This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted
The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining Sweden's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Sweden deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am currently in the first year of secondary school and i have not seen any Norwegian so far. Is this info wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.233.27 (talk • contribs)
What info? And I have never heard of norwegian in the Swedish school system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs)
I added it, my "Swedish A" course had some Norwegian in it as described in the article. As the Swedish subject syllabuses are far from standardised across all schools I wouldn't be surprised if some teachers like to leave it out. -Obli (Talk)? 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source for it? I can't find anything on Skolverket.se (or any other site for that matter). Ullner 13:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I assumed it would be in the syllabus since I was taught some Norwegian in Swedish school, but considering the vagueness of any publication on what's to be included in Swedish education, I guess it's up to the teacher. The fact that I went to school in Värmland (county bordering Norway) might also be a part of the explanation. -Obli (Talk)? 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Norwegian and Danish is sometimes taught in classes, but I believe it's optional and rather basic. It's a shame, though, since a few weeks of intensive studies in the neighboring languages should be really helpful about understanding. 惑乱 分からん 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In my "Swedish B" one of our parts of the national test was a dannish text. And the national test is composed by the "skolverk" so i guess that would point to the inclusion of dannish (and norweigan) in the education. Upon askin the teacher of the class she replied that we were supose to have understanding of our neighboring languages. And that its a guideline from the "skolverk". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.182.133.172 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
"The school in its teaching of Swedish should aim to ensure that pupils:(...)develop their ability to understand spoken and written Norwegian and Danish, and become familiar with the literature, languages and language situation in the whole of the Nordic area, including minority languages in Sweden" 90.228.227.16 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that Norwegian is not part of the Swedish courses, however the two languages are very much alike and it is not too hard to understand the other language if you speak one of them. However, some basic language origin might include Norwegian among other languages. Adwicko 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adwicko. When I went to Swedish schools – some 20-30 years ago – we had may be three or four lessons on the subject of the Norwegian and Danish languages, all in all. Not too much, considering the educational system in Sweden is based on a mandatory nine-year primary school. In comparison, English is a mandatory subject for six of these nine years… As to "become familiar with the (…) language situation in the whole of the Nordic area", we did not get any education at all regarding the Icelandic language (which is rather different to Swedish) or Finnish (which is very different to more or less all languages other than the other Baltic-Finnic languages, such as Estonian and Karelian). ~ Tommy Kronkvist(talk|contribs)23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no Norwegian taught in school but if you read Svenska B in the gymnasium there is a (simple) text in either Danish or Norwegian every year.
Well, during the Swedish-course in ninth grade, we sure had a few lessons in both Norwegian and Danish. Kind of an introduction to understanding the structure of the two languages, or something. Similarities with Swedish and such. Our teacher did say that it's a part of the syllabus (kursplanen). - Mickey Macaroni 20:28, 14 May 2007 (CET)
Right now the article also mentions studies in Finnish and Icelandic. That seems strange to me, since these languages are so different to, and difficult for Swedish speakers. It sounds strange. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Social-liberal and social democratic tendencies
The intro text currently reads:
"Today, the country is defined by social-liberal or social democratic tendencies, and usually ranks among the top nations in the UN Human Development Index."
I have two problems with this:
I don't like the sentence "defined by social-liberal or social democratic tendencies". What exactly are these 'tendencies'? How is the country 'defined' by them? I sugges we either take this part of the sentence out or clarify it.
inlcuding the the comment about the UNHD index in the same sentence could be interpreted as insinuating a link between a high ranking and social-liberal and social democratic tendencies. I suggest we make this into its own sentence or scrap it entirely as the standard of living has been mentioned already earlier in the intro.
As I have not received any comments on the above I will go ahead with the proposals I made. If you have any plans to oppose the edits, then please also explain why you did not care enough to discuss your views on the Talk page.KarlXII 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
its probably talking about the strong middle class instead of people being really rich or really poor. also sweden has a good welfare, education, and healthcare system. also used to promote womens and minority rights. i dont know if that will continue though with the right wing in power.
Sweden is not generally a society that promotes womens and minority rights. Sweden has long been a country where there has been a high segregation of women and men in work life and also few women on high positions. The latter has been changing rapidly latelt and according to a recent article Sweden has now cought up. Although perhaps the public sector compensates for the private sector.
Jews in Sweden complain that laws against production of Kosher meat are a remnant from the 1930:s that most other European countries have abolished, jews in Sweden having to import such meat from neighbour countries. The indigenuous Sami people also complain that their rights are better protected in other Nordic countries than in Sweden. There has also been a discussion in Sweden that suggests that Sweden is not as good as other countries at integrating immigrants both socially and in work-life. 81.225.116.186 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The Chernobyl radiation
Actually Finland was the first country to detect the radiation but Finland did not publish it until there had been an radiation alarm and shutdown of a nuclear plant in Sweden.
--128.214.182.110 11:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
State & public ownership of capital
The article included a sentence claiming that the state and labor union controlled pension funds controlled 50% of all "capital" in Sweden. It has been removed. The reasons are:
It was fales. The following table from SCB (Swedish Statistical Office) clearly shows this
"Capital" is too general a term (it should have been "stock market" or similar).
You might be looking for the term public or listed equity? A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.116.2 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"Sweden is, after the US and the UK, the largest producer of music in the world."
Sources are not cited for this statement, which I think is highly improbable. Even though, for it's population size, Sweden has produced a large number of internationally successful artists (pop or otherwise), it does not PRODUCE more music than countries of much higher populations such as Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy or even India for that matter! It can be argued, however, that per capita, Sweden has exported more artists that have gained worldwide fame in the pop music realm than per se, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary or Portugal, all of which have larger populations, which is an extraordinary achievement. It has also been far more successful than any of the other Scandinavian countries in this manner. However, relatively few classical music composers from Sweden are known on an international level, and Sweden has never had a Grieg, Sibelius, or Carl Nielsen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.222.207 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 December 2006.
Come on, Sweden has more world wide famouse bands than any of the countries youve mentioned. Maybe Sweden do not have as many bands at national level though.
It should really read "was the largest exporter of pop music", and there are probably a few newspaper references to quote. I wrote "was" because this was probably true (if at all) in 1990's Roxette and europop (Ace of Base etc.) era, and I doubt it is still the case. --Ezeu 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember hearing a while (like several years) ago we were the largest exporter per capita. Got no source though. 193.47.167.202 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering how much furniture Sweden produces, it wouldn't surprise me if said country is indeed #3 in music production. Vranak 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're refering to IKEA 99,999 % of the stuff are made in China :).
The numbers where in absolute terms. Not per capita. But then again, an analysis of "the third largest exporter of music" reveals that everything that has got to do with music was added to this, such as CD/DVD-presses, speakers, recording equipment and so on. Lpwa 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have actually never heard "number three". I have however heard that Sweden was number four. But I always assumed that it was just inflated market buzz from the record companies to get more support from the government. I believe it when I see the numbers. Ypps 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to forget that people such as songwriters and producers are included in this. I don't know if these figures are based on actual numbers or per capita, but the fact is writers and producers are the real contributors to Sweden's music export and this could very well place Sweden at 3rd. A lot of music performed by artists such as Britney Spears and Backstreet boys has been written and/or produced by swedes. --85.89.75.96 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Language
The Swedish language section could do with some work IMHO. It's evidently not an official language because of a voting error or pairing off problem (according to Swedish language#Official status. I don't know much about the Swedish parliamentry system but I'm a bit confused how someone could make a mistake in voting (don't you just vote yes or no?) and I don't know what a pairing off problem is so perhaps a wikilink or further clarification. A reference might do but the current one provided in Swedish language but not here is in Swedish so it doesn't help non Swedish speakers much. Also, the figures is confusing. Here is says 147 to 145. To me, this would imply 147 for to 145 against since to me anyway it's defacto that you usually specify for to against not against to for. If you are going to say 147 against to 145 for, you should at least specify that it's 147 against. I assume it's 147 against because if it's 147 for why did it fail? Also this implies there were at least two people who made a voting error/pairing off problem since I guess if it were 146-146 it would have failed Nil Einne 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a wikilink to Pair (parliamentary convention) that explains pairing in parliaments. Pairing in Sweden simply means that the chair of a parliamentary group that has a member that would need to be elsewhere during the voting can make a deal with the chair of the group from a party with the opposite view so that one member from that group also abstains from voting so as so still keep the same balance on the vote. This is very common in Sweden where there is almost no votes in parliament where all members attend and most votes are made using pairing. What happened during this vote was that one responsible person forgot to "pair-off" two members of parliament that was not supposed to vote. ---- Spreetin (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Which map should we use?
Map #1 (original map)Map #2 (EU map)Map #3 (scandinavia map)Map #4 (Europe map, not yet used in article)
Sweet zombie jesus, am I watching a revert war unfold here? Over something as trivial as WHAT MAP IS TO BE USED? Without any of the participant even raising the question on the talk page? STOP IT, ALL OF YOU, NOW.
So. What situation have we got? A lot of maps have been used; namely those on your right side.
I hope we can get this sorted out without further reverting. The original is in place at the time of writing, don't change that. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case don't look now :) Last time I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries the jury was still out on this issue, but that page would probably be a better place to debate this issue. Valentinian(talk) / (contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The map has finally been reverted to it's original decision, per consensus decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Vote. Those objecting should not that 1) I started a discussion here and noone wanted to participate, and 2) while Wikipedia is not a democracy and the vote tallies doesn't really represent a consensus (but indeed a sizable majority), the original map should be kept until consensus has been reached. So, now, NO TOUCHY! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian Aaker replaced the original map LocationSweden.png with EU location SWE.png on the 16th of January, 2007. I checked the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Vote and it appears that as of today 2007-01-17 1453 hrs UTC, the highest number of votes still belongs to those who would rather stick with the old maps for the meantime. So do we revert the image back the original or have I missed a discussion elsewhere that states that the maps should be changed to the newer ones? --Edward Sandstig 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I replaced it because I've seen the same kind of map in articles about many other EU-member states and therefore i thought i was standard. Maybe I was wrong. IMO "Map #3 (scandinavia map)" is the most beautiful one. Aaker 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The preferences are #1 (simple, yet consistent with other countries) or #3 (SVG), so not #2 or #4 (EUrocentric, bad projection, unnecessarily detailed, horrid colours). How do you like them apples? Corticopia 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia's preferences. #1 had 18 individual voters (incl. Corticopia) only, #2-#4 had 25 (incl. myself) + 25 EU-member country articles (#2) + a number of non-member articles (#4). More recent style map #3 was not fully discussed and is only used for Spain (for its showing the Canary Islands), and does not even have a map of the United Kingdom yet, which is rather a handicap on the English-language Wikipedia... though that is not its only flaw. (See also section #Please don't revert the map... where Corticopia also added a comment today.) - While I was typing this reply, Corticopia's edit appears to have been reverted. Never mind, let's hope it may stay undisturbed now. — SomeHuman25 Feb2007 19:31 (UTC)
2+2=5, eh? Flaws are abound, particularly in your argumentation. Even if it was valid (and it ain't, for reasons stated there), 25 out of 43 (58%) is NOT a consensus. And you employ a straw man to substantiate all actions since and exclude other options. Do you understand yet? Do I stutter? I defer to prior comments. Corticopia 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2# and 4# should not be used because they distort the true shape of Sweden (stretch in the north).
Actually maps #2 and #4 make the most accurate projections of Sweden. Those are the two maps that correspond to actual maps of Sweden used here (in Sweden). Maps #1 and #3 are based on a world-projection that makes pretty good sense in most of the world but do not correspond good enough to the actal sizes of countries way in the northern and southern edges, like Sweden. You can look at the choice of map made at the Swedish wiki sv:Sverige. The choice of map doesn't really matter to me, but right should be right :-) ---- Spreetin (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I have contributed to this article (I am the main contributor [5]), I do not believe it adheres to the GA criterias. I think it became listed at some time because it contains a lot of interesting information and nice images, but it probably doesn't conform with the current GA requirements. Everyone is adding his/hers bits and the article is a mosaic of generally unsourced information, trivias and list-like sections. / Fred-Chess 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
delist Fails meerly on the cite needed tags and it is undereferenced.Rlevse 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it only fitting I let this line from the article be seen: "ABBA is without a doubt the most well-known popular music group from Sweden, and the only one that ranks among the most well-known in the world". Well, there's something else "without a doubt" here to me thanks to that music section, namely, that this article should be Delisted. Homestarmy 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my mind. Keep. It covers its topic sufficiently, and with the revision of criteria 2b, inline citations aren't required anymore. Some cleanup is necessary, but I think it should be a comparatively minor issue. / Fred-Chess 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
delist The "Culture" section alone would justify its removal. No citations, and most of the section is only music. Way too many unreferenced and poorly referenced sections in this article. Teemu08 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
delist refs are a mess and there are not enough for this size article.Rlevse 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Same sex marriage
This article says that Sweden allows same sex marriage since 2006. This would be very good if it was true, but it isn't. Allowing same sex marriage has been discussed and proposed, but when it will be legally allowed is very unsure. I suggest that this is changed in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.179.178 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 January 2007.
Already removed. --Edward Sandstig 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Welfare state section
Changes in the wording of the section were made for the following reasons:
1. It is not encyclopedic to state that Sweden is a "high-tax" country for the reason that what constitutes high and low taxes is highly relative. 30% income tax sounds very high to most people in the United States, but to someone in Sweden, a differing perspective may be at play. If Sweden does indeed have one of the highest tax rates in Europe, as someone here pointed out, then it should be stated and more importantly cited. But stating Sweden is a "high-tax" country is un-neutral.
2. It is also inappropriate to state that the Swedish welfare state is "unusually extensive". What constitutes "unusual" in this case? If anything, the more proper wording would be that the Swedish welfare state is more extensive "...in comparison with other countries", as I have revised.
Thank you for reading, and please do not blanket revert these changes unless adequately discussed within the context of this section. Have a good afternoon.-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sweden is not "perceived" as being high-taxed, it does indeed have one of Europe's (and the world's) two highest levels of taxation. This will hardly come as much of a surprise to any Scandinavian. Sweden's main rival in this respect is my own country, Denmark, and to be frank I don't really know which of the two nations that currently hold the title of the world's heaviest taxed country. To quote an official Danish government publication from 2002 (quote) Danmark har sammen med Sverige det højeste skattetryk i OECD-området, jf. figur 3.4. I den anden ende af skalaen finder man lande som USA og Irland. (unquote) = Denmark has, along with Sweden, the highest level of taxation in the OECD-area, cf. figure 3.4. At the other end of the scale, one will find countries like the United States and Ireland") [6]ValentinianT / C 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Valentinian, thanks for providing your input. Helpful and thorough as usually.
I think that adding that reference to the article wouldn't hurt. The more references the better. / Fred-Chess 00:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fred :) A Swedish reference would be better but if you or anybody else can use the Danish reference, be my guest. ValentinianT / C 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, state that the taxes are higher in comparison, but to directly state Sweden is a "high-tax" country is unencyclopedic.--- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No EnglishEfternamn, you have possibly one country with a higher rate (Denmark) and around 200 with a lower rate. That is quite sufficient evidence that both Sweden and Denmark are "high-tax" countries. ValentinianT / C 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a newer article about the same issue [7]. I don't know if the Swedish cabinet has carried out its tax cut plan. If this hasn't happend, Sweden probably still has the highest tax rates in the world. ValentinianT / C 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For the third time, if Sweden does have higher taxes than most countries, mention it in the article and more importantly cite it. But to directly state that Sweden is a "high-tax" country is unencyclopedic, because it deals with relative variables.--- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The figures clearly state that the average Swedish citizen in relative terms pays more taxes than the average citizen of any other country in the world. In addition to the two sources above, here are the 1995-2005 figures from the Danish Ministry of Taxation comparing tax / GDP ratios for the EU-25 countries. [8] Sweden consistently has the highest taxation / GDP ratio but Denmark is not far behind. If the Swedish cabinet indeed has implemented the promised tax reform, the average Dane will rank no. 1 on this list. Danish cabinets have compared total taxes to GDP for more than 20 years and I'd be very surprised if the same measurement isn't used in Sweden as well. The question about if this system of taxation is right or wrong is a politicial issue not relevant in this context. But the Kingdom of Sweden remains one of the two leading nations in the world when it comes to levying taxes, and I'd consider any article about Swedish or Danish economy incomplete without this piece of information. ValentinianT / C 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Then state that info in the article, as it certainly has its place there, but again, Sweden should not be referred directly as "high-tax".-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that your recent edit is a "middle ground" but let the Swedes decide. I won't edit the paragraph myself to avoid being accused of edit warring. I've already spent way too much effort on documenting something that is common knowledge throughout all of Scandinavia. ValentinianT / C 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For the fifth time, you're erroneously equating the relative to the absolute. Sweden's taxes arecomparatively quite high, but nothing outside of human assertion says they are high in the absolute sense.-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
EnglishEfternamn and Valentian,
Sweden's taxes (well, at least those on personal income) are certainly higher than in most countries. Regardless of wether or not the government has or is planning to implement tax cuts these are unlikely to change this.
I'm leaning towards the position of EE that it would be, technically, more correct to say that Swedish taxes are "comparatively high" as opposed to saying that they are just "high". I don't see how the readers will be misled by choosing the former. Same goes for the welfare state.
I think the best comparison would be with other European/EU or OECD countries. It makes less sense to compare Sweden (or Denmark, for that matter) with Iran or Peru.
Might also be worthwhile to differentiate between the tax levels on various types of taxes - personal income taxes are high, but corporate income taxes are lower than in a lot of other countries, etc.
now that it has brought in a right wing prime minister after a strong and long history of social democracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.204.43 (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
We had a right-wing prime minister under Carl Bildt, 4 October 1991 – 7 October 1994, too. (And even though that brought us a damn lot of shit it didn't doom us.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't it cause great threats to the stability of many people in need, though? Now's the time more than ever to raise as much as we can for the Social Democrats.-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I'd like to contest your latter statement, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article and not for politics. ;) If you're curious about what I'd say, drop me a note on my talk page instead. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, the Social Democrats caused the shitstorm in the early 90's: They even admit it --Winterus 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To be precise, however Aftonbladet frames it--and for Americans, Aftonbladet is a right wing rag something like Fox News--the Social Democrats, on the heels of Palme's assassination and pressured by the exit of Swedish capital investing abroad in Europe, laid some of the foundation for the 1990s crisis by following Chicago School pro-capitalist policy. But once he came to power in the early 1990s, liberal-right politician Carl Bildt refused to restore controls on the currency, and the unfettered currency speculation is what temporarily trashed the Swedish economy. That's why Swedish capital let the SAP run things for a while again. Anyone who's read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" is familiar with the neoliberal shock strategy.
I have a question about Sweden's compliance with the EU Bolkestein Service Directive. I know the SAP (along with France's Socialist Party) had opposed the Service Directive and that the Service Directive passed almost immediately after the Alliance came to power in 2006. (1) Did the switch over to bourgeois rule in Sweden facilitate the passage of the Bolkestein Directive in the EU? (2) Which of the following parts of the standard neoliberal package are there plans for implementation to conform with the Bolkestein Directive by 2009?: policies of stimulating labor immigration, removing labor protections (decreasing the union confederations' powers), decreasing welfare/welfare availability, and/or public subsidization of secondary sector firms and a tertiary labor market? I've seen proposals for some of these, and the EU court has been striking down the LO's ability to collect sector-bargaining fees from imported labor. (3) Do all Alliance parties, and the SAP support the neoliberal policy package, in order to conform with Bolkestein, or do some just support parts of it? Blanche Poubelle 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder: This isn't a general forum to discuss Swedish politics, but a place to discuss the article and improvements to it. --henrik•talk 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. If I knew the Wiki technique for redaction, I would redact the above questions. I thought the issues might be discussed on the talk page to see if there is some sort of consensus for mentioning in the article the Bolkestein Directive and the recent European Court ruling on Swedish labor practices. Of course, if there is a consensus that the directive and the ruling will have no considerable impact on Sweden socially, politically, and economically, it would be completely immaterial to bring up the matter. Blanche Poubelle 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Until it proves to have had a major impact on Swedish society, this article (a general overview of Sweden) is probably not the right place. We're not here to speculate on what impact something may have, but rather to document what has happened. There may be a more suitable specialized article to document the European Court ruling, perhaps the page on the directive itself? henrik•talk 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweden is richer now then ever :S and the welfare is also better? The right wings are simply better at taking care of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajaggajagga (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
In light of the recent waves of vandalism, I think it possible that the protection of this page from unregistered users is not a bad idea. If an administrator is reading this, I request that intervention be taken.-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this was brought to my attention and I went with a 12 hour semi protect, let's see if that slows things down. If not, just keep reverting... the frequency here is not THAT high... ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well i reverted the page from two words which im not sure what they mean i believe they were: "Tjena, grabben"
FYI: "Tjena, grabben" is Swedish for "Hi, dude!"... 83.250.203.52 09:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Religion section
There is a statement towards the end that states that there has been "renewed" practices of religion in Sweden. I'm not so sure this statement is appropriate, because every authoritative source on the subject seems to imply quite the opposite. Until a specific citation is provided on the subject, I'm not so sure the statement belongs in this article, because what is seemingly going on is so highly contradictory to it.-- EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sources
Hi, just for anyone's comment, I've tried to source up the article based on some books I have. A lot of it is from the same books, but I guess that's the nature of the topic. I tried to include some of the text in the citations, just for verification, but also as a basis if others want to incorporate that additional material, as one person did nicely [9]. I was pretty happy with finding direct sources for what was already in the article, but the material in the article might be modified a little as well where it differs slightly. Maybe after a little while we would be able to remove the quotes from the sources, then, to the extent they're not necessary. Best, Mackan79 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mackan79, just a quick note to let you know that I think you're doing a great job! Much needed and appreciated by all contributors to this article, I'm sure. I would suggest that the many references to Nordstrom are consolidated by combining all those that are on consecutive pages (i.e. Nordstrom 6-20 and so on), that is, those that do not have direct quotes in the footnote. Also, the latest recommendation on the "cite your sources" page states that the full citations should be listed in alphabetical order under References, so all the major sources need to be duplicated in that section, with full ISBN numbers etc. Not sure how the majority of the people working on the article wants to handle the citations or Wikipedia:Footnotes yet, as there various fixes (including parenthesis with page numbers). Pia 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for doing that! I appreciated the tip, I simply have to figure out exactly how to do that. I guess it's pretty simple. Thanks in any case for doing it this time. Mackan79 04:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, Mackan, I also think you're doing a great thing by finally getting it referenced----- i've been wanting to do it for years but don't have access to (hardly) any English language literature, something I think is important on Eng Wikipedia... / Fred-Chess 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Mackan79, I was wondering if we could remove some of the direct quotes from Nordstrom that appear in the footnotes (maybe by leaving some of them in meta tags if the passage referred to is controversial in some way)? I'm feeling a bit worried about the extent of the quotes, which combined make the article copy pretty large chunks, word by word, of certain pages of the book as it stands now. The point with the direct quotes is to remove any doubts concerning how the author is interpreted in the running text, but when you stay close to the intended meaning in the source and refer to a limited range of pages, the reader should be sufficiently informed to do the fact checking her-himself if doubt arises in her/his mind about the accuracy of the Wiki text. I am going to do an initial attempt to remove some quotes, but I will leave all of them in "invisibility tags" (look like this <!--- Nordstrom, pg 539. ---> so that you can look it over and revert if you feel that direct quotes are needed in some of the instances. Please look it over and remove the <!--- ---> tags around the quotes you feel are essential as support to the text and they will appear in the footnotes again. Best, Pia 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Pia, well it looks fine to me. Is that fine then? Or should we go back and delete the stuff that was made invisible then? I'd be happy to do that if necessary, otherwise I'd be inclined to leave it as is. Thanks, Mackan79 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Mackan, I think it's fine. But it probably wouldn't hurt to delete some quotes from the meta tags though, since there are so many. Eventually. When time allows. :) Best wishes, Pia 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't revert the map...
