyk (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources to quote on the matter. There are NO documents, no treaties, nothing that would obligate Switzerland to defend Liechtenstein should it come under attack. As no document exists, there is no source to quote. Do also note that I did not find any source in the CIA Factbook to back their own claim. Russoswiss (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, giving it a thought and a deeper look, and the dates of the edits and discussions, I deem that a neutral formula is appropriate. So that everyone can be equally dissatisified =) Russoswiss (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your edit Russoswiss. I have just visited the official website of Liechtenstein. They report quite detailed about their bilateral relationships, among others with Switzerland. While you can read every little detail there about their customs union, no word is mentioned on military relationships. Now, I am certain that there is no published agreement whatsoever. This does not exclude secret agreements, but those would anyway be out of wikipedia's scope. So, in my opinion we might even be stronger in claiming that there is no relation, but as I said initially, I like it like it is now.Tomeasy (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.liechtenstein.li/en/eliechtenstein_main_sites/portal_fuerstentum_liechtenstein/fl-staat-staat/fl-staat-aussenpolitik/fl-staat-aussenpolitik-bilateral/fl-staat-aussenpolitik-bilateral-schweiz.htm


I deleted the statement about Switzerland accidentally invading the country in 2007. A few troops marched across an unmarked border during a training exercise with no ammo and, more importantly, no intentions. The statement is sensationalized "news" (I use that term loosely), and adds no substance to the article.

I deleted the statement about Switzerland being responsible for Liechtenstein`s defence. Switzerland is absolutely neutral. Anyone who doubts this doesn`t understand the very basics of international law. Switzerland would under no circumstances form a military alliance with ANY other nation. The same applies to Liechtenstein. It is unbelievable that this urban myth found its way into wikipedia and CIA world facts.92.227.127.22 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael, right? I find this case really interesting. You seem to be pretty sure about your statement, so it makes me curious whether in deed we are dealing here with a myth. However, rather than insulting opponents as not understanding "the very basics of international law", you could help all of us by providing references to your claim. I would really like to take an appreciating look at them. Of course, I am aware that it is logically more difficult to provide a source for the non-existence of a relation than for the opposite. One last comment: Perhaps you should contain yourself from deleting as long as the other people have many (very good) references and you don't.Tomeasy (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. No I am not Michael. The thing is both countries - Switzerland and Liechtenstein - have one thing in common: they adore their banking secret and their neutrality. It is simply absurd to state that a country like Switzerland would be obliged to defend another souvereign State like Liechtenstein. If they were obliged they wouldn`t be neutral. I don`t know any site on the internet which expressively says that Switzerland is not obliged to defend Liechtenstein. And I see that there are some sites who actually say the opposite. So one source made this mistake (probably the CIA Fact Book) and the other articles copied it. I am sorry for neglecting any manners and writing in a rather harsh tone, but I simply don`t need any sources to see that this statement is wrong. The only possible source in this case can be a bilateral agreement between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Everything else is from my point of view (German lawyer specialized in International Law) irrelevant. In case you don't agree with me, you should at least delete anything in the articles about Switzerland/ Liechtenstein that describes those countries as neutral. It would be consequent.

The principle of neutrality is not some minor detail, but the very core of Swiss /Lichtensteinian identity. The CIA Fact Book basically says that it doesn`t exist. In case s.o. attacked Liechtenstein, I don`t think its inhabitants would be able to force the Swiss to defend them by citing the CIA Fact Book. Where is the treaty? --78.49.168.202 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article had changed in the meantime after consensus was reached in the discussion on this page. You find the protocol a few lines above. The final (very reasonable, my POV) statement was added by User:Russoswiss. Unfortunately, in the meantime the section he introduced was vandalized by User:Yardsmyth420, who first added absolute nonsense to it and finally deleted whole story. I have basically reinstalled Russoswiss' reasoning, which I believe pleases you as well.Tomeasy (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tomeasy. I am pleased with the current content of the article. I should have checked the discussion above before I wrote my last comment. And - once again - pardon me for my harsh tone. --78.54.224.13 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we have a reputable source, the CIA World Factbook claiming that the defense of Liechtenstein is the responsibility of Switzerland. There is no evidence to the contrary other than inferences based on the lack of a mention on the Liechtenstein government website. I would trust the CIA a lot more than inferences based on the absence of evidence. Absence of evidence does not prove one fact or another, it simply proves that it is a subject that requires more research. Copysan (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are of course absolutely right: Nothing is proven by the absence of evidence. I also think the CIA factbook is generally a reputable source. However, did you read the official statement of Liechtenstein on their relationship with Switzerland.[1] It is really very detailed, addressing even much minor things in dept than the one we are discussing here. This leads me to the conclusion that this military cooperation is at least not public. Otherwise, it would certainly be mentioned. Perhaps, there are accords between the two countries on an informal or secret level, but this would be beyond the scope of wikipedia. Here, we should focus on what those countries officially acknowledge as their policy.
Playing devils advocate: Assume there is no contract. How would you ever find an official document proofing that? Never, of course, you could only go and ask the responsible people. Perhaps, I will do that...Tomeasy (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I did just that and I emailed both the Embassys of Liechtenstein and Switzerland in Washington to get a response. The first one to respond was Switzerland, and this is what Mrs. Sandra Mueller, Communications Coordinator of the Embassy of Switzerland in Washington D.C., had to say:

Thank you for contacting the Embassy of Switzerland and your notification concerning the information in the Wikipedia article covering Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein. Switzerland is in fact not responsible for defending Liechtenstein in an attack. Therefore, the statement "According to the CIA World Factbook, defense is the responsibility of Switzerland." is incorrect. Since the text is about Liechtenstein, I recommend to contact the Embassy of Liechtenstein directly to see if there are any further mistakes within the Wikipedia article.

Now the question is how to get this into a form that fits the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. A personal email to me is not considered a Verfiable or Reliable Source. Any ideas on how I can do this are welcome to me. Copysan (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done User:Copysan! I really thought of doing the same in a couple of days. I am happy to see that my guts feeling was right in this case, even more since the reputable CIA factbook stood against it. Of course, we are still left with the WP:RS problem you mention. I am not very experienced here, so I cannot present a clean solution to it. As I already stated, the task to give evidence for the nonexistence of a treaty puts us really in a dilemma. Let's hope Liechtenstein will support references to its expected answer. In any case, I am convinced we have to ensure that this myth (1 month ago I believed myself in it) never makes it to this page again. Actually, we should clearly identify it as such. Tomeasy (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just received a reply from Tamara Büchel-Brunhart, assistant to the Ambassador of Liechtenstein, she said: "As you have already been informed by the Embassy of Switzerland, there is indeed no defense agreement between the two countries." I'll explore how we can work with WP:RS and WP:V in a couple days. Copysan (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the Village Pump, I should just post the emails on the talk page and make sure all interested editors know about the emails, then we can leave it without citation. I have posted them here: Talk:Liechtenstein/Defense_Responsibility_Emails and left an invisible comment in the page itself. Copysan (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous claim

"but also it is the only German-speaking country besides Luxembourg and Belgium to have a Royal head of state."

How a ridiculous claim is this - How many German speaking countries are there!??? Its a completely throwaway piece of trivia not really worth noting in the headline of a country (however, yes maybe at the end for some bits of trivia) Chrisp7 22:40, 03 Mar 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Double Land-Locked

I'd like to add to this point that the expression "double-landlocked" is eccentric, and not entirely helpful. It is simpler to say it is landlocked. However, if the insistence is on this eccentric term, then a correction is needed in the article. It is stated that Liechtenstein is only one of two countries to be doubly landlocked. The other named country is Uzbekistan. Unless my atlas is mistaken I understand that Andorra is also "doubly" landlocked between Spain and France. -- philjohnson

I took out "double-landlocked" again. I cant believe you feel the need to add it in at top and also have it deeper in the text as well. You are threatening the near-perfection of the article. Please see below from the last time I removed the first paragraph trivia.