Hi. I know you all want to have the "best" map on this article. But please do not revert war over this. It is not a big deal, it's only that the article will appear unstable if the map is changed all the time. Thank you. / Fred-Chess 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, a poll is currently taking place regarding which maps should be used in the future for all the European material. See User talk:Valentinian#Location Maps for more information and the link to this poll. Voting closes on 20 February. If anybody feels strongly about this issue, why not vote there? ValentinianT / C 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The poll is located here and so far there has been no clear decision hence the initial push to keep things as they were. Unfortunately, anonymous users keep changing the map. We could push for a move to have the article locked from anonymous users if that's acceptable. --Edward Sandstig 09:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
After one user without relevant edit comment or contribution on this talk page once more replaced the location map, I reverted it to the one that nearly all EU members had by the end of the forementioned survey (all except at that time Spain and here Sweden, I think. A few contributors are still fighting against that version, but at both the earlier poll and the recent survey and in discussions, many contributors very clearly put great weight on having a uniform map - it is clear that at present this is the Liuzzo style and with the EU shaded for a map of a member state. Another map that was here above appreciated (Rei-artur style) does not exist for all countries (not even for the United Kingdom, for instance) and the 'old' style appears to be abandoned by European countries [except where the above user as for Sweden switched to that one]. — SomeHuman25 Feb2007 17:19 (UTC)
As the above clearly indicates and despite the commentator's grandiloquence, there is no consensus (neither here nor elsewhere) to support substandard EUrocentric maps; this can be said, though, for the original PNG maps. Until a new consensus arises, boldly go ... Corticopia 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia is the only one (except for one on this matter friend-editor [see WikiProject Countries] only on the 'Netherlands' article where that edit already became reverted) that disturbs the de facto consensus of 25 EU member countries and most other European countries where the proper version of Liuzzo map had been placed by a number of contributors; reverting to a map that was less appreciated than the Liuzzo style is not merely "bold" with so many countries' articles showing to at least accept a different opinion. A hitherto unenvolved user already reverted Corticopia's continued and at same articles repeated "boldness" on Finland and on Iceland... (See also my reply at #Which map should we use? where Corticopia added one more comment today.) — SomeHuman25 Feb2007 19:10 (UTC)
That is because you expect deference to a de factofalse consensus, which exists neither here nor elsewhere and which you alone assert. This is not revealed in any poll, and is a point of view which months of prior stability cannot forego because of point-of-view pushing by those who support the 'crap maps'. Less appreciated? Quite the value judgement, actually, and quite the contrary. The only thing that disturbs anything is continuous obstructionist, verbose dialogue meant to force an unpopular decision down our collective throats. I will continue to be bold, and others should do the same. Corticopia 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not make those 25 out of 27 EU member countries or the non-EU member countries select the Liuzzo style map, unless my "point-of-view pushing" and "verbose dialogue" on the WikiProject Countries talk page has convinced their contributors... I'm sure there may have been a few with several agendas who like you obstinately were running along series of articles pushing 'their' map. But by the time the survey ended, there were many different users who had put the last map change in, and those happened so largely to come to a same map. That is not a false but a true de facto consensus. I never touched an article's map before the survey had ended. — SomeHuman25 Feb2007 19:40 (UTC)
Sources on Swedish history
The following is a reply to a question[10] about sources on History of Sweden added to my Talk page.
I though the information was common knowledge and therefore didn't think any 'source' was needed. A couple easily accessible and widely accepted references which could be used are:
Encyclopedia Britannica Online's article on the History of Sweden [11]
EuroDocs also has a quite good link library (in English) to sources on Swedish history (in English) [14]
I'd be glad to cooperate in improving the article on Sweden. I've made som attempts in the past with the Economy section (since I'm an economist) but nothing sustained. I've added this reply also on the Sweden Talk page.
Cheers Osli73 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. I agree, the sources aren't really necessary, I just saw this article seems to keep getting under-rated for lack of sources, so I wondered if there was something we could add. These do look like pretty common knowledge stuff, so maybe there's not any great use... I'll try to check it out in a bit. Mackan79 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent History section tangle
After mentioning WWII, and then the 1960s, there follows the sentance "By the 1930s, the living standard in Sweden was ranked as one of Europe's highest and its ranking at or near the top was maintained well into the mid-20th century.", before then mentioning joining the EU in 1995, and then continuing on about the Cold War, the 1970s, etc. These snippets might want to be moved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.75.199 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Music page
One of swedens current biggest exports is heavy metal music. "Swedish death metal" is now a genre and has become a huge success in America as well as europe. Bands like the haunted are very big and I think it should be mentioned in the music section.
Is it really necessary to mention Basshunter as he is a rather non famous (internationally) artist?
Re: Music Page
I believe some info of heavy metal have recently been added.
Also I agree with you about listing Basshunter, to be honest I find it embarassing. Adwicko 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
He is a onehit wonder who should be removed.
No one cares about him anymore.
Tread carefully
As a Swede and anthropologist, I have some general remarks to make to this article.
Sweden is not generally liberal, it is traditionally a collectivistic and corporativistic country, in the public sphere. More so than any other Western country. Even if there have been many rapid changes the last 15 years.
Sweden is also not generally speaking modern. To the contrary, explanations regarding Swedish society generally focus on pre-modern cultural paradigms, such as the organisation of rural villages in Sweden before the 1840:ies. Swedish mentality is in fact often described as rural and backward.
This creates some confusion, since according to other aspects of modernity and liberalism, Sweden does perhaps may register high. In fact, Japan has some resemblance with Sweden in this respect.
There is a need to tread carefully with nebuolous concepts such as "modernity". A country may be very modern in some aspects and not at all in others.
I also urge some care with statistics. In this article a unproportionate amount of initial text is spent suggesting that Sweden is environmentally progressive. I suggest that global statistics concerning polution per capita are consulted, in which, from memory, Sweden compares less favorably to other countries.
Living standards is also debatable. Sweden started to drop in GNP/capita in the middle of the 1970:s and ended up below average. I am not sure to what extent Sweden now has regained its position. GNP is not the same as living standards, but I am also not sure that Swedish living standards are generall high? Based on which criteria? Which sources?
In my view, there are far too many layers of political propaganda and misconceptions concerning Sweden, to allow for latitude in repeating established stereotypes of Sweden. There must be extremely high demands when using and interpreting different source concering Swedish politics, culture, history and economy.
If not, you may end up reproducing too much of one the two traditional extremes in the description of Swedish society: "Marquis Childs, Swden the middle way, 1936" and "Roland Huntford, "The New Totalitarians, 1971".
For those acquainted with anthropology, conceptions of Sweden have much in common with the "Mead" - "Freeman" controversy.
As a matter of fact, Sweden's GDP per capita is about three times higher than the world's total GDP per capita. Sweden's position is #14. Naturally, right-wing observers in Sweden would say that our GDP is inflated because of an overvalued public sector. Left-wing observers would say that it is undervalued. (Who knows? I'm not an expert).
Sweden has in fact made progress in environment-work in recent history (last 20-25 years). These days we are a "green" country compared with other high GDP-countries. However, like all high-GDP countries Sweden is a major "crook" when compared with low GDP-countries.
Other than that the comment has some interesting points.
>> The citizens enjoy a high standard of living and the country is generally perceived as modern and liberal.>>
Even if true, why relate "perceptions"? That something is percieved to be in a certain way does not necessarily mean that it also is that way.
>> Nature conservation, environmental protection and energy efficiency are generally prioritized in policy making and embraced by the general public in Sweden. >>
What are the source for this? As a Swede I know that the political propaganda depicting Sweden as environmentally conscious is pervasive. But ciritics say that Sweden has a high degree of pollution per capita, and surveys to this effect are intermittently referenced - but never discussed - in media.
In fact, having a heavy mechanical industry, large living space in homes and long transportation routes, a degree of pollution equivalent to countries such as Canada, US, etc would be to expect.
I once compared EU statistics on some environmental indicators, and Britain, for one, was much less polluting than Sweden, although one tends to end up with a bunch of indicators that are more or less easy to summarize and or weigh.
The author of this article also seems to put a tremendous weight on environmental issues. I think that there is a disproportionate amount space dedicated to Swedish environmental policies. Why not put these under a separate heading?
>>The country has for many years pursued a strategy of indirect taxation as an instrument of environmental policy, including energy taxes in general and carbon dioxide taxes in particular.[3] >>
Maybe so, but why put that in an intro?
>> In an effort to phase out the dependency on nuclear power and fossil fuels, the Swedish government has launched a multi-billion dollar program to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.[3][4] >>
Why do we want to know this in an intro? 81.225.116.186 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Late industrialisation
>> Economic liberalization as well as universal schooling contributed to the rapid industrialization, and by the 1890s the country had begun to develop an advanced manufacturing industry. >>
In terms of industrialisation, Sweden was a rural country until 1930. (That is the year when the proportion of industrial workers exceeded that of the rural population).
I am also not so sure about liberalisation in absolute terms. What is meant by this? Examples of laws, regulations, etc, that define economic "liberalisation"? Nonetheless, the emergence of the Swedish model probably spelled a reversal in terms of liberalisation of the economy. State intervention and regulation increased in several respects, beginning in the 1930:ies.
How many people know that Sweden, Rumania and Italy had the lost percentage of sufferage in Europe in the beginning of the 1900:ies? How many know that Sweden had the second largest turn of the century emigration per capita to the US after Irland?
According to recieved history this was because Sweden was both economically and politically backward.
The cited text may give an incorrect impression of Swedish society in the 1800:ies compared to other European countries. Also compare with the modernisation chapter, which is rather clear about Swedish belatedness. 81.225.116.186 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Welfare state
>> Sweden emerged as a welfare state; consequently, it usually ranks among the top countries in the UN Human Development Index or HDI. >>
Milton Friedman has sometimes been quoted as saying that Swedes in USA are equally well off as Swedes in Sweden (as measured by such indices). This suggests that the "welfare state" is not the only possible cause. It could simply be a question of lutheran work ethics.
Nonetheless, the current political discussion in Sweden concerns the issue that according to statistics, in reality, 20% of the population (or is it the labour force) do not go to work.
This is mainly due to high rates of sickness, with unusually high degrees of mental issues ("burn-out") but also physical strain on orderlies and nurses in the health service. The reasons for this are debated but it seems that this rate started to climb in the mid 1990:ies. One possible cause could therefore be the effects of cut-bakcs in an attempt to restore the economy after the depression in the early 1990:ies.
Dear 81.225.116.186, please incorporate the high rate of sickness leave into the text, with reliable sources, and wherever you find gaps in the coverage, please do contribute. There is no queen bee to report to; it's just a matter of rolling up your sleeves, unfolding your wings and fly in with your nectar to the hive like the very few worker bees active here among the bird-dropping type contribution from fly-by vandals. Time is precious..we can't be expected to all compose essays, reverse vandalism, check sources and contribute to articles constantly, on a volunteer basis, so you might not get the response you hope for in regards to the many posts above on this chat page. To give you at least one response: "Say what?!"--How does Mead versus Freeman and other such age-old anthropology bickering apply to Sweden did you say again? Free love is not readily available for the asking and crime is not dealt with by exchanging a few mats in neither Sweden nor Samoa? He, he. Well, I'm glad you found a comparison that close--like peas and cavorts, as they say, or like apples and orangoutangs. You also state that Sweden is not "modern", but "to the contrary, pre-modern" with a "mentality" that is "rural and backward"---Maybe you actually meant to say that Sweden is like Mead's Samoa and that we shouldn't allow Freeman-type scepticism to dispel such notions about Sweden either, because Sweden really does have a frollicking, rural and backward population, flat on their backs on straw mats, with one leg in the east and one leg in the west. Sorry, trying to be serious, but you really make me full of giggles with that one. As for your objection that the country is not environmentally progressive, I would like to register my protest. Sweden is party to the Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Sulfur 85, Air Pollution-Sulfur 94, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94 and Wetlands agreements. It's actually quite progressive in environmental issues in general. See also its Municipal Waste per capita, and its CO2 Emissions (per capita). The Oil consumption (per capita) is in the mid range, below the UK, Iceland, Finland and Norway, Belgium, but above Denmark, France and Germany. Not to promote crazy superlative stories, but I just want to point out that the perception is pretty general among Swedes, whether true or false: "Sweden is paying great attention to environmental protection and is one of the world leaders in the transition to a national policy of ecologically sustainable development" and "For almost 30 years, Sweden has taken a pragmatic approach to environmental issues, achieving outstanding economic and environmental results in the process...its rather surprising that Canada is lagging so far behind Sweden when it comes to environmental performance", and bla, bla, etc, etc. :) Best wishes, Pia 05:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Being lenghty and glib and lacking in respect of science and other people's views, it comes as no surprise that this reply is signed with a Swedish name. Swedes have a very problematic relation to images of their own country. As exemplified by the debate about Swedish eugenics 1997 (world record in involuntary sterilisations per capita during a period after the second world war, while claiming to be the most "humane" country in the world).
There was also recently a seven programme long series about Swedish mentality in Swedish state television ("Världens modernaste land"). One of the conclusions in the programme was that Swedes have a problematic relation to their very recent rural past. Expressed as denial of this recent past. A way of overcompensating is then to quickly adopt everything that they feel is "modern". But this only makes Swedes superficially modern. The mentality is still by most scholars and commentators described as backward.
Responses in media to the program series also gave several examples that Sweden is not very modern, even in the more superficial sense of the word. Those of you who have seen Discovery channel travel programmes may also remember a visistor to Sweden who found the capital to be rather rural and booring. Such comments are frequent in literature and debate.
In fact, Sweden's leading foreign-born journalist, Maciej Zaremba, has as his main thesis that the Swedish model is the rural village mentality and an old Christian "volk" tradition writ large. Our leading ethnologist, Åke Daun, also frequently analyses Swedish behvaiour in terms of a wistfull rural mentality, uncomfortable in an urban setting.
The signature "Pia" is obvioulsy not very aware of social sciences and public debate in Sweden. She also reacts in a way that many Swedes do, when discussing these matters. She becomes glib and tries to ridicule the person who says things that she does not seem to want to accept. Well, government is at least nice to people like Pia. They feed here with myths of Swedish humanitarianism, high living standards, progressiveness, equality, and now environemntal consciousness.
Sweden has signed a lot of international treatises, but could not care less about implementation in Sweden. Ask the indigenous Sami people. You can also consult Sweden's poor track record at the European court for human rights. You may also consult UN:s committée against torture. Sweden has the current world record in being found by the committée to violate the convention against torture. Why? One reason stated by the comittée is that Sweden signs treaties, but national jurisprudence (dualism) renders them void in national courts.
I also note that the reference for quotes regarding environemntal policies are fetched directly from government web pages. That is not even remotly acceptable. Two serious reference are, however, given. To municipal statistics and CO2 emissions. As if that would cover the claims made about Swedish environmental progresiveness!
I prefer discussing before making changes. I have now concluded that there are no susbtantial factual basis for the claims made about, inter alia, Swedish environmental policies. I will be back. 81.225.116.186 14:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please roll up your sleeves and report to work then, 81.225.116.186. I appologize if I was glib. I actually share some opinions conveyed in your statement, but articles are not about contributor opinions (nor are talk pages supposed to be about contributors' user name, psychological state, ethnicity or professional status). Although I may agree with some things in your above post, I do not agree with generalizations without proper documentation. My plea to you was to participate with sourced facts where the coverage is weak, rather than trying to start a discussion so generalized that it needs to include the Mead versus Freeman debate and declarations about contributors' professional status. In my opinion, that debate has very little to do with the issue at hand, which is why I found it funny. I did not mean to ridicule you; I'm sorry if I appeared to do just that. I get impatient with the extent of vandalism targeting this article and with people in general who write long statements on talk pages and demand that others do the work to accommodate their unsourced claims. What I meant to convey to you was that if you object to the use of the words modern and liberal in the lead, and to the characterization of Sweden as environmentally progressive, it cannot be based on Mead or Freeman. (However, for the record, if pressed on the subject I admit that I'd have to agree with the scholars described by Micaela di Leonardo: "Margaret Mead and Samoa is a badly written and unconvincing claim that Mead, influenced in a 'culturally determinist' direction by her nefarious adviser Franz Boas, falsely interpreted the Hobbesian world in which Samoan youth came of age as a gentle idyll." And: "Freeman's theoretical vacuity and empirical flaws, his ahistorical claim of an Eternal Samoa, his failure to realize that his key informants--older, high-status males--were no more a 'true and accurate lens' of Samoan culture than were Mead's young female companions." And even with the feminists, "who noted the rank sexism of Freeman's focus on Mead's youth and size: 'The liberated young American...only twenty-three years of age...[was] smaller in stature than some of the girls she was studying.'") But back to the issue at hand: Generalized statements such as "Swedes have a problematic relation to images of their own country" cannot be used to refute what international scholars and sources have to say about Sweden. I am not the one who added that Sweden is viewed as liberal and modern, but since it appeared to be based on the CIA World Fact book, I added a ref tag to demonstrate in which areas the country has been described by international sources as modern and liberal, especially in order to satisfy your criticism on this talk page. Many countries on Wikipedia rely on that source for a "general view". Without taking a stand on whether that policy is acceptable or not: the factbook defines Sweden as modern in reference to its distribution system, communications, labor force and engineering sector. It says NOTHING about the Swedish mentality. If you feel that a critical view of the "Swedish mentality" from an anthropological point of view is lacking, please add it, with references that demonstrate the importance and the degree of acceptance in the scholarly community for the views. Also: rather than demanding exclusion of views that are described as generally used and sourced to show in which context they are used, please improve the article by adding alternative views, if they are generally held and from reliable sources, and especially if they are views held by renowned scholars and demonstrate that the generally held view might be considered incorrect. That goes for the environmental issue too, of course. Pia 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the either-or argument is at fault. It seems perfectly valid to start participation with some general views and by trying to get some responses from those involved. Often the writers want to change their own texts, not have them changed. Better to tread carefully. Also, this does not preclude a more hands-on participation after initial contact.
For the record, I have also already contributed by rewriting some of the paragraphs about the Swedish constitution and Swedish Modern history, which showed signs of the same uncritical and unscholarly acceptance of offical government texts.
I also do not think that the others are very interested in lengthy biased quotes from the Mead-Freeman debate. I instead suggest George W Stockings's history of anthropology, regarding anthropological sensitivities of the 1920:ies. He criticises both Freeman and Mead, but does find that a number of dissertations from the 1920:ies were probably "scotomized".
Before writing about Sweden it is very important to know that depictions of Swedish society are highly problematic. The best way of understanding the reason for this is to start with the relation between Marquis Childs, "Sweden the middle way" (1936) and Mead, Oscar Lewis and Ruth Benedict (as described by Stocking) and then compare with Roland Huntford.
I hope to show this in more practical detail. My first contribution has been to add Uddhammar's thesis to the reference list. He showed that, contrary to common opinion, the non-social democratic parties by and large agreed on the radical expansion of the public sector in Sweden, 1950-1980:ies.
I have also changed the description made of judicial review in Sweden. No other Western country has the same system as Sweden. They either have strong case-based judicial review or constitutional courts. Sweden has a review board that is not compulsory and often not respected and judicial review has been curtailed both in constitutional text, doctrine and practice. The official political doctrine has also for decades condemned judicial review as un-democratic.
I have also looked for environmental indicators. These are diverse and difficult to compare. All the more credit to those who have tried. This ranking of high-income OECD countries (2005) puts Sweden as number 8: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/EnvirPerf.pdf. Compare this with the strong emphasis on enviornmental issues in the first paragraphs of this article. If no one wants to rewrite and/or move these to a sub-chapter about environment, I would be happy to do so.
Finally, Pia's argument about liberal and modern is perhaps valid from a sourcing point of view, but I actually consulted the CIA page and found it laughable (sorry!). However, it is not just an issue of "mentality". For example, the Swedish constitution is probably the least modern in the Western world (in terms of developments in a majority of Western countries), only comparable to the British one. Swedish corporatism is another example.
Sweden has also for long been one of the countries with the lowest degree of equality in the labor market. Only some ten years ago Sweden had the least equal labor market in the world. Women did women's work and were excluded in a much higher degree from high positions than in other countries. (This last fact has recently changed due, it seems, mostly to changes in the public sphere).
I guess what I have been trying to say is that Swede's in general believe their government more than other western peoples do. At the same time they probably have much less reason to do so that in any other western country. It can be worth while to keep this, and Mead-Freeman, in mind when evaluating sources.
Who the hell is this anti-swedish junkie, and what is her/his agenda? It would be a too soft criticism to call it crappy bullshit. Holy Jeez...
Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
Great Power
Regarding these changes, I'm concerned the new material gets too far afield. For one thing there are a lot of typos that need to be fixed; I could do that, but I think the previous section was more concise and to the point, for an already long article. Could we maybe work with the previous section and add material as seems necessary? I think that would be better. Mackan79 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Baltic Sea Borders
Quote from current text: "It has maritime borders with Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia...". The Baltic Sea is international waters, i.e. it does not constitute as a "maritime border", whatever the definition of a "maritime border" may be? Could not find it in the Wikipedia. Anything beyond 12 nautical miles from the coastline is considered international waters. --Philaweb 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And why was Denmark missing from the list? Sweden has not only one border with Denmark but two (one with Zealand and the Kattegat islands and a second one with Bornholm). I've added Denmark to the list. ValentinianT / C 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The one who wrote it probably thought the Oresund Bridge is a "non maritime border" :) chandler 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How are people elected?
I think the article needs something which mentions how politicians are elected. It is alluded to (parties need 4% of the vote), but no details are given.
Are things done on a national level with individuals voting for parties? Or is it done on a regional level or what?
~AFAImagine I swore. 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweden has a strong tradition of voting for ideological parties instead of indidividual politicians, and this practice has only been avalible a few elections. To become elected you first have to be nominated by your parties local and regional branches so that your name is on a regional ballot were there are a list of politicians. If the party gets more then 4% of the national votes or 12% of a votes in a region, the party the number of seats is then calculated from the number of votes per party. If there are enough votes on a individual party, the politician bypasses the order of the list and gets directly elected before him on the list... The members of the national parliament, the riksdag, is voted in on regional ballots. Some are elected directly, some are elected by their high position on the list. Some of the places in the riksdag is reserved for certain regions, however there are also a number of seats witch is used to balance the riksdag according to the national outcome of partys. Ssteinberger
No natural history? Flora and fauna?
No natural history? Flora and fauna? What's up with that? Shouldn't there be something about these things? Mike 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Kattegat/Kattegatt
Not sure it matters too much, but Dictionary.com gives two hits for Kattegat [15] and one for Kattegatt,[16] if we want a tie breaker.Mackan79 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a Google search of "the Kattegat strait" vs same for Kattegatt shows 10,100 hits to 6, which seems clear enough. Mackan79 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is Kattegat in the Danish language and Kattegatt in the Swedish language.--Philaweb 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That we know, Kattegat says so. Question is: which usage is the most common in English? Question seems to be answered though, Danish it is. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering this is the page about Sweden, I think the most appropriate use is the word in Swedish - not which use is most common in English. --Philaweb 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's English Wikipedia, though, is the point. Does anybody know if there's a policy, though? I see WP:Style and WP:SPELLING, which seem to take English as a premise, but I don't see the specific statement for geography. Mackan79 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite obvious that the most common english name should be used. I mean, sure, Copenhagen is "Köpenhamn" in Swedish, and this is an article on Sweden - but we still link Copenhagen and not Köpenhamn. That the article's name is spelled with one T is another hint. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The use of "common English" would make the page about Sweden obscure. Umlaut is unfamiliar to the English language and is omitted in most cases. Malmö as an example would become Malmo in "common English", all municipalities as a consequence would have to be corrected to "common English" in the Wiki. The argument about Copenhagen and not Köpenhamn has nothing to do with the Swedish/Danish version of a word. Copenhagen and Gothenburg are Anglophile versions due to historic, commercial and political ties. There are very few municipalities and geographical spots in both Denmark and Sweden with anglified versions, mostly the local Danish/Swedish version is used - of which the current Wiki is an excellent example. --Philaweb 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
History section
The history section is much longer than the main article. Maybe it should be exported and substituted with a summary? The main article could use some more content.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Study discovers Swedes are less well-off than the poorest Americans" removed
According to Statistics Sweden ("Statistiska centralbyrån"), the median income of Swedes in 2005 was SEK 280 000 per annum. That's about 40.9 thousand dollars per year. The "poorest Americans" would be those living under poverty, and as of 2002, that number was 34 million. To get a general idea of what the U.S. Census Bureau defines as poverty, a single individual would have to be earning less than US$ 9,183 (±5%) per annum - in this case, over 9.3 million people fall under this category. --Edward Sandstig 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case, such a study would be comparing apples with pears (to use a Danish expression). Even if the average American has a higher income, he/she won't have access to free medical care, free (or almost free) education etc. I still think Scandinavian taxes are too high, but on the other hand, Scandinavians normally don't risk personal bankruptcy if struck by a serious illness, and you don't have to fear the cost of giving your children an education. Just my 2 cents. ValentinianT / C 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Swedes do not get "free medical care" and "free education." They pay for it in taxes, reduced GDP, and unemployment. Whether you pay for medical care and college voluntarily or in taxes, you still pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nillson 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm Danish, and we have pretty much the same system. If you get a serious illness, you don't risk getting a $300,000 bill from the hospital that will make you a financial cripple for the rest of your life. So in that case you'd get most of the lunch for free. For the record, Denmark has a similar system but a rather low unemployment. ValentinianT / C 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And you have to live in small spaces, drive tiny uncomfortable cars, and forfeit many other luxury amenities, because the government is draining the nation's wealth to provide "free" things. Nillson 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To quote Thor Pedersen: "I can't imagine a political task more important than curing people of illness." Denmark's economy is the strongest in 30 years, unemployment is low and our debt is falling like a brick. We'll be fine. ValentinianT / C 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that quote is hilarious, at best! Is there an agenda lurking about?
Admittedly, I may have jumped the gun on this one. Here's what I removed:
A study conducted by the Swedish Institute of Trade (HUI) found that at the end of the 1990s that median income was $26,800, compared to $39,400 in the United States. Moreover, the study said that, "Black people, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678046/posts]
It doesn't seem too out of place considering that it follows directly after a few sentences about Sweden's economic downturn during the 1990s (see diff), but surely, even then Americans living below the poverty line wouldn't be earning more than the $ 26,800 per annum mentioned in the study. Thoughts? --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, both Fredrik Bergström and Robert Gidehag, who produced the study, are associated with Timbro and Skattebetalarnas förening. Both these organizations are associated with the Swedish Employers' Confederation. This information might thus deserve attention in an appropriate article, but surely isn't NPOV in any sense of the word.
Read the news article yourself. www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678046/posts Do you see an agenda? Nillson 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not a news article, its a forum (e.g. Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.)
That's not a "Free Republic" article. It is a news article from Reuters that someone posted to their forum. That's just the only copy of the news article I could find online to link to. Nillson 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
News articles and studies can be wrong. Why propagate a myth? Can you explain how over 9 million Americans living below the poverty line could be better off than your average Swede? --Edward Sandstig 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about this. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. "Understanding Poverty in America": http://www.fullemployment.org/Understanding%20Poverty%20in%20America.pdfNillson 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether the article or study is wrong or right is irrelevant. It's an admissible source. Nillson 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So you just ignore the more than 18 million (~34 million * 54%) who live in worse conditions? --Edward Sandstig 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. ... In addition, in Sweden a large number of individuals don't have a car so they don't need a room to store their vehicles. Lets say your arguments are arguably admissible but obviously POV.
I recently received a gift bearing the Dala Horse image. Don't know much about art in Sweden, but seems like this kind of national symbol should be part of the article, perhaps an "arts" section under the topic of "culture"?
LilianPhoebs 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, there should absolutely be a separate article on "Culture in Sweden". Sadly, you'll have to do with Dalecarlian horse until someone writes it.
An entry on Sweden with no mention of IKEA?
Jonaschau 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why mentioning a specific company? IKEA doesn't affect the life in Sweden in any substantial way, not more than e.g. the internatuional McDonald's or the national Åhléns.
Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 02:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
For a person who lived before IKEA was so generally avalable, it's very clear that the company has meant a lot to life in Sweden: The avalability to simple and cheap furniture, and without long time for delivery, was one early major advantage.
Since when is Stockholm only a "de facto" capital? I've always assumed it's a "de jure" capital. JIP | Talk 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is. Europeans don't normally follow the American convention of writing everything in constitutions, but we don't need to be U.S. centric on this issue. It is the same thing with official languages as European constitutions generally don't include references to official languages, while some Americans feel a need to include such information in their constitution (the English-only movement). But this is an American internal debate, completely irrelevant outside of the United States. ValentinianT / C 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this phrase from the infobox accordingly. ValentinianT / C 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Music section
I've been bold and cleaned up the Music section, removing a ton of band listings which in no way belongs in this article (which is supposed to be a general overview of Sweden). I suggest the content be moved to Music of Sweden instead. All per WP:SUMMARY style. henrik•talk 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have further references to the so oft cited "Sweden is the third largest exporter of music". Is there anyone other that Swedes that say that?
What about Ireland, with U2, the Corrs and many others?
What about Canada, with Bryan Adams, April Lavine, Shania Twain, and others?
Ah, that. Oft repeated, never verified. Possibly a PR-coup by some imaginative person in the Swedish music industry. The sweden.se article is a terrible source for that claim and it is far from obviously true. A quick googling seem to find several mentions of it by people outside Sweden though. I'm in favor of removing the claim entirely until a good reference can be found. We shouldn't go around repeating myths and uncertain information just because everyone else does it. henrik•talk 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Another page says it is the third largest exporter per capita.[17] This I can believe. But still no actual source... / Fred-J 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
On the Swedich page, Sweden is called Kongariket Sverige. This spelling looks more like Danish or Norwegian than Swedish. I would suggest "Kungariket Sverige".
--Bertil E 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Wikipedia uses "Konungariket Sverige" which is the only spelling I've ever seen (as a Dane). Konung is an old word, but if it is the one used by the Swedish state, then the same should apply here. ValentinianT / C 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Konungariket Sverige" is correct, see for example Nationalencyklopedins article on Sweden! "Konung" is still in full use in the Swedish language, although considered more formal than "kung". - Duribald 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Figures. Danish once had a similar word - konning - only that one must have disappeared more than a century ago. It was also considered more formal than konge. ValentinianT / C 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
This was my first wikipedia edit, so please forgive me not noticing the undo button right off the bat =) I just removed the mongolia and gayism comments that another user had posted over the original content and set it back to its original state. (205.206.97.212 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Good work! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) -Duribald 07:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review discussion
Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Recent History reads strangely.
It states that a number of countries considered membership unwise, it is apparent from the text that is is the European Union that's being discussed, however it is not mentioned untill later in the section. The paragraph reads like it was refering to a now removed paragraph or just had some words removed, I've not managed to track any such change in the page history and don't feel confident enough to try to rewrite it myself, so I brought it here.
193.11.246.220 01:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, that was confusing - thanks for pointing it out. Yes, someone had removed the first sentence. I had to go back surprisingly long in the history in order to see what it was before. henrik•talk 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fouth largest or fifth largest?
In the lead, Sweden is called the 4th largest state in Europe, while below (in Geography) it is labeled the 5th. Can someone clear up? --Smilo Don 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Spain, France, Russia and Ukraine have more land within the borders of Europe. That would make Sweden number five in Europe. Turkey and Kazakhstan are both bigger, but the main bulk of land is in Asia. -Duribald 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah! All depends on how one defines "EUROPE" , eh? Gets into the politics of imagining a continent. Correlates to to the imagined boundaries of Whiteness. --Smilo Don 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The occupation of Lapland
should get more attention! the story of the sami people is not correct- about 2/3 of todays Sweden was stolen from the sami, that were forced to leave their homes, convert to critianity or die. the natural resurses, the trees and metalls stolen from Lapland were sold to the Nazi´s- and thats how sweden got the major of its national capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.156.154 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources that verify your claims, feel free to edit the article. henrik•talk 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if what you just stated was a fact (which is debatable), I think 'annexation' would be a better word for it. I'll agree that there were aspects of 'local colonialism' if you will going on here, that did indeed affect the Sami people. 81.233.252.9 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Lappland was never a country, which kind of disqualifies it for occupation. "Colonization" is probably a better word. -Duribald 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Palestine was never a counrty either, but we still say its occupaid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Palestine belonged to another country when it was occupied, and Israel has gone outside of internationally accepted borders. That's the big difference. -Duribald 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Palestine belonged to another country when it was occupied" occupaid from who? another occupation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When Sweden occupaid Lapland there were no "internationally accepted borders" at that time, thats the reason your claims fail, the israelies have their roots in the areas that inernationally accepted as palestinian, while the sweds have no roots in Lapland, that might be the only differance. Lapland is a land! even if the sweds deny it. VAPAUS LAPLAND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you a sapmi or something? I mean, the sapmi never owned the land, they just lived in small moving villages, and we(at least me) swedes, claimed it. And the sapmi did nothing, beacuse they couldnt. So, what do you want? That we give the sapmi lapland? Yeah, right.
Swedish racism
The numbers of murders and violent attacks on an ethnic backround are huge, thou Swedish police dosent classify as racial murders.
the number of unemployed witheen the minoritis is the highest in the world. people that dont look like the sweeds or have a forien name cant get a job, cant find a flat, get discriminated by health services and more. about 90% of black people in sweden are unemployed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.156.154 (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that "about 90% of black people in sweden are unemployed" is a damn lie. You are spreading the same uninformed crap that racists feed on. --Ezeu 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Reliably sourced, verifiable material is welcome. henrik•talk 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that there is a gender power structure in Sweden, there is an ethnic power structure. There is an ethnic hierarchy with native-born Swedes at the top and non-Europeans at the bottom.
This structure is expressed in various ways. Placing “demands on immigrants” led to positive election results in 2002 for an established party. At the local level, anti-immigrant parties achieved their best results. In the labour market it can be seen in the denial of ethnic discrimination as a key issue as well as the treatment of immigrants as a labour reserve. Structural discrimination has become increasingly apparent as a factor in working life, school, politics, the media, the legal system, housing and welfare services...(european network against racism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.156.154 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"the number of unemployed witheen the minoritis is the highest in the world." -- I don't believe this or any of the other things you said. You are welcome to back it up with reliable sources, if indeed you have anything other than baseless claims.
Sweden has several anti-discriminatory laws. The reason why one might perceive that Sweden has discrimination and injustice might be because news report focus more on racial and gender issues than they do in other countries, possibly due to percieved pressure from leftist politics.
Discrimination and inequality, whether due to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability etc. exists in Sweden, but is an issue of regular national sensitisation campaigns and strenuous legislation, so much that Sweden is one of few counties in Europe without a major xenophobic quasi nazi political party, which is amazing considering that Sweden accepts more refugees per capita than any other developed country. --Ezeu 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on Ezeu's post, one might ponder why the Danish People's Party with 13% of the Danish votes is called a social conservative nationalist party and accepted, while the Sweden Democrats are called a far-right extremist party-- eventhough the two parties having so similar ideologies.
racism is not only hate agains minoritis, its descrimination as well. in sweden youll find the highest rate of unemployment of second and third generation immigrants in europe!
we should fight racism!
toure more than wellcome to read the rapports on swedish racism of the european network against racism: http://www.enar-eu.org/en/publication/national_leaflets/Sweden_EN.pdf
or you can get some statistics about racism in Sweden from: http://www.sverigemotrasism.nu/templates/svStartPage____2289.asp
i can give you lots of verifiable material and oyu can easyly get it yourself from EU rapports! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.157.176 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
RACISM IN SWEDEN IS A CULTURE, BASED MOSTLY WITH OBSSATION TO COULORS AND LOOKS, FOR EXAMPLE IN SWEDISH MOVEIS, PEOPLE OF OTHER ATHNIC BACKROUND THAN SWEDISH ARE ALMOST NEVER JUST NORMAL PEOPLE! the rapports are dealing with that issue as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.157.176 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
THE FIRST INTITUTE FOR RACE BIOLOGY WAS OPENED IN SWEDEN 1922!
SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES ARE STILL INVESTING MONEY TO PROVE THAT CHARLS DARWIN THEORIES ARE WRONG!
http://www.thelocal.se/7015/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.157.176 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providng references to your claims.
I could actually not find anything that shows that racism in Sweden is a significant problem compared to other countries.
ADUCATION: A European Union report makes particularly negative mention of Sweden. 40% of the first generation of Muslim immigrants in Sweden did not reach the basic level in the comparative examinations (PISA), compared with just a few percent among the white population. For more details read the OECD report:
Where Immigrant Students Succeed - A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/44/0,3343,en_32252351_32236173_36599916_1_1_1_1,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.153.176 (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
One notable reason why Sweden shows lower test results for first generation immigrants is given in "Where Immigrant Students Succeed / A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003" (available here), p. 23 (25 in pdf), where Sweden is 2002 had only 1% work-related immigrants and 40% refugees, compare this with Norway (8% / 23%), Denmark (22% / 19%) or France (16% / 9%).
Page 42 is where you got your quote from but it did not say 40% of Muslims, only 40% of first-generation immigrants, and it did not say "white" population but "native" population.
Second-generation students in Sweden are actually above the levels of mathematics for Norway, France, Denmark, Germany and many other countries.
Alright, at interesting report. Do you have other sources?
More about aducation:
The swedish school system fails to avoid discrimination- unlike school systems in many other countries,in swedish system the teacher himself (who knows the pupils personaly) corects even the national tests and decides which finall grade the pupil gets, in other countries the national test are corectet by a third teacher who doesnt know the pupil, and gets no information like the name or sex of pupil that might cause discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.153.176 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
UN
Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, Cuba's delegate to the Human Rights Council, is quoted as having said that "Cuba, unlike Sweden, does not persecute migrants or carry out ethnic cleansing that only allows those whose skin and hair color fit with the racial patterns of former Viking conquerors to remain in the country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When i took the national tests in Swe, Eng and math, it was at least not my teacher who graded the tests, it was another teacher. And that quote, is just that, a quote. You can just as easily quote someone saying "Sweden is the best country in the world!" but where's the evidence for either? And the thing about 40% om immigrants fail in the school system might be because of the high (if you dont know Swedish or English) demands on everyone. But you cant treat someone different just because of that. Chandlertalk 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
40% of the swedish immigrants failed in a test which was took place in different countries! A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement its called —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Sweden's attitude to Sami rights consistent with international law?
No, Sweden has been strongly criticised on a number of occasions by various UN bodies, such as the UN Race Discrimination Committee and the UN Human Rights Committee, as a result of Sweden failing to respect the Sami's human rights. The UN has been particularly critical of the fact that the Sami's rights to their land and water areas, as well as the natural resources, are not recognised. The Council of Europe and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) have also criticised Sweden for its treatment of the Sami. Sweden has not yet done anything to rectify the faults and shortcomings pointed out by these various bodies, but always refers them to various inquiries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.150.45 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Racism exists in Sweden, but compared with other countries, it's not as much racism here nowadays. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:03 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
This page should be completly rewritten
As a Swedish citizen with a rather good knowledge about the conditions in Sweden I would recommend a completly new page about Sweden. The present page is very much a propaganda page as it would be written by the Swedish regime. It mentions a lot of good things but do not tell much about the negative sides as the extremly high taxation, the lack of religious freedom compared to for example USA, the very high criminality rates, the increasing mental illnes manifested in a very high suicide rate and very high use of legal drugs and so on. The same about the "great Sweden" part, that is true, but not ses the history from a strictly Sweedish focus. For tourist there should also be mentioned about the problems for not caucasian people to visit restaurants, clubs and so on there they often are stopped already at the entrance. In my opinion this page is mostly missleading and should be rewritten by somebody independent of the Swedish propaganda. Anyhow, this page as it is now is very hard to imagin to be about Sweden.
October 18, 2007 VF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.193.42 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
complete bullshit sir, I strongly doubt that you have ever visited Sweden, and you're no swedish citizen, tht's for sure.
Biased article
I have lived in Sweden for 5 years and although I love the country, this is the most biased and factually incorrect article I have read on wiki.
For example, Sweden has one of the highest crime rates in Western Europe. Per capita, it is higher than England. For example, the Swedish economy is dominated by a small number of industrialist families (viz. France) who conceal their political influence and wealth in a complex network of holdings and trusts. For example, although the gender and race academic platform is vocal, Malmo, Lund, Stockholm and Goteborg hold urban ghettoes excluded from the political process and the economic benefit of a welfare state.
Please consider invalidating this article in favor a strictly fact based and unbiased history and description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.211.45 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The highest crime rates in Western Europe you say? It seems you had some rough 5 years in Sweden. According to a report the EU published in 2005 comparing all EU nations, Sweden ranked in the middle.
I quote from pg 97 ““Crime in Sweden shows a curvilinear trend since 1990. Crime peaked around 2000 and is now at a level similar to that of fifteen years ago. In the EU context of crime in Sweden is medium high.”
Here is the link. It might be helpful:
http://www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu/downloads/EUICS_The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdfVsanoJ 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup effort!
This article is in need of some trimming and rewriting, it seems that for a long time stuff has been added to it by many individual editors with little consideration for size and prose. At over 120kb, it is a very lengthy read and there is probably much stuff that should be moved to daughter articles. Anyone interested in a concerted cleanup effort?
Some areas I find problematic (by no means an exhaustive list):
History section - While mostly nicely written, it is lengthy and should be trimmed. Swedish empire is 6 paragraphs long, covering only a 100 years of history!