-- tridesch


"double-landlocked" is not a real word. The fact is, even if you stretch things and make it one, adding it to the top of the article is ridiculous. Think about it - that liechtenstein is "doubly landlocked" is a really only a statement about the geography of liechtenstein's neighboring states. - what doesit have to do with liechtenstein? what effect does it have on liechtenstein, the fact that Austria and Switzerland are landlocked? THis doesnt belong at the top of the article, and really doesnt belong ANYWHERE in the article not clearly labeled as trivia.

--tridesch

--- I think that Double Landlocked is a useful bit of Trivia. The difference between Andora and Liechtenstein is that France connects to the ocean as does Spain. I think that it should remain in there. The fact that this term only relates to 2 countries in the world may be the reason why it's not in common use!

--James Bartosik, 23/11/06


--- Please don't edit back in "lost their case", this is an extremly unscholarly idiom to use in the referendum circumstance. "Looking northbound" caption for the picture doesn't make sense. We don't really "look" anywhere "bound". I let the doubly-landlocked definition stay, but deleted several sentences about usbekistan and some other central asian landlock examples. It was too much of a digression.


---

tridesch ---

What does "double landlocked" mean? RickK 04:12, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It means it is landlocked and it is also surrounded by landlocked countries (in this case Austria and Switzerland). Adam Bishop 04:14, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb 2007 00:44 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss "invasion"

On 28 February 2007, Swiss armed forces unwittingly invaded Liechtenstein after they got lost on a training exercise. Although the company commander ordered an immediate retreat on discovery of the error, it nevertheless caused a huge amount of embarrassment for the Swiss government, who the previous week had been saying how efficient its armed forces were. (emphasis added)

Sensationalist paragraph, so I reworded. Merriam-Webster has two definition for "invasion". In one, invasion is intended "for conquest or plunder", and in the other, it is "hurtful". Clearly, none of them apply. "Huge amount of embarrassment" is exaggerated, since both governments downplayed the incident. How would it be otherwise, if we take into account that Switzerland is responsible for Liechtenstein's defense? (Liechtenstein doesn't have an army) Gb1291 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't even know what this paragraph is doing in the History section in the first place. Who is going to remember this incident in 10 or 20 years? Could the author tell us a bit about its historic significance? S/he should probably put it in some kind of Trivia section. Gb1291 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Switzerland is not responsible for Liechtenstein's defence. Please see my observations on this particular point in the relevant section of the present discussion page. ~Michael, message left on 04/08/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.203.150.113 (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Switzerland is not responsible for Liechtenstein's defence. Michael, while this might be true, you probably shouldn't make a claim that contradicts several recognized online sources without some caution. Strong emphasis will not make your claim more true. You can find my reaction to your observations in that other section. Gb1291 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"it is the only example of aggression from either European country in modern history." Spain was "invaded" in a similar way from british troops stationed in Gibraltar some months ago (a year?), that means the statement is false. Although in my opinion, this fact is simply not an aggression. Sdnegel 18:04, 6 march 2007 (UTC1)

Anywaysd what do you have in Liechtenstein to take, land? I mean come on nobody needs to guard that little thing that should just become another city of Germany or switzerland. MArch 21, 2007

[edit] Useless Trivia

Cedrick Von Haussen is the Wrestling Champion of Liechtenstein? Is this a joke? For starters no such person by this name exists? He is actually a developmental wrestler named Johnny Gargano. This piece of useless information has no bearing or it should be corrected that Gargano was playing a native of Liechtenstein.