Administrative divisions section - It states that "Sweden is divided into twenty-one counties (län)", proceeds to list them but completely neglects to inform the reader of what a län is or give any kind of background.
Inventions subsection - A mostly unsourced list of indiscriminate Swedish inventions, with no prose and differing importance.
Famous Swedish companies subsection - Another lengthy list without prose.
The discussion of the state of the economy seems to be split between Economy and the second half of Recent history.
What else? It might be a good idea to identify the problems and discuss how we'd like the article to look before diving in.
In general, the text is heavy on lists and short on prose. There are also a fairly large number of {{fact}} tags, with good reason, as the article has few inline references for its size. What good reference works are out there?
Let's try to restore this to the Good Article it once was! henrik•talk 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Greater Coat of Arms
As a minor issue, the .jpg version of the greater coat of arms have replaced the .svg version. However, there is a cleaned-up and digitally retouched version of it, Please find it and use it instead, if there is no intention of using the .svg version. Optakeover 14:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is Birgitt Nilsson?
The article did not mention one of Sweden's greatest artist, opera singer Birgit Nilsson.
It is amazing how misinformation is allowed pass on this subject. I took out the part claiming that Sweden "secretly helped the Allied powers" because up until 1943 or even 1944, Sweden heavily collaborated with the Germans. In fact, they "secretly" helped the Germans, if anyone. They (Sweden) violated or found loopholes in several treaties they had with the United Kingdom in order to aid the Nazis. Swedish volunteers to the SS were also one of first to invade the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa. TheGoodSon —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In a large article such as this one, some of the reasons for this overlook may include inadequate or non existent use of the edit summary facility - unless you compare diffs, it can be very difficult to see the actual significant changes when an article receives many edits over a short period.
You've done the right thing by drawing attention to your (controversial?) edit here, but it might have been better to suggest the change here first. I will hope that we can rely on traditional Swedish phlegm to avoid an edit war... Alice.S 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is true. Sweden, although neutral to the outside world in WWII, did help Nazi Germany in many ways, and even sent troops to Finland to help Finland against the Soviet Union. Also, Sweden's king praised Hitler in a letter he sent him. — EliasAlucard (talk·contribs) 10:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I think not enough people consider the historical context of WW2. It is impossible to understand Sweden's actions during WW2 unless you take Finland into account. Finland was a part of Sweden for over 500 years, and Russia was Sweden's traditional enemy (with 10+ wars and almost 100 years of conflict in total). When Russia attacked Finland, it was quite obvious for Sweden which side to be on. So early on, Sweden didn't as much sympathize with Nazi Germany as they were against their traditional foe Russia. But then Germany attacked Denmark and Norway, which Sweden also has close ties to putting them somewhat on the spot. Helping Finland too much would mean antagonizing England/USA/Russia and helping Denmark/Norway would mean a war with Germany. So they stayed neutral, not really having a clear side to chose. But there's no denying that Sweden was quite opportunistic. henrik•talk 10:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not condemning Sweden, I'm just stating the facts. In my opinion, it's a shame Sweden didn't do more to destroy Communism in the Soviet Union. Germany certainly tried, but Denmark and Norway should've joined Germany in the war against Communism immediately rather than waited until Germany attacked them. Perhaps if the planning went smoother from the beginning, we wouldn't have Communism today. Although it's a good question what's worse: Communism or Nazism, I'm quite sure Communism is worse. Even Charles Lindbergh thought so :) — EliasAlucard (talk·contribs) 11:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So am I. However, this is not a general forum to discuss politics and ideologies - this is meant to be a place to talk about improvements to the article, and the discussion is straying a bit too far from that now. henrik•talk 11:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The statements above are so stupid. "War against communism"? What about the holocaust, should Denmark, Norway and Sweden have participated more in that too? "We wouldn't have communism today". Jesus. So beating Soviet Union would get rid of communism Elias? You are a disgrace. (Men bra att du är bannad). (SebastianGS (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
There is a tendency in Sweden to bash your own country for some reason, otherwise you may be seen as a racist or nazi. It's true that Sweden helped Nazi Germany somewhat during WW2, but then again it's important to think of Swedens difficult position during the WW2, therefor i wan't to protect Swedens reputation a bit. There was several European nations neutral during the war, for example Spain and Switzerland, they don't get the same amount of douche thrown at them for this as Sweden. Sweden's iron ore has always been an important asset for Sweden, and really important for the income. Selling of iron ore during WW2 to germany helped us keeping safe from Germany, and if they had not been trading iron ore with Germany they might have been attacked, and then Britain would for sure bomb Sweden's mines as they allready was considering, and that asset would be gone for Sweden. Germany was a seemable invincible, and Sweden would not have a chance if attacking, Germany had around 7 million soldiers. Sweden also, faced another threat to the east, an old enemy was fighting their neighbours in the east, Russia. Sweden helped Finland by letting German troops pass through Sweden too Finland. Letting German troops pass through Sweden is something Sweden often has been criticized for, but as a matter of fact they were only protecting their own skin and their neighbours. 10 000 Swedish voluntary soldiers helped Finland and it was very close that Sweden entered the war, that Sweden would have provided with troops as someone above claimed is however false. After the war, Sweden was one of the countries providing with most humanitary help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.105.40 (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments on the above discussion:
To be precise, the Swedish government did not send military support to Finland during the invasion from the USSR, these were volunteer forces outside of the formal Swedish military structure (but with considerable support from government/military).
Sweden certainly collaborated with Germany during the war, most notably by allowing German troops to be transported through Sweden and allowing logistics (mainly food and non-lethal supplies) to be carried out through Sweden. Swedish industry also continued to trade with Germany, most importantly iron ore, steel and ball bearings. As the tides of war turned Swedish collaboration with Germany lessened.
It should also be noted that the Swedish government at the same time also traded with and aided the Allies.
If the wording should be "collaborated" or "aided" or something else can be discussed. I find that collaboration is the most commonly used term.
A very limited number of Swedes enlisted in the German military, including the SS. These people did so on their own accord and against the orders of the government (and public opinion, one might add). Mainly they were motivated by anti-Communist sentiments. Many had previously fought against the USSR as volunteers in Finland.
Did you know that Sweden has gotten an official online community?
It launched on nov 1st and it's one of the first official online communities in the world that markets a whole country. It's very big news and something Sweden can be very proud of.
Check it out here: http://communityofsweden.com
I've added it to the links section but it was removed.
Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia and CommunityOfSweden.com is a user generated community about Sweden. Of course the link should be there. Also I expect a whole article about CommunityOfSweden.com soon. Although I shouldn't write it.
Why not? Because I specialize in online communities and web trends and I'm currently employed at VisitSweden, who runs CommunityOfSweden.com. I'm of course partial but I hope you all see the added value of pointing the wikipedia visitors to the official online community for the whole country where they'll be inspired and where they can share their own content about Sweden.
Hello! Wikipedia is usually fairly restrictive about external links, and a very broad article like this should usually only link to very well known and established sites, otherwise the article would quickly be run over by links. I don't think CommunityOfSweden has yet established itself enough, but if it emerges to become one of the major Sweden-related sites a link can of course be added in the future. VisitSweden and Sweden.se are both linked, so I think the tourist and foreign information is quite well covered with the existing links. henrik•talk 13:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Henrik
I don't quite agree. Sure the tourist and foreign information is well covered with official existing links. But here's a chance to show the wikipedia users a user generated community. I think that's completely different and it should be a link.
I can only look at myself and what I would appreciate when searching about information for... UK for example. First I might check some official marketing info but my next step would without a doubt be to try and see what other people think.
Tommysollen (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This site is in no way "official". Its editor is ... guess guess .. Tommy Sollén. Blatant selfadvertising, WP:CoI etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Pieter, I don't think you understand. Read my entries above again. It's very officiall (from VisitSweden, the national tourist organization half owned by the state) and yes, I am the community manager. I've been open with the fact that I work there. However, that doesn't change the fact that the community should be a link. I can't force you guys obviously but I'll gladly debate it.
OK, I was wrong, it is a site maintained by the national Tourist Board - but does that make it official? It is not a government site, not like the British site where one could write to Tony Blair and discuss government policy. And I have not noticed this "big news" in my local newspaper. Sollén is paid for working on the tourism promotion site, and he probably regards advertising the site here as part of his job. In my opinion, this just creates bad PR. If the site is a success and a useful link, somebody else will write it on wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually VisitSweden is owned 50% by the goverment so yes, it's very official. But I've said what I wanted to. Now I'll just hope one of our great community members will write it here in the future and that you won't delete it. :)
Tommysollen (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for respecting the Wikipedia community and culture. A lot of people wishing to promote their sites aren't nearly as considerate. This is a wiki, and links and articles are constantly in flux, so assuming the site grows successful there could be a place for it in the future. We can not however help you make it successful, as a basic philosophy of an encyclopedia is to only reflect things that has happened. henrik•talk 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Recent addition
Someone has recently added this sentence:
Sweden is the biggest donation-country, most of the money goes to China and Tanzania. Circa 7 kronor (0.50 punds) per week and Capita.
It seems to be a good faith addition, so I didn't want to just cut it, but it should be worded a bit differently and sourced. I'm assuming that by 'biggest donation-country', it means per capita. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it was a good faith addition, but I've removed it until it can be sourced and written a bit better. Still, our anonymous friend pointed something that the article should probably contain, does anyone have sources? (Or am I missing it, and it is already in the text?) henrik•talk 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Found info collaborating that Sweden is in the top 3 per capita for 2003-2006, but not any one definite article that says it's leads everyone.
maybe we can change it to say Sweden is consistently in the Top 5 foreign aid donors per capita... I do have another question references marks 54 and 56 are the same but I don't know how to use a citation more than once, without creating a new one, can anyone fix that and explain to me.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I combined the two duplicate references you were asking about. You should be able to see how I did this from looking at the differences in the edit history, but if you still have questions, go ahead and send me a message on my talk page. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope your suggestion worked, an I consider myself a pro now when it comes to collasping citation markings... THX--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Prehistory and Early History Rewrite
I've been asked why I am replacing a referenced section on Prehistory with an almost entirely new one without references. That's a merited question. Two reasons:
The old text was badly out of date and referenced largely to a 2000 book by an author who is unknown in Swedish archaeology. I haven't read this book, but judging from the Wiki text built upon it, it must have been very badly out of date already when published.
I am a full-time research scholar and a 2003 PhD in Scandy archaeology. I'm writing it all off the top of my head, hoping that you will trust me to produce something better than what we had before.
My next step, given an OK from Wikipedians, will be to take on the separate Swedish Prehistory article.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Language accuracy
Which one is correct, or are they both wrong? Check them up and correct?
Quote from Finland:
"The largest minority language is Swedish, which is the second official language in Finland, spoken by 5.5 percent of the population."
Quote from Sweden:
"Swedish, the first language for about 7 percent of the population of Finland..."
5.5% is correct as of 2007. [18]. I've fixed the article. henrik•talk 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
P.J. O'Rourke
Prominent American Journalist P.J. O'Rourke, wrote about the swedish governmental system in his book Eat The Rich. He noted that if Sweden had continued with it's economic growth that started in the 1960's and considerably lessened after the introduction of socialism, it would have a GDP 3 times that of the USA.
62.24.176.39 just added this to the article and I quickly reverted it. On a second thought I'm not sure if the article maybe should contain this information somehow. To me it is very obviously POV, but if a lot of readers actually believes that (1) Socialism was introduced in Sweden after the 1960s, that (2) any country has continued its economic growth since then, and that (3) Sweden with a GDP 3 times the USA makes any sense, maybe there should be a discussion about it? What do you think?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's satire, and the statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. That is simply how O'Rourke writes. In other words, you were right to revert it as it doesn't belong here. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but as Sweden regularly gets vandalized because of Swedish welfare, I had this idea it might actually be a good thing to straiten things out. Sort of to kill non-constructive contributions from scratch by overkill. (Hope I make my point clear.)
The article says that "The area around Malmö (across from Copenhagen) has the most mutual intelligibility (being a border region)"... concerning Scandinavian languages. This statements means that the inhabitants in Malmö is very good at understanding the Danish variety spoken in Copenhagen. It also means that Copenhagen citizens would be very skilled in understanding the Malmö variety. I fully agree with the former since it is quite natural for Malmö citizens to visit the nearby metropole Copenhagen. I however question the latter statement. I have read somewhere that for Copenhagen citizens it is easier to understand the variety spoken in Stockholm than Scanian (Malmö) dialects. Nirro (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about this statement as well, and I think it questionable enough to be removed for now. Danish is so phonetically different from Swedish it's difficult for just about any Swede to understand it unless that person is actually used to hearing it regularly. I'd say that the border between Norway and Sweden around Hedmark, Østfold and Värmland is a much better example of mutual intelligibility between the Scandinavian languages.
It's true that Norwegians have consistently demonstrated the highest scores in Scandinavia in various language comprehensibility studies when tested on the neighboring languages (Danish and Swedish), so Swedish-speakers by the Norwegian border would have to produce extraordinarily poor results in Norwegian in order for the average mutual comprehensibility score to fall below the scores in the southern border region (where Malmo is paired with Copenhagen, a city where the population is almost as bad as the people of Stockholm at understanding another Scandinavian language). Looking at material published so far, including the sources cited for the article Scandinavian languages (the study referred to is http://www.norden.org/pub/kultur/kultur/sk/TN2005573.pdf), it appears the intelligibility between the Scandinavian languages is asymmetrical all around, not just in southern Scandinavia. Also, the oft-forwarded idea that Swedish-speakers understand Norwegian better than Danish is false for Swedes in Malmo according to this study. The much higher scores in Danish for Malmo compared to Stockholm's score in Danish may also explain why Swedes are generally considered to understand Danish better than Danes understand Swedish, in spite of the fact that Stockholm Swedes have the lowest score of any Scandinavians when it comes to the ability to understand another Continental Scandinavian language (See "Tabell 4:11", pdf page 78 of 209, and pdf p. 125: "I Sverige syns också en klar skillnad mellan städerna; de infödda Malmöbornas index för danska ligger på 43,5, medan infödda stockholmare har 23,2"). In fact, if it was not for the inclusion of Swedes from outside Stockholm in this study, the results for the people of Sweden as a whole in relation to the Danish language would demonstrate the least comprehension of any population, close in comparison to the scores for Icelandic people tested on Norwegian. All that aside, the article as it stands now comments exclusively on Danes and Norwegians, while saying nothing about Swedish-speakers. I find that kind of odd. Sophiasghost (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are several prominent writers missing from the Swedish literature section, this should really be updated (and more should be written about them) to include:
Thank you, but the goal of this article isn't to provide a complete list of prominent Swedish authors. The current section is really bad, it should really be an overview of Swedish litterature rather than the list of authors it is currently. Perhaps we could adapt the intro from Swedish literature. henrik•talk 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe The Swedish ranking for the Environmental performance index should be changed, since as of January 23, 2008, Sweden ranks as #3. The article currently states (which is correct but not up to date) that Sweden was ranked #2 in the 2006 version of the same index.
I'd like to request an injection of information regarding the Temperance movement in Sweden from the mid 1800's (and onwards) and its affect on Swedish society. Fred26 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a paragraph on the temperance movement until quite recently ([19]) when I removed it with an edit summary of "a shame to remove this, but its not absolutely essential and the article is much too long". I still feel that, but I'm open to discussing it. Perhaps we could insert it into the Temperance movement article and put something shorter in this article? henrik•talk 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be in the main Sweden article. A paragraph under "History of Sweden" or someplace else thats fitting will do it. Regardless of where it is posted I feel it should be included somewhere since the temperance movements represents an important part of Swedish history, 1860's and onward. Fred26 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
wrong
"Before the eleventh century, Swedes adhered to Norse paganism, worshiping Æsir gods, with its centre at the Temple in Uppsala. With Christianization in the 11th century, the laws of the country were changed, forbidding worship of other"
After that, it says somethign about the nineteenth century. It shall be eighteenth century. --212.247.27.50 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, 18th century = 1700s, 19th century = 1800s. Considering Swedes weren't allowed to convert to other religions until the 1860s, it sounds like the latter (19th century, 1800s) is more correct. You're welcome to correct me though if there's a source that states worship of other deities was no longer forbidden in the late 1700s (18th century). --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey anyone who can read Swedish out there? Or do you know how to find someone? The article Nils Peter Hamberg needs someone to translate the information provided at this link [20] It would help a lot! Tack! ;-) Nesnad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Census
The population section in the infobox refers to a cencus in 1995. According to my knowledge, Sweden has no census since all citizens are registered in databases all the time. The data from 2007 should therefore be a fact, not an estimate. Any comments? /I99jonma 10:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I never heard of a census either. Also, the link clearly states that the 2008 data is the definite (not estimated) figure for December 31, 2007. /Willi5willi5 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Popular movements and equality politics
This section states that Sweden's supposed reputation for gender equality is overstated but the choice of references here are clearly POV. One (#45) is a quote from the leader of the Swedish feminist party who obviously has a political agenda and cannot be taken as an impartial source. The other (#44) is a reference to a EU report that is actually rather positive on Swedish gender equality. The particular statistics quoted are chosen because they are the ones in which Sweden performs worst. Furthermore, the statement that "Sweden compares unfavourably with the EU average when it comes to providing full-time jobs for women" has no support in the said report. Although it does state that a higher fraction of employed women works part time, it doesn't follow that there are less full-time jobs for women, since a higher fraction of women are in the workforce to begin with. A quick multiplication gives that roughly 42 % of Swedish women are employed full time, compared to 38 % for EU-25.
Of course, it might still be true that any Swedish reputation for gender equality is unwarranted. It just doesn't follow from these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willi5willi5 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
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. — SomeHuman19 Feb2007 00:29 (UTC)
EU membership
The membership to the EU is yet not mentioned in the introduction.
Lear 21
Telecommunications
Wanted to know why isn't there any information about Sweden's Telecommunications industry in this article. I had posted referenced information on it but it got removed. The information was a brief overview of the history of the Telecommunication industry.
Is it necessary to have a completely different article that deals with the Telecommunications industry?
Any thoughts?
The royal orders
I would very much like to see a little something about the Swedish Orders, especially since these aren't active anymore and is somewhat part of the history. If anyone feels up to it, I belive some info can be found at www.royalcourt.se
I would write it myself, however I'm not much of a writer, and I find my english rather bad. And it would be nice with some info not noted on the royal court webby.
Since ive added some now on the invention section you put this "This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." there, well, everything is linked to other pages on wikipedia were the facts are confirmed, so what is really the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggsan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
When speaking of popular movements: note that a new article have arrived
Drug policy of Sweden has been created after bitter disputes involving Sweden's drug policy, surrounding Nils Bejerot, going trough (see history and discussion) War on Drugs (there were one an section called "A different view on the War on Drugs - Nils Bejerot") to Drug policy (involving a request for deletion). One of the main figures involved is Dala11a lifting forth the great ideas of Nils Bejerot and the benefits they had on the drug policy of Sweden, proved by a report by UNODC. The antagonist is me and quite a few others (apparent in the above history and discussion parts of all above mentioned interwikied articles (except UNODC)). However I'm the only one having some kind of knowledge of Sweden and its whereabouts that have been evolved in this except dala11a himself. I hope someone else can find interest in this very interesting aspect of Swedish society. There are some useful external links in the references and external link on the new article page. Steinberger (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Cold War: Economics without source
In the Cold War section, someone has stated without source: "Between 1970 and 1990 Sweden increased overall tax burden by over ten percentage points and the growth was very low compared to most other countries in Western Europe. Sweden steadily lost its position in rankings such as GDP per capita."
This looks very controverisal to me. "very low compared to most other countries in Western Europe" is obviously false. If the neo-liberal who wrote this returns with his source, it's probably something like timbro.se. The entire claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.217.178 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a good reference for Swedish economic history: www.sweden.se. It is an official website of the Swedish government (right-wing, at the moment). The page notes:
Starting in the mid-1970s, growth fell in Sweden as it did in many other Western European countries. The problems included tougher competition from other regions of the world, dysfunctional wage formation leading to inflation problems, high taxes and what many entrepreneurs perceived as an inhospitable corporate climate. High cost increases and fading competitiveness forced several devaluations of the Swedish krona during the 1970s and 1980s. These restored the short-term competitiveness of companies but worsened long-term inflation problems in the economy.
The page also notes that the GDP growth in Sweden between 1970–90 was slower than the EU average. However, the overall tone is inappropriately negative. There are also economists who endorse the Nordic economic model: Jeffrey Sachs, for example. --MPorciusCato (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The inhabitants of Sweden enjoy a high standard of living, and the country is generally perceived as modern and liberal,[2] with an organizational and corporate culture that is non-hierarchical and collectivist compared to its Anglo-Saxon counterparts.[3] Nature conservation, environmental protection and energy efficiency are generally prioritized in policy making and embraced by the general public in Sweden.[4][5]
Aren't there so many other aspects? I assume the lead section should cover only non-controversial things that are not subject to interpretation. What is "modern", is France or South Africa "not modern"? Which countries are not "liberal"? How about covering vikings, Swedish corporatism, climate, or feminism?
Sweden has long been a major exporter of iron, copper and timber. Improved transportation and communication has allowed for the large scale utilization of remote natural assets, most notably timber and iron ore.
So did improved knowhow, economic environment, and many others. And most of the productivity growth was seen in agriculture! No references provided that this would somehow definite aspect of Swedish history. Also, natural resources primary are a tiny part of the economy today, it's engineering and services today!
In the 1890s, universal schooling and industrialization enabled the country to develop a successful manufacturing industry
No reference provided. There are so many things behind Sweden's industrialization (with free trade popping in economic history papers), this is very simplistic statement, which the economic literature does not make.
Sweden has a rich supply of water power, but lacks significant oil and coal deposits.
Sweden also has other resources such as timber. This makes a weird assumption that oil and coil deposits would be somehow important? How about gold, diamonds or bananas?
Should we move such controversial statements to politics, economy and culture sections, where more debate can be dedicated to them?Turkuun (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Help me correct!
Swedish is not the official language, Sweden don't even have an official language. Though there is five official minority languages; finnish,Meänkieli - "finnish from the vally of Torneå", Yiddish, Sami language, Romany language and Swedish Sign Language.
I'm very bad at editing and do not wan't to screw my own countrys page on wikipedia so please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.186.169 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should go the same way as the US article, and have a National language section with Swedish as de facto.Xasha (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't get your point. There already is a language section in the article. To me, it does a credible job.
On the page about Norway, there is written that Norway became independent from union with Sweden. Shouldn't that be on the page about Sweden too? It was a personal union where both countries were equal... 85.166.7.56 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is already mentioned in the history section. having said that it was more important to Norway as it gained nationhood. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Transport Section
"Rail transport is privatized and companies include SJ, Green Cargo, Tågkompaniet and a number of regional companies."
Rail Transport is not fully privatised. SJ is a government owned company and the "regional" companies vaguely referred to are also government enterprises. In Wikipedia's article on SJ, it is unambiguously and correctly described as "a Swedish government-owned passenger train operator" therefore rendering the claim in this article that "Rail transport is privatised" as irrelevant, incorrect and confusing to those wishing to learn about Transport in Sweden.
On my latest readings the articles on the Nordic countries are in great need of tightening up. Seemingly right-wing slanted falsehoods seem to be creeping into the articles. This is also of concern in the article on Finland and as for the Nordic Model article....well.....it should probably be deleted.ConXII 25 June 2008
Sweden was about the first European country to privatize rail, and later, the EU commission, UK, and other countries got inspiration from Sweden's success. It is less importance who owns privatized companies as long as the rail market is open and free for competition, which is clearly the case in Sweden. See this.Turkuun (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The link you provide states that "45% of the rail market in Sweden is privatised" that therefore makes saying "Rail transport in Sweden is privatised" a falsification if more than half of the entire market is still owned by the government. It doesn't matter whether the rail market was "liberalised" into different companies under state ownership e.g. SJ, something cannot be described as "privatised" if it retains a majority of government ownership, because it is therefore nationalised, the opposite of privatisation. To describe the Swedish rail market as privatised and then list a state owned company which comprises it in the very same sentence is confusing and this is exactly what you have written.
"Rail transport market is privatized and companies include SJ.........." - In this sentence you have made it sound as if SJ is a private company which is untrue, since if the person reading clicks the SJ hyperlink, they will be taken to an article which states unambiguously that SJ is a government owned enterprise.
A much better thing to do would be to explain that the majority of passenger transport by rail in Sweden is operated by state owned companies such as SJ as well as the government run Lokal Trafik in place within each of Sweden's Län such as HallandsTrafik, Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, SkåneTrafik etc. etc. etc. and THEN to explain that some sectors of rail transport are privatised such as the transport of cargo. This would therefore align the content of the article with the reference you presented above, which states that the majority of rail transport in Sweden is still government owned (with 45% being privatised).
As far as "free to competition" goes, I can't see how this is broadly speaking the case in Sweden, whenever I am in the country it's not like I can choose to take a non SJ train from say Halmstad to Göteborg. In fact the only trains which stopped at Halmstad during the duration of my latest visit were all Öresunds Tåg (yet another transport company, this time jointly owned by the Swedish and Danish governments) and I was therefore unable to use the trains of other companies to travel by rail
Since judging by your other edits you are a right winger with a serious beef against anything government owned, you could then satisfy yourself by writing that state owned SJ isn't the most efficient of rail networks, something which a lot of Swedes themselves agree on as far as I have seen. In my own experience delays are common and travelling with SJ can be expensive. I'm sure reference material for this can be easily found.
There was an old discussion about this about 2 years ago: Talk:Sweden/Archive_1#Swedish_sterilization
In the current article, it isn't mentioned at all. Not very chocking, since there isn't much interest among swedes (which I suppose is the main editors of the article - I'm a swede myself) to talk about it. Swedens sterilization laws should be covered in the main article. It's very important. There isn't much info available on Wikipedia right now - there is some at Compulsory_sterilization#SwedenRan4 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
vdh vmhgk nk.jg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.92.175 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
References from Yahoo answers
The note number 3 is directly taken from Yahoo answers and, especially in this particular case, doesn't seem like a "reputable source". At the very least, it's very inelegant. I'm removing it (if someone disagrees, just revert changes). --Taraborn (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Taken from? It's more likely that they took it from us. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC).
"For Sweden—Through the Times"
Is "For Sweden—Through the Times," in the infobox, some kind of official English version of the personal Royal motto "För Sverige i tiden"? If it's not, it's surely not the best translation we can do. I admit the Swedish original is pretty meaningless, but the version we have in the infobox is utterly meaningless. As I understand it, the original means (vaguely) something about the King being modern—up to date—moving with the times—something like that. Compare this site, which renders it "For Sweden with the times". Not good—the original kind of precludes having something actually good—but a lot better, surely. I'll change to that unless there are objections. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC).
“For Sweden - With the times" is what royalcourt.se uses in the King's biography. henrik•talk 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
And it's rendered as "With the Times" in Royal mottos of Swedish monarchs, too! I wonder how it came to be "Through" here—very strange. OK, I've changed it. Er, I mean to say, Bishzilla has changed it. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC).
Be sure to tell her she's doing a very good job here, but don't let her know she's getting close to the 1000-edit mark. :-) henrik•talk 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In 2008, the swedes created a foundation called "Save Tågan" which slogan is "In Tågan We Trust", to save Sebatian "Tågan" Tagerup, also known as the King Kong II. The guru of the swedes was attack by a terrible disease : the Ilovesweet Syndroma.
Somebody has made a joke there in the text.
Delete that part and the others that poster may have added. :)
"Sweden has a major market for new age and ecologically or environmentally aware music, as well a large portion of pop and rock music have liberal and left-wing political messages."
Left-wing? Yes. Liberal? Absolutely not... The writer probably used the north-american definition of "liberal" (being roughly the same as "left"). And what about "environmentally aware music"? Any sources? I'll remove this section if no sources are found. Ran4 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Climate
"Annual precipitation in most of the country is between 500 - 800 mm (15 - 23 inches)..."
Isn't that something more like 20 - 30 inches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.104.209 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the edits from here to here: User:GraderCel, first of all, please don't yell at me, or anyone else, to stop making changes that were clearly in no way meant to be disruptive; it is a wiki, if you don't want what you write to be edited then don't write it. It's not as though I was having a revert war with you, I simply undid a change that you didn't explain, which I honestly thought was done accidentally. Since you've now commented your edits, I can reply.
You are probably right that I added too much information, considering it is a general article on Sweden, not one specifically on Sweden's climate. However, rather than simply going back to the original text, it seems to me it would have been useful to change the new text since by going back to the original you replaced well-referenced facts with unreferenced facts. So, I am going to continue changing it, trying to keep the content more like it is, but adding references and making other (in my opinion) improvements. I will make the changes individually, and comment them, so you and everyone else can see why I made them and change them if it seems appropriate. StephenHudson (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Info confusion
The infobox facts on independence are a bit confusing, Norway and Sweden was in a personal union from 1814 to 1905. Also there has been some previous personal unions (also including Denmark). Sweden's independence is set to be "-" while Norway's independence is set to be 1905. It would be more corret to either set Norway's independence to 1814 and "-", or both Sweden's and Norway's independence to 1905. A country is NOT dependent on another country in a personal union (which was the case for both Norway-Sweden and the Kalmar union); Norway was never dependent on Sweden, it tried to make itself a free state in 1814. Denmark-Norway, however, was a real union where Norway was part of Denmark from 1536 to 1814. Is a country independent in a personal union or not? As it is now, it looks like Sweden never was part of the Kalmar union and that it owned Norway - that's wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.5.35 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Largest city in Scandinavia?
The opening paragraph states that "(Stockholm) is by far the largest and most populous city ... in Scandinavia". According to their respective Wikipedia pages, the urban area of Stockholm is about 8.5% more populous than that of Copenhagen, while the metro area population is even larger for Copenhagen than for Stockholm. The difference in size between these cities is hardly enough to motivate the "by far" phrase... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.33.54 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is some rather dubious editing going on at Swedish Empire - this edit [21] is verging on bizarre ("Wolves, not seen in settled areas since the Middle Ages, stalked the deserted streets of once-bustling villages."). Help correcting this would be welcome, as the author is taking my corrections of his original research/unencyclopaedic tone rather personally. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Most visited country in Northern Europe?
The opening section states that "Sweden is the most visited country in Northern Europe with 5,2 million visitors in 2007". The page for Northern Europe (linked to in the opening section) includes the UK as part of Northern Europe, and the source for this line is a page that sates the UK received 30 million visitors in 2007, far more than Sweden.
I am going to change the sentence to "Sweden is the most visited country in Scandinavia with 5,2 million visitors in 2007" WhizzBang (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The military section has a rather significant typo, it says Ireland is a member of the Nordic Batle Group, it must be Iceland. I cant change it because its locked
137.222.215.9 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Ireland is a member of the Nordic Battle Group, Iceland doesn't have an army. McGnome (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The cause of this error is probably the fact that most Scandinavians don't regard the British (and the Irish) islands as a part of Northern Europe. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
About swedes in operation barbarossa
suppsodly there was only one swede participating in operation barbarossa, Ingemar Somberg who served at first in SS Panzer Division Wiking. the article suggest that there were more swedes participating in operation barbarossa, to support this claim it should present a valid source. there were only about 200-300 swedish volunteers in the SS, and almost all of them joined after 1941. "Swedish volunteers in Nazi SS units were among the first to invade the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa" please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conda (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Nagatively Biased description of Sweden during WWII
The article claims Sweden was under "German influence" during WWII, which is not really true, although the country was to some extent cut off. The article then goes on and claims Sweden "collaborated with Hitler" which sounds weasel-worded to me. Then, the article talks about Swedish soldiers in the Wehrmacht, surely to paint the picture as dark as possible. I think it is all very biased, partly off topic, and should be re-written altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugfindersolas (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually would agree on that. Even though it's commonly known that the critisism that have been aimed towards Sweden, for example because of some of the things mentioned here in the article, are quite true, the text presented here seems a bit odd to me too. As said of course Sweden was partly influenced by Germany, but not to the extent that this article makes it seem to be. And some of the facts are also kind of irrelevant, for example the part about the Swedish citizens that joined the Waffen-SS. The number of people that did this was probably somewhere between 130-300, and if I remember right, travelled to Norway to do so and totally against the neutral policy of Sweden. Though this text makes it seem as though a vast number of eager Swedish men stormed into Soviet Russia all of a sudden, when, for example the number of Norwegians that did this was approx 10 000.
And now I'm not trying to make it sound like Sweden played no part, though, I would also prefer a more balanced article that presented more relevant facts in a more correct way.
It should definitely be rewritten, or, that is my opinion.
--Qszet (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The proper term would reasonably be that the Swedish government "made concessions" to Nazi Germany, as the "collaboration" is so much tied to activites during an occupation, usually of a kind which gets the collaborator prosecuted or executed after the war. The concessions have definitely led to criticism, but if you factor out the hindsight of Hitler losing WWII, the Swedish government's WWII politics looks very much like cautious realpolitik - enough concessions to the side that had the upper hand to be able to stay out of the war, but also to be able to keep up enough foreign trade to keep the domestic armaments industry and food production running. Tomas e (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to change the name of the war also? WW stands for World War. If you provide support to one side, it is to the detriment of the opposition. If Hitler received any support from Sweden at a time when it was providing no support to the Allies, it cannot be defined as neutrality. 67.187.255.117 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Seri
Ignore above comment, that level of discussion don't even justify a reply. —Krm500(Communicate!) 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Just removed some obvious vandalizing of the "World Wars" section by 208.179.150.68. Please note that this is not the appropriate way to make an edit to a Wikipedia article, and banners should never be removed unless you can present a valid reason for doing so. I was in no way intending to make som kind of political statement or whatever you should call it by doing this, as some people probably would think. Or well, maybe not a political statement, though as this was aimed at radically change the view of the text in this article. That is not at all what (at least I am) trying to do. But I do think that the text in question was badly written and did not entirely present facts in a completely unbiased way. So I suggest that the NPOV-banner should remain in it's place until edits have been done, or the dispute solved in some other way. --Qszet (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Unhappy with the term "ethnic Swedes"
Hi, I'm all not that happy with the term "ethnic Swedes". It feels a bit like saying "ethnic American", "ethnic Canadian" or "ethnic British". Neither do the sources use the term "ethnic Swede" but rather refer to persons born outside Sweden, with a parent born outside Sweden or who are not Swedish citizens. I would prefer to use these more precise and correct terms. Any comments before I change?Osli73 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't feel at all like "ethnic American" or "ethnic Canadian", since Sweden is a clearly defined Old World nation-state, not an ethnically mixed former colony or a union of nation-states like Britain. An ethnic American is an Amerindian, by the way. Do "ethnic Russians", "ethnic Germans", "ethnic Greeks", "ethnic Spaniards", etc. sound awkward to you as well? --Humanophage (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It might feel awkward to use such terms from a swede's point of view as this is quite taboo in Sweden, but I'm quite sure there is generally more tolerance to such things in the rest of the world. Though I am suspicious about the source of this information regarding ethnicity and numbers, as it is a diffuse subject. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Emil R
"Neither do the sources use the term "ethnic Swede" but rather refer to persons born outside Sweden, with a parent born outside Sweden or who are not Swedish citizens."
That is because it is a simplification. There are no sources that present the true amount of ethnic Swedes in Sweden - mostly because of the problem in defining an "ethnic Swede". However, by looking at where the parents are born you can get an pretty good indicium, or average of the general population.
Your example is ridicules. There are ethnic Swedes in America, whom are still Americans. There are ethnic Swedes living in Finland, and they are still Swedish. Sweden is an national state, and like someone above said; not an ethnically mixed former colony or a union of nation-states like Britain. The only reason why you would like to change the term is because you want to poisen Wikipedia with "political correct" bullsh*t. Well, obviously I want Wikipedia to continue as a neutral portal that does not give into political motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.201.194 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also there are different numbers in the text compared to the fact sheet, the text says that 87% (with a vaguely related reference to SCB) are ethnic Swedes while the fact sheet says 80% (without reference). 87% seems to be on the high side, we are not that inbred, while 80% is a bit on the low side. 94.255.184.86 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic Swedes is useable and valid term. Is there any reason as to why Swedes - as opposed to every known human society/group in recent history - should not have an ethnicity? According to a number of studies on national cultures and cultural differences Swedes are more - not less - culturally differentiated than average groups are (see data from World Values Survey), so there is no reason on that basis not use the term. I would say that a figure of 80 % of the population being ethnically Swedish is fairly accurate, more accurate than 87 %, which is far too low today. It is diffcult however, since there is no official statistics on the matter. Koyos (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Economic performance
In the section about the modern political situation, I strongly disagree with the phrase "However, poor economic performance since the beginning of the 1970s, and especially the crisis at the beginning of the 1990s, have forced Sweden to reform its political system to become more like other European countries.".
That is a politically biased statement that should be changed or removed. 83.226.118.49 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) lauren mcdowall wiz here .!! 27/1/09
Is it really part of foreign policy?
What influence does this comment at the end of foreign policy have?
"American actress Jessica Alba came under scrutiny in early 2009 for telling a reporter to "be neutral about it. Be Sweden." It was alleged by Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly as well as editorial gossip network, TMZ, that she meant to say Switzerland. Alba defended herself in a subsequent web blog by citing this Sweden Wikipedia entry."
Though an interesting tidbit, I believe should be under a separate heading.
65.188.211.70 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Quasi-prohibition?
Alcohol is heavily taxed in a mostly unsuccessful attempt to discourage alcoholism. This isn't really addressed in the article, though. Why not? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the most recent Nordic alcohol research shows that health effects due to alcohol consumption by the public can be most easily reduced by making alcohol less available. However, the methods used in present-day Sweden are far from "quasi-prohibition". You should acquaint yourself with the original Göteborg system. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see that the article should pass judgement on the success or not of the current alcohol policy in Sweden. If we're to include it it's better to just report what it is and how it works. I agree with MPC above that "quasi-prohibition" is not an appropriate term. Better to just call it "restrictive alcohol policy" (which is actually the situation in most countries in Europe and North America).Osli73 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Are there any refs available on that being the cause? I've always seen the high taxes as being there to pay for all the idiotic stuff the drunkards often end up doing. -- Execvator (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
taxation on alcohol is not as much for prohibition as simply allocating the costs of damage done as the result of consumtion to the consumers instead of all the taxpayers. This is a common thing to do to regulate a market that is failing due to negative external effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grindsprint (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
same sex marriage
same sex marriage will be legal from 1 May 2009, repealing the registered partnership law [22]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"Public Policy" and "Economy" sections blatantly infiltrated by politics.
This is a selection of the many politicized quotes:
"After World War II a succession of governments increased the welfare state and the tax burden, and Sweden's GDP per capita ranking fell from the 4th to 14th place in a few decades.[80]"
This sentence heavily implies a cause and effect which is not accepted by most economists. The citation is to Bergstrom and Gidehag, who have been widely discredited.
"Deregulation-induced competition helped Sweden to halt the economic decline and restore strong growth rates in the 2000s."
Sweden's economic growth is more often attributed to other factors. The Swedish economy more closely followed global trends, and is suffering in 2009, just as the rest of the world is, because of the global economic crisis enabled by deregulation.
Also, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is not a respected source of information in the United States, and is inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia, much less for an entry on Sweden. For information on the Swedish economy and Swedish public policy, the consensus among Swedish economists and policy analysts should be used.
This is the section:
"A September 29, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal quoted Jan Björklund, leader of Sweden's Liberal Party, as saying, "The corporate tax is one of the taxes which large companies really study when they plan to set up business somewhere." The editorial goes on to say, "The corporate tax reduction will bring the Swedish rate down to 26.3% from 28%, continuing its fall from a high of 57% in 1987... entrepreneurship had become such an alien concept that more than half of Sweden's 50 largest companies were founded before World War I and only two after 1970—the period when taxes and social welfare programs proliferated... Three years ago Sweden eliminated its inheritance tax.""
The sections in question read more like crude policy papers from the American Enterprise Institute than like good encyclopedia sections. The article is in desperate need of a clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluiiuli (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the consensus among Swedish economists is that the rapid expansion of the welfare-state and the rise of taxes and extensive regulation (mostly in the 70's-80's) was the main cause of the slowdown of Swedish growth during these years. It's not a controversial opinion among researchers in the field. I don't know if your're Swedish or American, but if you know Swedish you could look up "Marknad och Politik" by Lars Hultzkrantz, Hans Tson Söderström, or "Makroekonomi" by Klas Fregert, Lars Jonung. Both standard books used in the introductory course in economics, they explain all this in more detail.--Winterus (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Winterus, isn't what you are saying above, the identical argument used in the United States for the same reduction in tax rates and regulation, that led to the debacle on Wall Street in 2008? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Apples and oranges... you have to understand that from the late 60's to the 80's, Sweden rapidly became one of the most heavily taxed and regulated countries in the world (not counting flat-out communist countries such as the soviet union, north korea etc). A certain degree of regulation is obviously necessary (the recent subprime crisis proves that), but you can have too much of it as well. America had too little, Sweden had too much, the world isn't just black and white. The deregulations and tax cuts during the 90's and 00's have honestly been more of a normalization and adaptation to the realities than a push for an aggressive neoliberal policy, if that's what you're implying.--Winterus (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC).
Hi, sorry to butt in. I seem to be noticing a pattern on pretty much every sweden-related talk page. Person A claims that a part of the article is biased against Sweden. Person B says that the article is right, and (often) accuses Sweden of something. Person A says that Person B is allowing bias to seep into the article, and Person B says that Person A is denying the facts. Person A then (often poorly) cites his/her source(s). Person B says that everyone agrees with him/her, and sites no sources. Please don't let that happen again! Remember, this is Wikipedia. If you make a claim, site at least two sources. As an example, I'll site my sources: [[23]], [[24]], and[[25]] all show signs of disagreement. I somehow suspect that Sweden's politics have something to due with this. So please, if you can't back up your claims, don't make them.--Old KingColeSlaw 23:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice description, Old King, you're only too right about this. The quarrels about politics and bias you've picked up are a feature of corresponding parts of the Swedish Wikipedia too. Economists as a group have a high reputation in Sweden and know it, so they have a habit of making sweeping, imposing statements that pretend to be non-partisan and objective but really incorporate political convictions, even when those convictions aren't spelled out too openly. And neo-classical & monetarist economics (Hayek, Friedman and so on) has pretty much been the sacred order within faculties of Economics, leading research institutes etc in Sweden since the 1980s - so you get a "science" that couches views that are strongly politicized in a pretend objective language of market research - and, on the other hand, a sometimes not too articulate oppposition to those perspectives. People like Lars Jonung, Bo Södersten or Klas Eklund (all of whom have influenced generatiosn of economists in Sweden, and all of whom have had close ties with governments and the political elite) are certainly no apolitical gurus; they sll sometimes show powerful ideological agendas. Unfortunately this brand of politicized science spills over into the swedish wiki community.Strausszek (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Tesla was not Croatian
{{editsemiprotected}}In the text under the subsection "inventions" it is mentioned that Tesla was Croatian. This is incorrect. He was Serbian.