[edit] Rent Liechenstein

I added the last bit about renting Liechenstein (though I forgot to log in until later, when I fixed typos and such). I came across the articles randomly, but it seems genuine enough, and I was surprised it wasn't mentioned. Anybody know if any organization ever took them up on their offer? :P .onion 06:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This entry cannot be taken seriously and should be removed. The "research" is based on one article I have found on the internet (Rent-a-country - Prince for a Day - Article in: Reason, June, 2003 by Sara Rimensnyder). It contains many mistakes. You cannot rent a sovereign country, you may rent accommodation and pay for certain services. I wonder what the Liechtensteiners would say if their day-to-day business is taken over by a private firm. How are they supposed to lead their lives? Liechtenstein has no royal castles, but one princely castle, namely the one in Vaduz which is in possession of the reigning princely family. The state of Liechtenstein onws the only other castle in the country, the castle of Gutenberg in Balzers. Only very occasionally this castle is used for state receptions and concerts. I do not see how this entry contributes anything to the article on Liechtenstein, other than that is in the category of faits divers. I could add countless anecdotes about the country but I doubt whether that would be of any use to anybody. [René de Winter, Association of Friends of Liechtenstein in the Netherlands]

[edit] Franz I

The article on Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein states that he died in office, rather than abdicating. Can anyone confirm either way? Either that article or this article is wrong. 59.167.63.78 10:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Dave

Liechtenstein princes do not abdicate, but may transfer their powers to the crown-prince. Prince Franz I did so on March 30, 1928 and his great-nephew Prince Franz Josef took over all state affairs. Prince Franz I died the same year on July 25 in Feldsberg. [René de Winter, Association of Friends of Liechtenstein in the Netherlands]

[edit]  ?

This is my first time editing a talk page; I'm not sure whether I'm following the proper etiquette. I would like to point out the sentence that opens the economy paragraph, "Despite its small geographic area and limited natural resources, Liechtenstein currently is one of the few countries in the world with more registered companies than citizens." I don't see how the second clause in the sentence has any logical connection to the first one. Would the fact (about the proportion of companies to people) be less interesting if Liechtenstein were larger geographically?

71.34.95.250 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)SorryNoNameYet

[edit] GDP

I don't know the figures but when comparing to the cia factbook the gdp and gdp per capita seem grossly wrong, four times that to be exact


[edit] FOOD

Every body loves food they have mant chocolates that the have made and many types of deserts but mostly healthy food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.197.37 (talk) 23:00, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein national variety of German?

Does Liechtenstein have it's own national variety of German? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article. Gringo300 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alemannic, High German variety from around modern Baden-Württemberg. However, I think its mentioned several times in the article. MagicBear (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein Americans?

Are there such thing as Liechtenstein Americans? If so, there needs to be an article on them. Gringo300 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as today there's only around 30.000 Liechtensteiners, a good chunk of whom are foreign born, its very unlikely that any significant number of immigrants in the past came from there. Plus it could be argued that Liechtensteiner is not a distinct ethnic group. MagicBear (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

unlikely that the number of immigrants is significant compared to the population of america but possible that it is significant conmpared to the ihabitants of leichtenstein... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.180.65 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

Why is the photo of the art museum placed in the article twice? Sca (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map?

The map to me seems quite useless as I am unable to see what the country looks like. Is it possible to zoom in a bit more? I know it's a small country but still, a map of Europe doesn't really help and I can only imagine a vague picture of where it's located somewhere near switzerland... Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Ft

Template:Ft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — pete 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 100 percent of the population age 10 and older can read and write?

How does this work? Aren't there any mentally retarded people in Liechtenstein? 100% is very high, how is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehoe665 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein has a very small and mobile population. It's perfectly possible. Also, aggregating the statistics may mean that due to rounding, the effects of people with disabilities are rounded out of the final number. Copysan (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Joehoe does have a good point. Probably should check the REF and make it 99.x%. ~ WikiDon (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)