Done, his article agrees--Jac16888Talk 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
State and church
The article says there was a separation of state and church from the reformation and on. This is incorrect; it was rather the starting point of when the church became something like a national governmental agency which is also reflected with mentions of the law about mandatory membership which was changed in 1860. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.189.106 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Locator map
Hello. Recently, an editor added a locator map to this article (with orange highlights and a horrid Mercator projection) which is of a style that is not only inconsistent with the locator maps in most country articles but has done so without any discussion or consensus. Consequently, I have restored the prior long-standing map. I believe a renewed consensus needs to be demonstrated before the map is changed again. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Removal of the NPOV dispute banner from the category "World Wars"
I am proposing a removal of the message mentioned in the headline. It was me that once added it, and as the article now has been edited in a appropriate way I suggest that it is now time for it's removal. So speak up now if any of you disagree, or I will remove it within the nearest time. For more information see the archived discussion.
Giving a clear date of the "origin of Sweden" is impossible of course, unlike many other countries there is no plain first date of unification (however you define that concept) or even first mention of the Swedes (svear or svioner do not equal the later Swedish nation). To the factbox, though, I've added the dates for the establishment, de facto end and de jure end of the Kalmar Union. The de facto end date is, of course, still celebrated as the National Day (Election of Gustav Vasa as King at Strängnäs, 1523). Also added the year of the current constitution.Strausszek (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
For those not knowing that it is impossible to give a date of origin of Sweden, the 1397 date is more likely to be misleading than clarifying. (And yes, it is a well known problem, see the difference in what's mentioned here, at List of countries by statehood and List of sovereign states by formation date, all offering different answers.) If I were to choose a date I'd probably lean toward a "unification" of Sweden in 995, as mentioned in the "sovereign states by formation date" link, but that would be misleading as well, as Sweden certainly existed before that too. (Maybe not in the definition we mean today, but certainly the definition used then.) I personally prefer the "prehistoric" option I think I've seen listed here before, but I don't see any ideal solutions. The change of government in 1809 could be interesting too.Lejman (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, also fixed link. StephenHudson (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Science and Technology
I think it might be worth mentioning the extreme usage of, and reliance upon, computers in Sweden. I have been unable to find the actual statistics, but I am pretty confident that I read in a newspaper a few years back that Sweden has the most Internet users, as well as computers, per capita in all the world. Having travelled throughout most of europe and parts of the USA, I think this is probably true. If anyone could find the statistics and/or add a few lines concerning swedish computer-usage it would be most appreciated. Djingis Khan (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Slight error under the military section
I think there is a slight error under the military section but since I have never changed anything on wikipedia I won't touch anything myselft.
it says "The head of the armed forces is the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces (Överbefälhavaren, ÖB), after the sovereign the most senior officer in the country."
Actually, the sovereign and the supreme commander has the same rank of general ( both four star generals). So unless someone knows som swedish law that says that the king stands above the supreme commander even though they have the same rank it should be changed.
It wouldn't be wrong to also point out that the sovereign only has a symbolic rank of general and in fact does not have any controll over the armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.175.48 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's been clearly understood since the late 19th century that the King doesn't interfere with the Armed Forces, he takes no active role apart from what the governemnt finds useful. I'm not sure when the King was formally relieved of the duty of Commander, or if there was any particular law, but I'm sure the current constitution does not make the monarch Commander-in-C-hief. And the "Torekov contract" of 1970 had laid down that the monarch was effectively deprived of all political or directive powers. I made a rewrite of this section, outlined how the ÖB office came into being and how the King had lost his active role. Already when the union with Norway broke up in 1905, a point when there was some real risk of war, the King made no attempt to seize the reins and force his way, even though he hated that the Norwegians went their separate path.Strausszek (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The king lost almost all his powers (except ceremonial duties and some more) in the change of constitution in 1974. ÖB is only the C-In-C in wartime, in peace-time the last word of the military is the minister of defense (and as such, the government). in peace time, ÖB is the one taking care of logistical stuff and budgets and such things. --213.89.179.53 (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Does it really belong to this article? I mean the Ale's Stones was raised for a Danish king, since Scania was part of Denmark, and known as Danes from before mid 1600's. Another fault is that in the description it says it was from the Vendel period. There has never been a such period in Scania. --JHF1000 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
At the time it was raised, there was no Danish country and no Danish king. Thus, Scania
was not a part of Denmark at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.18 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So if there wasn't any Danish king that time what do you call Ale the Strong and Scylding dynasty he belonged to for. So. You are wrong. --JHF1000 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Language in sweden is no longer Swedisch. That has the goverment desided —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.114.222 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Former Yugoslavia and than Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Since Bosnia and Herzetgovina was a part of Former Yugoslavia why than make two seperate entries on how many people from that region moved to Sweden, why not merge the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.116.47 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Very good point. The actual source (http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0101_2008A01_BR_00_BE0109TAB.pdf, table 1.2.5) does list them separately though, and in the comments (page 436–437) it states (assuming you read Swedish as you have a Swedish IP address): "Födelselandets benämning hänförs till förhållandena vid födelsetidpunkten vilket innebär att en person kan ha ett födelseland som idag inte existerar. [...] Politiska och geografiska förändringar kan medföra att personen i folkbokföringen kan förändra födelselandet om humanitära skäl åberopas vid ansökan om förändring. En person tillåts registrera exempelvis Bosnien-Hercegovina eller Estland som födelseland även om det aktuella landet inte fanns som självständig stat då personen föddes." So it seems that some of those who immigrated from that region were registered as Bosnian-born and others were registered as Yugoslavian-born. Also, Statistics Sweden might use the "Jugoslavien" designation for both the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If the inclination has been (contrary to what the text seems to say) to register people only under countries extant at the point of immigration, then refugees from the Bosnian war will be listed under Bosnia, and (most) refugees from the Kosovo war will be listed under Yugoslavia. Sure enough, as table 1.2.6 shows, more people have come from "Jugoslavien" than from Bosnia during the 2000s. At any rate, the Yugoslavia figures include most of those who moved to Sweden before the outbreak of the wars—although a few of them seem to have changed designation afterwards. Table 1.2.6 is a bit enlightening on this, but I must say the entire issue is extremely confusing and I don't know how to make things clearer when the source itself is so fuzzy. The only thing that's probably safe to say is that we're not counting the same people twice. —JAO • T • C 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A TARGET OF "VIOLATION"
No wonder this page has been a target of "violation", half of it is not true. It's clearly a Swede who has written this page, because everything good is extremely exaggerated. Just look at the Sport section :S Changing false and exaggerated fairytales to actual, somewhat objective, facts is NOT a violation. Try this: less flashy and wrong > more humble and right. For once, you could actually learn something from the Americans. Look at their Sport section. Shame on you Sweden - and now, people can't even change what's not true... well played...
(An example; Björn Borg. Sure, he's a known tennis players, but THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME as claimed, ehm, not so much. He is not mentioned/stated/nominated as the #1 tennis players of all time even in a single top X of all time tennis players. Rod Laver, Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Roy Emerson, Ivan Lindl, Andre Agassi etc. are all ranked higher in most rankings.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.81.69 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don´t know what your problem with swedes are, but obviously there is something that is bothering you. I have no interset in what it is though... But I would like to point out that since you got so worked up about an overstatement it´s kind of funny to see you write "sure, he´s a known tennis player" when that clearly is a redicolous understatement. why don´t you go somewhere else with your anger management problems. We can´t all be held responsible if some swede have made you cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grindsprint (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thought this wasn't a forum for spam, personal attacks and "stop crying-comments” :S It is both immature, stupid and also pointless. And my statement was not a "ridiculous understatement". I repeat; he is not mentioned/stated/nominated as the '#1 tennis players of all time' anywhere, anytime by anybody. So it is quite ridiculous to say so on this page. If it's supposed to be facts, that is...
WP:GOODFAITH! Mr. 80.164.81.69 is actually pinpointing that the article has Peacock statements (WP:PEACOCK), and so isn't WP:NPOV. Thanks 80.164.81.69! We'll take a look, and consider cleanups. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Really there's no issue here. Björn Borg was a very successful player in his time. If you visited Sweden you'd see that not much is exaggerated and most of this article is right. That lesson from America will have to wait till another day. Sweden really does punch above it's weight in sport and has a very well developed society. It has a lot to be proud of and, in my experience, is rather humble about it too. --GMcGlinn (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Humility doesn't exactly show on this page. It's quite the opposite. As I said, many things are extremely exaggerated, especially in the sports section. If you don't find it a bit odd to declare Björn Borg the best tennis player of all time, when he has never been declared that anywhere else, I think you have a reliability problem.
I agree. I nuked that entire section as selfcongratulatory, unreferenced, fluff. Please find references before putting stuff back, though some of the people I deleted deserves a mention it shouldn't sound like Sweden is some kind of wonderland of sports superheros. henrik•talk 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. It's NOT supposed to be a country's personal ad, or commercial poster. It's supposed to be the neutral, subjective explaining of a country - not the selling of a country.
If someone or something is NOT declared/stated/widely considered the #1/greatest of all time, that one or that thing should NOT be called the #1/greatest of all time on this site either.
As for the "Björn Borg-subject", roughly 10 players are commonly considered to rank higher than Björn Borg on the all time tennis player rankings, so to call him the greatest of all time, is just a pathetic lie. (I think it has been taking care of now though).
What ranking? Commonly considered by whom? 'The Greatest of all time' is a phrase that, by it's own merit is subjective - all of time hasn't happened yet. If Björn Borg has been openly describe as the greatest player of all time, and he has, then it should be mentioned here. This is true even if modern players have won more/served faster/looked cooler. His achievement must be considered in his day and age.--GMcGlinn (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
But just to paint a quick picture of the general mentality and wording on this page:
(Just looking through a random section)
"Sweden's high-quality scientific and technological development is renowned throughout the world."
"Sweden has long been at the forefront of research and development."
"(…)Sweden a leading country in terms of innovation."
"For many years, Sweden has been a leading player among OECD countries in terms of its investments in and use of advanced technology."
not good English but true.--GMcGlinn (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"(…)Swedish national innovation system was among the leading countries in the OECD(…)"
"(...)Sweden is a world leader in a number of important fields."
"Sweden was world-leading in medical science (...)"
That's a lot of "greatness" in just 20 lines... None of which has any references!
find and add references. Sweden is great. Go there and see that.
Apparently, Sweden was also "(...)the continental leader of Protestantism(...)", even though the word "Sweden" is mentioned zero times in the 23 pages long Protestantism-wikipedia-page, mentioned thrice (under the Scandinavian section) in the 25 pages long History-of-Protestantism-wikipedia-page, and in addition to that, once in the 20 pages long Protestant-Reformation-wikipedia-page. Yes, they must indeed have been a very important factor :S
Add it into these articles then. In 4 minutes I've found the details to back this up, right here in wikipedia.--GMcGlinn (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
(Another example, just to compare the "humble" Swedish page to another country's page:
Sweden's music section mentions at some point four bands (Roxette, Ace of Base, Europe, The Cardigans - all of which has not gained that much international attention) and presents them like this:
"There have been many other internationally successful bands (…)"
Denmark's music section mentions at some point six bands/artists (Lars Ulrich from Metallica, Aqua, Mercyful Fate, King Diamond, Whigfield, Michael Learns to Rock, Mew - some of which has gained rather big international attention) and presents them like this:
"Internationally only a few artists have gained star status"
Just thought the difference in mentality was funny) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is quite a lot of unreferenced nationalistic boasting which should go. I just unprotected the page, so now you can edit it yourself. :)
(if you feel like registering an account and sticking around, I'm sure you'd make a lot of great contributions) henrik•talk 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I might just do that, although I don’t know what difference it would make (to get an account). I would also have to take a serious look at the whole how-to-edit thing (looks kind of complicated with all those "code-thingies"), as this was pretty much my first interactive experience on wiki. Good first impression though (my interference actually changed something, yay! hehe)
Editing an article is really not any different than editing these talk pages. Just use the preview button liberally and write an edit summary. If you happen to run into any problems or have questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page. henrik•talk 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Naah, more or less. The writing itself is, yeah, pretty simple. But when it comes to figures, tables, indexes, boxes, links, images etc. Well, that will require a bit of "studying". The editing service/tool on wiki doesn't seem to be the most logical and simple. But I may try to figure it out at some time... thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Too large
The article occupies 153 kilobytes, which is far too large. Time to compact the article. My first impression is that a few sections that also are covered by main articles are much too long, and that that info should preferrably be moved to those main articles, if not already covered. It would be better if this article contains compact reviews of the separate articles. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Piracy-party
Under the heading "Political movements", there is a paragraph about the feminist initiative. I'd say that now, with the current debate on copyright/privacy/... reform, at least a paragraph on the founding of the piracy party and its later success in the eu election would be appropriate. Anyone agree/disagree? -- Tgwizard (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say its relevant. I think pirate party can be seen as the only real political movements we had in Sweden in the 21th century. Pirate party has around 50000 members. 3rd biggest party according to number of members. Moderaterna (m) which is one of Sweden's ruling parties have 54000 members. [1]Yesantenko (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a brief mention of it in the political movements section. I couldn't get a one-word explanation of the intellectual property pirate movement. Saying just "pirate" can be confucing. --Beao 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kingdom or realm?
I could be wrong here, but I'm not sure about this sentence: "The Swedish name Sverige literally means "Kingdom of the Swedes". Is'nt "Realm" a more suitable translation of the word "rige/rike"? Kingdom = Kungadöme, Rike = realm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.103.85 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Locking
Why is this page not locked anymore? Every country's page should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.107.220.226 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Motto
I think the translation of the motto is a little off..."För Sverige i tiden", shouldn't it be more like..."For Sweden in time"?
The official translation is "For Sweden - With the times"[26]. "For Sweden in time" doesn't make much sense in English. henrik•talk 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Article Bias
This article on Sweden does not appear to be without political bias. It seems to speak favourably about trade liberalization and globalization which are controversial topics. It seems to mask an anti-statist, conservative agenda that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards on point of view neutrality.
Yes, that section is a bit poorly written. Feel free to fix it (just don't replace it with one equally biased, but in the opposite direction) henrik•talk 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hv71 is the best hockeyteam in Sweaden! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.123.187 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad internal link for Acne
{{editsemiprotected}}
Under the fashion section, the link for Acne is wrong and should point to Acne Jeans instead.
It's unnecessary and looks awful to write "Swedish" beside "Konungariket Sverige" in the info box. The country info box is designed so that you understand that the first name is the country's name in English and then the name in the native language. --Leffe00 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Abyss of enchantment, 15 April 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
Change Scania in economy to Scania AB as Scania refers tp a region of Sweeden not the company.
{{editsemiprotected}}
Remove Lynx lynx poing.jpg please, or at least change the picture text. In what respect does the picture show a "Swedish" lynx? Was the picture taken in Sweden? The exact same picture is also shown on the Iran and Albania pages. Lynx is in no way unique or representative for the wildlife in Sweden. And it seems stupid to use the exact same picture to describe several different countries. If one necessarily need a picture of a typical swedish animal I suggest a picture of a moose, which unlike the lynx is more or less restricted to the taiga.
What does this imprecice and unreferenced phrase refer to (end of) teritorial waters or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcea setosa (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You will find it in the lead of the article--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Size
Sweden's Size is about the size of Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.136.236 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh, no. Sweden: 449,964 km², Alaska: 1,717,854 km². Alaska is about four times bigger. /Grillo (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Sweden is the size of Alaska, research or live there before you make a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.241.42 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
96.38.241.42, maybe you should look at Alaska. It really is four times bigger than Sweden. --Christoffre (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If one must compare Sweden to any US state it should be California (423,970 km2). CIA among others often cite Sweden to be "slightly larger then California".Drakoniam (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
International rankings
Do we need this section? It's a rather large hodgepodge of random rankings that increases the load-time of the article, and I don't think it's crucial here. Maybe it could be moved elsewhere, but I think it is too excessive here. Hayden120 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from... whatever my IP adress is (:P), 4 June 2010
I just noticed that the caption of the map in "Political History" says it tenth century kingdoms in Sweden, but the map itself says it shows twelfth century kingdoms. I'm guessing the caption is wrong, so perhaps someone could correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.135.127 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. :) I have corrected it. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
IPA for Sverige
The article should have an IPA guide for pronouncing Sverige. Its pronunciation is quite different than what an English speaker with no knowledge of Swedish would expect. 70.109.177.178 (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Under "Official Language(s)" in the infobox only Swedish is listed, but Sweden also has five recognized minority languages: Finnish, Sami, Meänkieli, Yiddish and Romany. Shouldn't these also be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.177.115 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
They are. If you click on citation "c" after "Swedish" (the main official language), the page will scroll to the bottom of the infobox where the minority languages are listed. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Swedish is NOT an official language of Sweden. The motion to make it so have been voted upon by the Riksdag several times but have always been rejected as "unnecessary". Drakoniam (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, Swedish is the official language of Sweden as of July 2009. Steinberger (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Drakoniam. Get with the times . Fair enough, though; some of our articles were out-of-date till May this year.[27][28] Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Barely any information about the lappish people
I´m surprised there is so little information about the lappish people, their history and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.3.184 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
"Sweden Finns are Sweden's largest linguistic minority,[citation needed] comprising about 3% of Sweden's population and Finnish is recognized as a minority language."
However, the infobox states that 5.1% of the population are Finns. The citation is simply
If one visits this article, they will see that the infobox says
"estimated c. 470,000 (c. 5.1 per cent of the population of Sweden)"
... but there is not one source for this in the entire article. The article Finns also claims 470,000, but, of course, Sweden is the only country unsourced in the infobox (in a list of sixteen countries). Demographics of Sweden presents similar figures, but none of them are sourced. Statistics Sweden and Google are not turning up any results. Does anyone know where this information can be found? Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, a nice friend of mine was able to find this, but any other sources would also be appreciated, if anyone is interested. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Etymology
Latin 'Suetidi' and Lithuanian 'Sueitidiai' meaning the people who comes together and the land is 'Sueiva' (feminin form) or 'Sueivonys' (masculin form) meaning the land where various people (mostly Vikings) collects.
Education
Under the education section of the Sweden page it is argued that Sweden has more tertiary degree graduates than just a few other nations ("Only a few countries such as Canada, the United States and Japan have higher levels of tertiary education degree holders."). When looking at Wikipedia's own Tertiary Education, a pie chart is hosted which contains data from UNESCO. This chart, which can be found by navigating the aforementioned page, clearly shows that there are nearly a dozen nations which have a higher number of tertiary degree graduates than Sweden. Thus the current statement is misleading and perhaps should be revised to be termed less bold. Shellder (talk) 8:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
How did the early 90's liberalization affect Swedes?
The article mentions accelerated GDP growth and rising Per Capita Incomes, but every half-intelligent person knows that this means absolutely nothing. A rising GDP does not necessarily translate into rising wages and rising standards of living. For example, the US economy has been growing at an annual rate of about 3% since 1980, but wages have barely budged. 90.196.36.133 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Cold war, removal of uncited claims
I'm removing this:
In the early 1960s Sweden and the United States agreed to deploy nuclear submarines off the Swedish west coast. In the same year Sweden made a defence pact with the United States.
I'm surprised such an unusual claim has been let remain for so long (it was added before June 2010).
It may be based on this text by Nils Bruzelius: http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____4065.aspx
but he claims Sweden was unaware of those submarines until after the cold war.
So I have no idea if the author here had some other source, or simply didn't understand what Bruzelius wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrahn (talk • contribs) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
And thank you SineBot for signing it for me. It slipped my mind. JöG (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Royal motto
Why does the King's personal motto have such a prominent place in the infobox, and thus in the article? It is not the motto of the country. Is this just done to conform with the standard country template infobox? If so, I believe that field should be left empty, rather than giving this prominence to the personal motto of the monarch. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Also the translation is wrong (if you focus on the actual meaning of the words, not the poetic value) it should be: for Sweden - in time. //Dr_Ernst (Sweden) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.118.217 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In the 'Energy and transport infrastructure' section there is a claim that Sweden "has proposed banning gasoline fossil fuel-driven vehicles by 2025", and the source appears to be a blog post about an article referencing a different article. Sweden has not actually proposed banning fossil fuels by 2025; the Center party proposed it in the opinion pages of a national daily newspaper.
Should such proposals really be included in the article on "Sweden"? It's even unclear if the party itself still stands by the proposal. If there were actual legislation or proposed legislation that is one thing but there is no indication of this.
--195.198.42.205 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the statement. The party's current platform page about cars doesn't mention this particular date or proposal (here). If there is a desire to keep it, I would suggest: 1) clarify it was the Center Party that suggested it, not the governing alliance; 2) use the original article (here) and the original English article (here) as refs, rather than the blog post; and 3) merge the statement into the (now) second paragraph. StephenHudson (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sweedin is full of terrorists. They are after our freedom. Praise be to Jimmy Wales, lord and master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.39.61 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Bamnehagen, 31 January 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Change the title over the largest cities of sweden from "the largest cities of Ukraine" to "the largest cities of Sweden"
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see that phrase, or that section, anywhere on the article. Perhaps you're looking at a different article? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I made that change and a few more I found were needed. --Ettrig (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The figure for Lund is demonstrably wrong. If Lund is to be considered belonging to a metropolitan area (MA) near this size (600 000) then Malmö must be included. But the figure given for Malmö is different. If these figures are harmonized, then we would still have the proble of one MA listed twice with different names, not sufficiently clear. There are similar problems with Täby and Södertälje. If the 2 million population is to be reached for Stockholm, then these two towns must be included in the Stockholm MA. So these two should be removed, like Lund must be. Sweden and Swedish should be avoided in headlines, according to MoS. --Ettrig (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Södertälje and Täby
The template included in that section shows the largest Swedish metropolitan areas, as well as the Södertälje and Täby metro areas; and not the Urban ones, best regards FesCityRaver (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This does not answer the question above. Täby and Södertälje are both included in the Stocholm metropolitan area. The population figure given for Stockholm MA is higher then the figure given for Stockholm County. If Täby and Södertälje are listed as separate MA's, then the figure for Stockholm MA must be substantially lowered. --Ettrig (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, then i'll replace these two by the following metropolitan areas. FesCityRaver (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
India recognizes as Metropolitan areas, areas with more than 4 million people. I think that for Sweden we should set the limit at at least 100 000, not to seem ridiculous. --Ettrig (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Metropolitan areas
Hello! What's the source for the size of the metropolitan areas in the demographics section? Seems a bit weird that Linköping has a larger population than Uppsala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichad (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The value 146 154 for Linköping is the latest figure for the entire municipality (on Swedish WP) and the figure 144,839 for Uppsala is the densely populated area Uppsala only. For Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö it is the official metropolitan areas which include other cities with countryside in between. It is hard to define what to include but we should at least have similar principles for the metropolitan areas in the list, and therefore adjust at least Uppsala to the 197 356 which is the latest figure for the municipality. --BIL (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
GPD
The GPD of Spain is not 22m USD, Spain have in 2009 31m USD (sorry, but is my country and i love and protect them xD), ;)--Zayuk (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Military - Humvee picture
I can only see one Swedish soldier in the picture (on the top of the Patria Pasi) and as far as the Humvee Article shows Swdeden doesn't operate any Humvees. There is probably somewhere a better suited picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwolfram (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Area of Sweden
The article claims that the area of Sweden is 450,295 square kilometres, and that this makes it the third largest country in Europe. According to the wikipedia page about Area and population in European countries, the area is 449,964 sq. km, and any of these numbers would put Sweden on fifth place (after Russia, Ukraine, France and Spain), not counting Greenland, Kazakhstan and Turkey (since none of these countries have as much area within Europe as Sweden does). Jolindbe (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead correctly says: "At 450,295 square kilometres (173,860 sq mi), Sweden is the third largest country in the European Union by area". Follow the link to European Union. It is not the continent Europe but an organization of currently 27 states: Member state of the European Union. Russia, Ukraine, Greenland, Kazakhstan and Turkey are not in the European Union. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A little statistics how much other languages than Swedish like Finnish and Arabic are spoken and understood in Sweden would be interesting. Also the number of people in Sweden who do not speak Swedish has been growing, where do we go now? 91.152.90.62 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is approximately 260.000 that speaks Finnish in Sweden [2]. I tried to find some form of statistic about Arabic. I don't think its recorded... but if you count total members of Muslim congregations, it will land about 150.000 and about 500.000 originated from Muslim countries. [3] Don't know about that source though. There is no statistic over how many people in Sweden that doesn't speak Swedish. - Fniss (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Tribes from sweden
There is no proof that the Goths, Vandals, etc originated from Sweden, even if some of the germanic peoples claimed to have a scandinavian heritage. The majority view among historians is not that the germanic peoples came from Sweden and hence this statement should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.170.93.229 (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And now Alphasinus (talk·contribs) has twice reinserted the rubbish about Swedish tribes roaming through Europe, without discussion. And I do not want to risk a block for edit warring. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange and not sourced statement
"Nobody has influenced electronic dance music in the 21st century more than the Swedish House Mafia," As much as I really love this group, I cannot honestly believe this. There is too much history thanks to the huge amounts of creative musicians in this genre. 81.233.168.217 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request: Grammatical error
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the "Climate" section, the following sentence is present:
"Sweden receives between 1,100 to 1,900 hours of sunshine annually."
The usage of "between A to B" is a grammatical error and should be replaced by either "between A and B" or "from A to B".
An appropriate sentence would be "Sweden receives between 1,100 and 1,900 hours of sunshine annually."83.233.107.20 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The article writes: "The last war in which Sweden was directly involved was in 1814, when Sweden by military means forced Norway into a personal union."
It is easy to believe that Norway was dependent on Sweden during 1814 and 1905 and that was certainly not the case. Even though many believes so.
In fact the Swedish army was led by Karl Johan (Charles-John) in the end of the napolonic wars invading Danmark making Denmark sease Norway to Sweden. Howerer the bother of the danish king was governor in Oslo and tried to become Norwegian king. ASo he called for the assembly of a first Norwegian parliament that made the Norwegian constitution. The reaction of Karl Johan was to send the Swedish militaries to Oslo on his behalf (he was the boss). Because he accepted a compromise accepting the constitution if he became also of Norway. So the only that was common between Norway and Sweden during those years were the king, the foreign politics (constitutional a royarl affair) and the embassies. In 1905 the Norwegians demanded own embassies and the king refused. So Norway elected a danish prince as king and on Norway went with own embassies. All the time Norway had its own army, parliament, law, administration that had nothing in common with Sweden.
I suggest the text is changed to "The last war in which Sweden was directly involved was in 1814, when Sweden by military means forced Norway into a personal union, but only joint king, foreign politics and embassies, else two independet states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should read personal union: "A personal union is the combination by which two or more different states have the same monarch while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct."
Twice now, there has been attempts to put dates on a Swedish consolidation. First of all, dates such as the establishment of the Kalmar or Swedish-Norwegian union has nothing to do with this. Secondly, if the dissolvement of such a union is enough for an "establishment", then clearly the Swedish-Polish union should be included as well. Thirdly, the 6th of June 1523 was the coronation date of Gustav Vasa, who by this time had control. If anything, it is a de jure date, and even that can be discussed. Forthly, if one wants to put a date on a consolidation of Sweden, a guessed date for when the first historically certain Swedish king was raised to the throne is quite pointless. The whole point of describing it as a "consolidation" is that there is no fixed date. There are arguments that would put such a consolidation in the late 12th century (there are sources that tell of events where different "landskap" has tried electing different kings), or perhaps in the 13th, when the king was finally strong enough to impose at least some laws all over his realm.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Sweden's capital is Stockholm, with 1.3 million inhabitants also the largest city" should be changed to "Sweden's capital is Stockholm, with 1.4 million inhabitants also the largest city".
Not done: The article is showing the Largest metropolitan areas not just the largest cities which is why there is a difference in the lists, I believe at least. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the answer Jnorton7558 gave, regarding the reason for the difference. SCB's definition of "tätort" (locality) on page 1 sounds like it probably more or less aligns with urban area, rather than metropolitan area. Specifically, it ignores city/county boundaries (making it not the population of the city proper), and ends wherever houses become more than 200 m apart, but it does not account for commuting practices and things like that, which factor into the metropolitan area. However, regardless of definitions, the current table has no citation for its source, so it could quite legitimately be replaced with data from this source, with citation. If that's done, I'd also suggest shortening it to not more than 10 cities. StephenHudson (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This list is a laugh actually. The three largest metro areas are the only metro areas that Sweden officially has. The rest of the list seems arbitrarily defined by whoever made the list. The locality population have been used for some places, like Uppsala, Luleå and Trollhättan, while municipality numbers were used for Västerås, Linköping and most others. Since it won't make much sense to compare metro area populations to locality populations I would suggest editing this list according to locality population (with metro population in brackets). I will start doing this as soon as I can, possibly tonight. Skrofler (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Done!Skrofler (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
War/Armed Forces
The article says that Sweden has not been directly involved in wars for 200 years. I disagree with this claim. At the moment, Sweden has three armoured battalions in Afghanistan and has lost six soldiers in combat. I believe that is direct participation in war. 72.198.79.196 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This probably qualifies as sort of military conflicts rather than a war. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Swedish-speaking Finns
At the 4th footnote is said that Swedish-speaking finns and other groups born outside of Sweden might consider themselves to be Swedish is absolutely wrong. We are our own people and we consider ourselves to be Finnish if anyone asks. I don't know any case of a Swedish-speaking finn who would consider himself to be Swedish. If you find a source for this i might consider it to be okay. But we're Finns alright, as much as the Americans not are British. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.56.50 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you speaking on behalf of all Swedish speaking finns? I know some people in Åland that consider them self to be Swedish. - Fniss (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Åland/Ahvenanmaa is closer to Sweden culture-wise, and most of the people who live there speak Swedish as their mother tongue. Åland could be considered an exception in this case; most Swedish speaking Finns living in the mainland consider themselves as Finns. 85.156.216.148 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that case it seems perfectly true that "Swedish-speaking Finns or other Swedish-speakers born outside Sweden might self-identify as Swedish". I know that my grand parents certainly did. Skrofler (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 1 November 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What section and what is the statement that it supports?Sjö (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Rike/rike
"The Swedish name Sverige (a conjunction of the words Svea and Rike – the latter is still spelt with the letter g, "rige", in modern Danish)" I dont see why it says how it spelled in danish, the important part it how it spelled in Swedish (rike). Otherwise you could wright up all translation of the word "rike". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxmannen (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The name comes from the time when danish was the official written language i Scandinavia. Thats why its spelled "-rige" and thats why its referred to danish in the article. I agree though... it should be explained why its referring to danish or skip it totally. - Fniss (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree on this. Being paraguayan (not knowledgeable about this subject) the reference to danish left me confused. The question that came inmediately to mind was "Why is the country's name in a foreign language!?", and there was no answer for it in the (very good and interesting) article. Of course it's very clear after reading Fniss's comment. But this explanation would've been interesting to read next to the text, as it would've clarified it. JuanParaguay (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Where do you get the notion of Danish having been the official written language of Scandinavia. The nordic languages have always been similar, but Swedish has evolved in to having a different spelling on most words, as in the case of rige/rike. If you are aware of Swedish and Danish history you must know that Swedes never would have accepted Danish as the written form of their language. Mno001 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a question of the evolution of the written language in Norden, not who would accept what or which nationality is more important. For hundreds of years up until the 1520s, Denmark was much more organized and developed than Sweden in just about every way and clearly dominated the Scandinavian scene. Facts are facts, no need to get huffy or defensive about them. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and somehow the evolution of the Danish written language crossed the border and completly superimposed the then evolving Swedish written language. THe fact remains that -rige was how it was spelt in Swedish AS WELL AS Danish, which means that it should the changed the way the poster above suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mno001 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The article only says that one should "compare 'rige' in modern Danish", and has for some time.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Sweden has 162,707 km (101,101 mi) of paved road and 1,428 km (887 mi) of expressways. Motorways run through Sweden, Denmark and over the Öresund Bridge to Stockholm, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Uddevalla. The system of motorways is still under construction and a new motorway from Uppsala to Gävle was finished on 17 October 2007."
This is incomplete information. the Swedes call the oresund Bridge the Orebro. The line should be changed to 'Sweden has 162,707 km (101,101 mi) of paved road and 1,428 km (887 mi) of expressways. Motorways run through Sweden, Denmark and over the Öresund Bridge, or Örebro, to Stockholm, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Uddevalla. The system of motorways is still under construction and a new motorway from Uppsala to Gävle was finished on 17 October 2007.
Not necessarily nonsense but a misspelling/misunderstanding in good faith. You meant Öresundsbron, or the Öresundsbro Bridge, not Orebro, Oerebro or Örebro, which as duly noted is a city nowhere near the bridge. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Error in image
It says in the picture (section Economny), that "Nordstan, the largest shopping mall in northern Europe" which is false information. Please correct this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.253.170 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
i am not saying change anything i am requesting an addition to Swedish music. Where it Talks about Yngwie Malmsteen you should also add skwisgaar skwigelf from the band Dethklok since he is a notable musician from Sweden.
I'm afraid he's not notable enough for a general overview article such as Sweden. Thank you for your suggestion though. henrik•talk 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sweden Democrats
The Sweden Democrats are not a far-right party. That term is a political tool used by their political and ideological opponents to discredit them. On an economic scale, their position is centrist or right of center at most because they are in support of the Swedish welfare state and describe themselves as "social democratic." On a social scale, they are more in support of the Swedish model of ethnic tolerance (as they argue it) for pragmatic reasons of social cohesion making them national conservatives, which could be described as traditionalist in one sense, as well as for reasons of cultural preference, which shows that they are civic nationalist as well due to their beliefs that "anyone can be Swedish" through assimilation; this is a far cry from the ideology of ethnic nationalism that groups popularly and more traditionally described as "far-right" exhibit, which seems to be a threshold marker to be accurately defined as such. Just because a source is sited describing the Sweden Democrats as "far-right" does of course not make it so especially if these are journalistic sources who write stories without a necessity for academic integrity and whom are often openly tied to specific political parties or ideologies as is the case in much of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.196.58 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the left-right scale is not as accurate and relevant as it once was, but the placement of the Sweden Democrats as a far-right party is correct on that scale. Read i.e. Left-right politics. /111126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the discussion about how to describe the Sweden Democrats belongs on Talk:Sweden Democrats and this article should mirror that one. As of today the lede there says "SD describes itself as a nationalist movement although others use the term far-right" which I believe is accurate, so nationalist far-right party seems to a good description.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You may be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the word "others" there. Lots of traditionally "leftist" voters voted for SD and many of their Riksdag seats represent the wishes of those voters. I think extreme caution must be used when dealing neutrally with any matters political on WP, and I'm not sure that is the case here. An extra effort to be perfectly neutral would be a great idea. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It is true that a lot of former Social Democrats voted on SD. However, many of S' voters have not laid their vote out of conviction but rather out of old habit, so when they swap party it does not make the new recipients of their votes a left-wing party. Many of the Moderate Party's votes come from Social Democrats; it does not make the Moderate Party less liberal-conservative. Now, the characterization of SD as far-right party is supported by a string of reliable sources. To me these "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" on the subject (according to neutral point of view). That is, if everyone but SD, their supporters and a few others call them far-right, Wikipedia should call them far-right. The minority (SD's) view should be stated in its own article. Steinberger (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No matter how you put it, using newspapers to describe Sverigedemokraterna, is never going to be neutral or accurate. There is an on-going media campaign against SD in Sweden, with newspapers calling them nazis, facists, racists, right-wing extremists, xenophobic, among other things. Foreign press then picks up on this, and will only have one side (media's side) of the story. Nymfhideliho! 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
SD's media conspiracy theories can be discussed in the article on SD. Steinberger (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is where the wording and sources are being questioned, so this is where it will be discussed. We even have media calling them a sect, so by your definition that should go in the article. DN, LO-Tidningen. Also, I'd like to know what makes you say that it is a conspiracy theory.Nymfhideliho! 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read Steinberger's edits carefully before you answer them. We discuss if the description "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", a couple of uses of "sect" doesn't even come close to being due weight. And SD media conspiracy theories should not be discussed here.Sjö (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss the neutrality and reliability of the sources in question, and it all ties together with the media campaign ("Vi gillar olika", anyone?). Sjö, I believe there may be a conflict of interest in you participating in this discussion and/or issue. Nymfhideliho! 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
LO-Tidningen and DN does not themselves characterize SD as a sect, they cite and attribute that characterization to a former SD-member and an opinion poll respectively. Newspapers use to distinguish, or at least purports to distinguish between editorials and news articles. So pointing to a campaign for tolerance at Aftonbladets editorial section, is in it self no proof that they misrepresent SD at the news section. There is also a problem of WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia editors should not analyze sources. That is, you can't use these sources to say anything but what they say. If you want to make the point that SD are mistreated by the media, you need secondary sources that say just that. However, any such discussions are undue in the Sweden article as Sjö has pointed out. Steinberger (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
How convenient. You push your point of view, and any discussions regarding it is undue. ;) Why not describe them as social conservative, as that is what they self-identify as? Why is "controversial" not enough? Or to take it even further, why categorize them at all in this article? Nymfhideliho! 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting other editors' positions. This discussion is undue here.Sjö (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion as to what they should be referred to in this article, is certainly not undue here. That is just two politically active (on and off Wikipedia) people trying to kill the discussion. This question: "Why not describe them as social conservative, as that is what they self-identify as? Why is "controversial" not enough? Or to take it even further, why categorize them at all in this article?" still stands. Nymfhideliho! 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
A dependent clause of the type "although the party rejects the characterization and call themselves..." would be to give equal validity to a fringe (their) view. A discussion presenting the disparate views on what to best call the party can be done where space not is an issue, as in the Sweden Democrats article. More, to call them "social conservative" in the context of the 2010 election would be a inaccurate and anachronistic as they took on that self-description in November 2011. At the time of the election they self-identified as a "democratic and nationalistic party". And why characterize the party at all? Well, have you noticed that the other parties are categorized according to the left-right scale in that very paragraph? Steinberger (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think extreme caution must be used when dealing neutrally with any matters political on WP, and I'm not sure that is the case here. An extra effort to be perfectly neutral would be a great idea. Some of you are obviously pushing your personal political views and dismissing the POV of your opposites, using clichés and catch phrases. That's not appropriate in an article about any country or any political movement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that isn’t true. To present research findings, generally accepted ideas or perceptions, or adequately referenced political statements is hardly to be considered POV. However, to censor or rewrite material in an embellishing way would be viewed as rather problematic. Dnm (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of some of the efforts of some of the editors here is unchanged. I hope what you find "untrue" isn't the most important part of what I wrote - the part in the bold type? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, we should "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" by using the common characterization of SD as a far-right nationalist party. That is, use the terms commonly used by journalists, scientists and so forth. However, as we should avoid to state "seriously contested assertions as facts" you could easily force us to reconsider, pointing to WP:NPOV, simply by finding reliable sources that question the use of "far-right" or "nationalist". However, until then I view the present wording as sufficiently neutral. Steinberger (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fair, given the amount of cites supporting your view. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, no, that's not fair. Simply because a number of sources say the same thing does not make it so. Especially, if they report from the same Weltanschauung. The question is, how un-biased are the sources? In this case, the New York Times, the BBC, Sveriges Radio and Time magazine are hardly un-biased politically. The first entry above, from 71.251.196.58, thusfar expresses the situation most accurately.--Hackercraft (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I would support any efforts, yours or anyone else's, to take care and make the political descriptions in this article as neutral as possible. Let's hope this doesn't end up being another case of WP's ball and chain, where consensus leads us away from unbiased neutrality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed both "nationalist" and "far-right" from this article and hope that will be an acceptable compromise.Sjö (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
War lie
The statement in the intro paragraph that Sweden has not been directly involved in any war since 1812 seems contradicted by over 500 Swedish troops fighting "directly" against the Taliban in the Afghanistan War. Six Swedish soldiers have been killed in action "directly" by enemy fire. I'd say this bogus claim that Sweden has not participated in war since 1812 needs to be deleted. 72.198.76.97 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Sweden is not at war against the state of Afghanistan. Your definition of war is wrong. --94.255.146.60 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The troops sent to Afghanistan are UN troops... -_- Ever hered o thoes? (I know... bad spelling) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.165.233 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Swedish language
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As all Swedish citizen know, Sweden does not, and have not ever had, an official language. 'Swedish' is merely the main language along with eight minor languages (some of them are in the text). This is 5th grade knowledge in Sweden, you cannot find "Swedish" as an official language in the Swedish law. Nowhere.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Source 8, 9 and 10 are cited for this fact. I can't read 8 or 10, but 9 appears to be clear that it is an official language. Do you know of any reliable sources which say otherwise? Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 05:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Swedish was long the de facto official language in Sweden, but as of 2009 it actually is the official language, along with 5 minority languages. See source. Nymfhideliho! 06:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And this is a related source in English.Sjö (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear to me how that page, which is not in English, is relevant to this discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If you are referring to Sjö's link, there is an English PDF in the link provided. It is only the proposal though. The link provided by me is in Swedish, and shows that the proposal passed. Nymfhideliho! 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, here's the link to the pdf.Sjö (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
diametric conflict with article on Russia
The following two statements are contradictory yet one appears in the entry for Sweden the other in the entry for Russia:
from Sweden "The eastern half of Sweden, present-day Finland, was lost to Russia in 1809."
from Russia#Imperial_Russia "This continued with Alexander I's (1801–25) wresting of Finland from the weakened kingdom of Sweden in 1809."
Would someone please clarify/correct one or the other (or both!)? LookingGlass (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
D'oh!! OMG! AND I read the two exerts several times. The wonders of "dyslexia"! Thanks for not taking the opportunity to rub my nose it it :D LookingGlass (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Royal Anthem
Being a Swede, I can't understand the point in having the royal anthem (literally "The King's Song" in Swedish) posted in the article. The royal anthem is not considered official in any way and is not sung by other than strong royalist. Although Sweden strangely is a monarchy, keeping it does not correlate to the powerless position the monarchy has in Sweden. The article in Swedish does not have it. /111111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As used by the Sovereign on all formal occasions and also formally adopted by H.M. the King the Royal Anthem is in most ways more official than the National anthem, which in no way is adopted by any institution as Sweden's official national anthem. Sweden has therefore de facto two anthems, the national and the royal and both ought to be mentioned in an article about Sweden. When the writer above says that the song is seldom sung he doesn't know what he's talking about. The royal anthem is sung at every occasion where H.M. the King is present and is therefore also sung at the opening of the Riksdag and at the Nobel prize ceremony (where the national anthem is not sung). --Leffe00 (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No, Du gamla, du fria is the de facto national anthem while Kungssången is a royal anthem. In some languages the infobox has a place for the royal anthem, and it could fit there if this wiki has it.Sjö (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ethnic groups
AS far as I know, Sweden doesn't have any official statistics about ethnicity. Still in the infobox it's written that 90.8% of the population are Swedes (a very exact number). This is very strange because further down one can read that "18% of the population had foreign origins", of course it's fully plausible that a large proportion of them have assimilated, but which source says that? Also, there are also a few people who belong to ancient minority groups who have lived in Sweden for centuries without assimilating, e.g. Samis and Tornedalians. To which group do they belong? The ethnic groups numbers seem to have been made very arbitrarily. Aaker (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
See the ongoing discussion above at Talk:Sweden#Ethnic Groups. I agree with you that the statistics are arbitrary and I suggest they not be included. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Economy lead sentence
The lead sentence in the section on the economy contains some pretty dramatic statements without citation. Specifically, it refers to Sweden's "modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labour force". Does anyone have a source to verify these three separate claims? Some statistics could help - ports per capita, kilometers of fiber optic cable, average years of education, etc. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It isn't neutral - almost gushing - and all needs to be toned down. For 50 years now I've seen up close that Sweden does not indulge in "excellent external communications(sic)" - English is usually used more like a poorly pronounced domestic game than a serious method of communicating - so on that point, I know for sure there will be no reliable sources to support the claim. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what the original editor meant by communications. I did find that with regard to telecom Sweden has a "highly developed telecommunications infrastructure; ranked among leading countries for fixed-line, mobile-cellular, Internet and broadband penetration". I will go ahead and include that later in the economy section but scrap most of the unsubstantiated claims in the lead sentence. The skill of the labor force is difficult to quantify but I would be open to including any statistics about educational attainment (Sweden ranks 21st in the world on educational spending / GDP, but there are surely other indicators). And as for the distribution network, the above link mentions that Sweden has the 12th largest number of roads of any country.. considering that several of its European neighbors make the top 10 list, I'm not supportive of including that particular figure. Let me know if you have any ideas in mind - and the Wikilink you provided is hilarious! CaseyPenk (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Good Article status
I noticed this page lost its Good Article status and I see some areas for improvement. I've made a list below. Please expand it with additional items, comment on it, and check items off as you complete them. Thanks! CaseyPenk (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Expand the anemic Science section; shift focus from comparative statistics to presenting information on the merits
Add citations to the Health section - specifically for the more precise statements
Add citations to the Media section - particularly to the claims that particular papers have particular political biases (e.g. liberal conservative or liberal)
Present a more coherent "picture" (harharhar) of Cinema, rather than a laundry list of people
Present a more coherent picture of Fashion, rather than a laundry list of brands
The origin of Sweden
OK, let's make this clear. First of all, talking about "Goths" in Swedish history is just muddying the waters. The correct article is Geats.
Second, there is no clear date for when Sweden was formed, because there is no clear definition. If one wants to talk about when Svealand and Götaland were first united under one king, then Olof Skötkonung is the first King for which we have evidence. Eric the Victorious is the first king in modern Sweden who is considered to have existed at all, without any doubt, but that does not make him a sensible marker for when the country came into being. In fact, some historians would argue that Sweden was not fully formed until the 13th century...
The end of the Kalmar union is a more sensible date to use, even if it was mostly a formal detail, and a coincidental one, by then. There had been quite suceesful attempts to dissolve the union long before that, Gustav Vasa was just the one who managed to make it permanent.
The union with Norway makes no sense in this context. Sweden's autonomy was in no way affected by it. It makes about as much sense in this context as the American independence would for the UK.
Except for the fact that I just cannot stand the term Geats (an English-language invention by whom and when and why?) there are several good points made here. Gustav I cleaned up after a union with Denmark but he by no means founded Sweden. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Political POV influencing edits
An edit like this - a reversal without discussion here - is not constructive. It is far fetched to require comparison of a fact in a country's economy to other countries, only because the fact looks embarrrassing to certain politicians and economic groupings. The editor in action here has a clear (self-published) political affiliation which makes h editing looked far from neutral. I am removing the tag again as it looks like clear politcal bias to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow. It seems you did take it personally after all, since you had to take a consent dispute and blow it out of all proportion. I was perfectly content with leaving at what I wrote at User_talk:Sjö#Sweden but you had to take it here. For the record, and for the benefit of other editors since I don't think that I can convince you, my goal just like yours is to provide high-quality articles with neutral content of due weight. That we differ on the specifics doesn't mean that I am a problem editor. I do take offense at having an edit removed with no other reason than that I am a problem editor, a treatment usually reserved for trolls and socks of banned users.Sjö (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I understand the concern over the issue. I suggest we simply debate the issue on the merits and leave personal matters aside. Let me note that I added the phrase about unequal distribution of financial assets to bring a more NPOV attitude to the article. We can disagree about the method of doing so, however. I don't think we necessarily need to compare every statistic with that of another country; the need for "who's better, who's best" really sunk many sections of the United States article. It contained misleading statements with unnecessary comparisons to countries like Sweden; even where the United States was near the top in a certain statistic, the article found it necessary to point at that the United States was only 3rd or 4th in that category. The point was and is, you can really skew the figures and make the country seem like a forbidding wasteland when you over-rely on comparative statistics.
With all that in mind, I feel that monetary inequality might merit a comparative treatment, if only because income and wealth inequality are the global rule (see page 2) and any considerable deviations from that rule merits attention. Sweden is particularly an outlier in terms of income inequality, as we all know. However, if we use the Gini for income, it makes sense to do so for wealth as well. See page 51, row Sweden, column Wealth gini. You will note that Sweden is firmly in the middle of the wealth inequality spectrum. At 0.742, its wealth inequality is below the global average of 0.804, but not by much. If you look on page 2 you will see the broader context: "The paper finds that global wealth-holding is highly concentrated, much higher than in the case of income. The share of the top 10 per cent of adults in 2000 is estimated to be 71.2 per cent and the Gini coefficient to be 0.804." ~71% owned by 10% - almost exactly the same as as the text in the Sweden article!
With these findings in mind, I propose we change the units in the article to make them similar - apples to apples, Gini to Gini. I also feel it would be fair to compare each Gini with those of other countries - not to score points, but to make clear that high Ginis are the norm. Despite Sweden's "high" wealth Gini it is pretty average in global terms. Whether or not you feel a comparative treatment is warranted, I think the first step is to equalize the units of measure. Thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
First, my apologies to Sjö who seems to want to take this all as a personal attack of sorts. My general reaction is explained briefly on my user page and is just that, a general reaction to some of Sjö's edits, rather natural I think, not a general attack upon his person. My bad mood (over the general problem) may have impacted unnecessarily.
More importantly, and as I've said before on this page, I would support any and all obvious efforts toward as fine-tuned a neutrality as possible in anything that is done with this or any other article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great. I'm glad you and Sjö are getting things sorted out. Are you in favor of the proposed changes? (1) Using the same units, Ginis (2) Making both statistics comparative so we see how they stack up on a global level. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure of what some of the terminology means, but I would support your efforts. Thank you for asking! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to SergeWoodzing for anything I said that offended, and I hope we can now focus on the article. 1) I think it's a great idea to use the Gini coefficient, both because it includes more than only financial assets and because you can compare countries. 2)If you add some comparison to other countries it will add to the readers' understanding. Generally, in this article and in others, I think the precision you sometimes see in articles is unnecessary (e.g. "14th of 194"); a rough measure like "about average" or "in the top third" is easier to maintain and is exact enough given the problems of collecting data from countries with varying systems for producing statistics.Sjö (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you're saying about precision. Whether intentional or not, extremely precise figures confuse the reader and obscure the underlying data. The income Gini's at one end of the extreme so it's easy to talk about, while the wealth Gini is squarely in the middle so a few places don't matter much. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 July 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the following sentence under History - Viking and Middle Ages from:
Their routes passed through the Dnieper down south to Constantinople, on which they did numerous raids.
to:
Their routes passed through the Dnieper down south to Constantinople, on which they carried out numerous raids.
Use of 'did' is clumsy and while valid it is better English to say 'carried out'
Sweden's most classic and notable composers includes Carl Michael Bellman and Franz Berwald.
Carl Michael Bellman did not compose his own music but took up the best songs of his times and
added very witty texts. Contemporary with Bellman was Abbé Vogler who was a composer, but there are better examples to use. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
references
^ "Sydsvenskan (a Swedish newspaper) – in Swedish". Sydsvenskan.se. 2006-02-08. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
It's been almost two years ago this was retrived & updated(!)
and it's from a controversial (scania/southern) swedish newspapper with a biased POV,
which i really don't think is suited as a reference source for an encyclopedia
and should be removed as such.
In what way is Sydsvenskan controversial? It is as far as I know a mainstream Swedish newspaper and the only controversial thing I can think of offhand is that it published one of the Muhammad cartoons, like several other Swedish newspapers. That said, I'm sure that there are better sources than a news article but the reference sufficient for now, and I'm pretty sure the numbers haven't changed much in two years. (I added a title to the reference, BTW).Sjö (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, a biased POV newspapper, specially a notoriously biased tabloid as Sydsvenskan, is not suitable as a reference source in an encyclopedia and should be removed and annother, unbiased/not POV reference source replace it. And you said it yourself: there are better sources, and no doubt unbiased and not POV twisted.
This is of course nonsense. Sydsvenskan is not a "notoriously biased tabloid". --LA2 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Need for review
In February 2011, several sections (including the one on architecture) were added by User:FesCityRaver, who has later been permanently banned as a sock puppet. The architecture section claimed (until August 2012) that most buildings before the 13th century were built from brick, which is nonsense, and in disagreement with the main article. Several other statements are poorly written, perhaps wrong, and in need of a review and factchecking. --LA2 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Payment in Sweden soon without notes
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Sweden was the first European country to introduce bills 1661st year, and probably will be the first and out of use. Banknotes and coins have a percentage of only three percent of payments in the Swedish economy, and even the donations received for the church with the help of credit card or SMS. Neither public transport in Sweden can no longer pay cash. 93.137.42.94 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Lisbeth Salander not Pippi Longstocking
Under Literature, it is stated that Larsson based Lisbeth Salander on Longstocking. This is not entirely true and it certainly doesn't say this in the article (which is a dead link, btw). He was influenced by the character. Not sure how to resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabbersolo (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A new online source should be found, unless a statement to that effect can found in print. The question whether the inspiration of Larsson should be characterized as "based on" or "influenced by" (and the nuances of the wording) should be determined alone on what is in the source.
Apart from all that, I question the need to dig any deeper into this subject on the Sweden mainpage as there are several other articles in which this particular topic can be more relevantly raised. RicJac (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The currently displayed population census of 2012 was an estimate. The SCB published the actual census a few days ago. The number was 9,555,893. Currently 9,540,065 is displayed and this needs to be changed as the estimation was too low by quite a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Henriksson (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The article states that 6.2% of the population is of another ethnic group than Swedish, though in the source referred to, (http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____26041.aspx) it states that in reality, 14.7 are foreign born, and a total of 19.1% is either born out of Sweden or has both parents born out of Sweden. The 6.2% to in the article represents the number of people living in Sweden who has not yet retained citizenship, but not the number of people of non-Swedish ethincity. According to Wikipedias own article about Swedes as an ethnic group, 7.712.376 people in the world are of Swedish ethnicity, which accounts for 81.9% of the total population of Sweden. Hence, the number 6.2% referred to for non-ethnic Swede's is by all means proven incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.178.243 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the ethnic group section is plainly wrong. SCB clearly states that 20 % of the population is made up by other ethnicities, yet it is stated on the wiki that Swedes make up 90 % of the population. This should be changed asap. --94.255.146.60 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Swedes do not make up 90% of the population, that information is clearly wrong. Hurry up and change it... Mno001 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Can't find that. Where is it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.scb.se/Pages/Product____25785.aspx?produktkod=BE0101&displaypressrelease=true&pressreleaseid=257212, you even have it as a source. It clearly states that foreign born population is about 14% and with Swedish-born people having both parents being from other countries included it makes 18%. Just to further clarify this, on the wiki-page about Swedes it says that about 7.7 million Swedes live in Sweden. Which would be about 82.7% of the current population. More in line with the actual figure that is not represented on this page... Mno001 (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest we avoid making claims about ethnic groups in the country, considering that the government publishes no such statistics. Additionally, I can't find any secondary sources (e.g. CIA World Factbook) that include any figures. I think it would be more responsible to leave it unspecified than present questionable numbers. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The numbers as they are right now are far more misleading than they were before. Why was it changed to 90% instead of 80%? It's true that there are no statistics on ethnicity, so why even have those kind of numbers on here? Nothing can be verified. Mno001 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
How is it that nothing happens to this particular statistic? The topic was raised in November of 2011 but on the page nothing changes. It is clear beyond any doubt that the information about ethnicity, in the form currently displayed, is false! Either the information should be corrected to represent fact or it should be removed in its entirety. If publishing erroneous information is the object of Wikipedia, why not state that the group “ethnic swedes” constitute 10% of the population? It would be equally false but at least it would correct itself over time.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.44.178 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we !vote on this topic so we can get a degree of consensus. I propose that we remove the statistics on ethnicity. Personally, I would prefer having no statistics on this particular issue to having misleading ones. I'm also open to the idea of adding nationality or country of origin information, because the Swedish government actually publishes statistics to that effect. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It is unfair to hide this statistical and official estimation to the Swedish people and the world.It is clear that some group of people want to use hide information for their political personal views. The numbers must be changed to 80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.202.88 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Since there are no official statistics on ethnicity i will remove the statistics. SCB is a reliable source but they don't record ethnicity, only nationality, country of birth and country of birth of the parents. Of course, if anyone can find a reliable source for at least the percentage of ethnic Swedes, that figure is obviously relevant for the infobox.Sjö (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, as far as I can see the table in the ref doesn't support the 78 % ethnic Swedes. The closest I find is the 19.6 % "Proportion foreign background in %" which would mean 80.4 % Swedes if we assume that the rest are Swedes.Sjö (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sjö (talk) , the stats may not be perfect but it gives a good idea on the current demographics of Sweden. Also there has never been more than 4% of non nordic foreigners in Sweden before 1961. 20% of people with foreign background means that there is 80% that have no foreign background.
I accept your arguments but you must accept mine. Lets say 80% of Swedes with no foreign background. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton88be (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Ethnicity" of Swedes in a genetic sense is very illusive to discuss due to all the large demographic changes in the past (Finns, Belgians, Germans, Scottish settling in different areas). A huge percentage of the population, while having grown up in Sweden, have a partially Finnish background and yet nobody perceives them as a different ethnicity anymore. "Ethnicity" may also be interpreted in a cultural sense. Still the problem of line-drawing remains. For instance, Norwegians speak a language that is mutually intelligible with Swedish. They have almost exactly the same culture and values. Is a child of a Swedish mother and a Norwegian father of a partially different ethnicity? A "yes" would be completely rediculous. We could perhaps speak of a Scandinavian-Germanic or North-Germanic ethnicity, summing up Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders and Foroese as an ensemble of peoples with a largely common cultural background. While neglecting a few extreme areas, most people of foreign background who were born in Sweden or arrived there at a young age have largely assimilated the local behaviour and values, even though they have foreign parents. Thus it is not relevant to consider them as a different ethnicity in the cultural sense anymore.
Because of all these reasons, stating numbers regarding ethnicity is rediculous. The only factual, indisputable number that we can give is the one based on place of birth. According to Eurostat, that would be 14.3 %. Thus 85.7 % of the population in Sweden are Swedes. (Jonas Henriksson (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
I think you exaggerate the impact of the small amount of immigration that happened prior to modern times. Most of us are likely to have some foreign heritage, but that that will still be just a drop in a deep sea.
I for instance have forest Finns in my lineage 300 years back in time, but that only make me 1/216 Finnish. Anyway, it is better to provide no information over disinformation, as we don't really know how many people consider themselves Swedish. --94.255.146.227 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If you read the swedish wikipedia's article on the history of Gothenburg, you will find that a very large percentage of the population of Gothenburg during the years that followed the city's founding came from Scotland, Germany and the Netherlands. The scottish influence is the reason to why the name "Glenn" persists in Western Sweden. You would find a similar relation between Stockholm+Uppsala and Germans. At one point, 40 % of the population in Uppsala had German names. What we can conclude is that the cities at the time of their founding had significant immigration. Subsequent urbanization of rural people must have lead to a dilution of that, as you say, but with such a sparesly populated country, could it really be as a drop in the deep sea? Two rivers joining would be a more suitable analogy.
Moreover, the older story is not concluded. Recent findings show that the people who brought agriculture to Sweden came from the Mediterranean (http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-swedish-farmer-came-from-the-mediterranean-1.10541) and were genetically similar to today's Cypriots and Sardinians. That was 6000 years ago, which is a very short time in genetics. (Jonas Henriksson (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC))
You are talking about times when the urban population was a very minor part of a country's total population. According to genetic studies that I've read (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022547), Swedes are fairly homogeneous compared to other European peoples. Besides, migrations that happened prior to there even being differences amongst the Indo-European branch of people are not very relevant to the definition of the modern Swedish ethnicity. --94.255.146.227 (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It is true that the urbanites were a minority at the time. But do you know to what extent? The rural population of Sweden at the time was not very large neither. The total population of Sweden at the peak of its imperial period was estimated to 2.5 million people, thus the population in Sweden proper was even smaller.
The statement you made is not actually strengthened by the article you refer to. You said that Swedes are fairly homogeneous compared to other European people, but actually the article states that Northern Swedes (who have always been a minority) are genetically inhomogeneous and they differ from Southern Swedes (who have always been in majority) who are genetically homogeneous. It is also explained that people in the state of Utah (who have mainly British, Scandinavian and German ancestry) differ very little genetically from Southern Swedes. That mainly shows that Southern Swedes fit together closely with other groups of germanic language speakers. It is the Northern Swedes, the minority, that are the differing group. The article also argues that continental Europeans and Britons must have migrated to Southern Sweden, explaining the genetic composition of the people living there today. The conclusion is thus that the Southern Swedes are homogeneous with (not "compared to", of that there is no mention) other European people.
Furthermore, the expansion of agriculture predates the expansion of the Indo-European languages by a couple of thousand years, depending on the region. You cannot make a statement about the definition of any European ethnicity without taking into account how they came to be. The migrations bringing agriculture as well as the migrations bringing in indo-european languages were clearly relevant in the forming of the Swedish ethnicity, as it is relevant to the formation of Spanish, Italian, Russian, German or any other European ethnicities. An alternative image would be that the Swedes descend from the hunter-gatherer bands that arrived after the end of the last glacial period. The truth is that this group mixed with a number of other later arriving groups and that the same story is likely to apply for almost all of Europe. (Jonas Henriksson (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC))
I need to correct you, the article states that northern Norrland is inhomogeneous, but that part of the country is home to about 200 000 people of which many belong to national minorities such as Sami and Finns. Further more, the difference between northerners and southerners claiming to be Swedes is negligible, and it cleraly states that Swedes are fairly homogeneous in a global perspective even if local variations exist (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016747.t002&representation=PNG_M). And I do have a source on the number of people living in towns at the times you speak of; "Sverige hade en liten stadsbefolkning. Bara några få procent av befolkningen levde i städer under medeltiden. De flesta städerna var små och får närmast ses som ett slags förtätad landsbygd. Inte ens Stockholm, den största staden, hade mer än cirka 6000 invånare vid medeltidens slut" -Sverige - en social och ekonomisk historia. Hedenborg, Morell. 2006, sida 37. And no, a migration and melting pot event that happened 5000 years ago is not relevant to this discussion, as we are discussing a state that has existed for 1000 years and a people that may have existed and shared a common identity for an additional 500 or 1000 years.
But to be blunt, there are two ways to conclude the number of Swedes in Sweden (% of people identifying themselves as part of a Swedish identity or % as being part of a Swedish ethnicity), both of which requires surveys of some kind. We have access to no such information, and an estimation can thus not be done. You can't just remove the percentage of people with an immigrant background as that doesn't take into account the identity of people not born to immigrants or the fact that people "immigrating" back to Sweden may be Swedes --94.255.146.227 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Konungariket Sverige (Kingdom of Sweden)
It is written in the article that the country's official name is Konungariket Sverige. I have tried to look up what official document this is based on. Can someone help me with this? Stora Kogha (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 2 June 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Done Thanks for notifying. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 13 June 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I just read the new sentence in the introduction:
"Nevertheless, the country has experienced social tensions, particularly in areas in which significant numbers of immigrants have settled."
Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd wager more cars are burned in Paris on an average weekend than in all of Sweden during those riots, and yet nothing is mentioned regarding social tensions on the wikipedia site concerning France. You could make the same argument regarding the Netherlands or Germany. This sentence could come later in the article, discussing this particular topic, but in the introduction it really looks like a bad joke. Is that more notable so many other things that are not mentioned in the introduction? The sentence should be removed. Please change as soon as possible.
I agree, I undid the edit commenting it was too sweeping of a statement, but User:SergeWoodzing undid it, again, sadly not indulging himself on the talk page. He is talking about the article 'clearly' talking about widespread rioting. He surely needs to be more specific than that, or how is someone supposed to be able to dispute any such abstract statement. I will reverse it back and ask him to at least let us talk about it here first. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Have you 2 read the cited article? Quote: " In Stockholm and other towns and cities last week, bands made up mostly of young immigrants set buildings and cars ablaze in a spasm of destructive rage rarely seen in a country proud of its normally tranquil, law-abiding ways. - The disturbances, with echoes of urban eruptions in France in 2005 and Britain in 2011, have pushed Sweden to the center of a heated debate across Europe about immigration and the tensions it causes in a time of deep economic malaise."
And if so, how would you like to word the facts about this relevant and somewhat defining matter? I felt the wording was accurate, mild if anything. It belongs in the lede in my opinion because the problem is of central importance to the country's future. People here (in Stockholm) feel the media have surpessed facts on this, ignored some of the riots and smoothed things out too much.
Sweden has been steadily heading toward more and more such problems for decades, especially due to a surprising lack of effective legislation against ethnic discrimination. If the New York Times thinks that's relevant, why wouldn't English Wikipedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I felt it was blown out of proportion, however reading your reply I can understand the point you're making. As I currently lack any better suggestions, I will undo my edit. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Is the interesting part of these events the ethnicity factor; that the prostests in economically and socially deprived areas, mostly consisted of immigrants (but also non-immigrant), or the fact that people in these areas (regardless of ethnicity) have protested against the economic and social sitautionen they are forced to live under?
In my opinion, it serves no greater knowledge to point out a "group" in this way. It is not interesting if they are immigrants or not immigrants. The interesting thing is the people who live and work there. They are not satisfied with the community. And i think Jonas Henriksson has a point saying: "I'd wager more cars are burned in Paris on an average weekend than in all of Sweden during those riots, and yet nothing is mentioned regarding social tensions on the wikipedia site concerning France."
However, the information about these events should not be in the introduction. It feels weird. Regards, Dnm (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You are known as a politician in Sweden, Dnm. I think that's clouding your judgement here. No offense, just my personal theory, which I feel is relevant background as to why you made these remarks. We are supposed to be politically neutral and add well sourced facts to WP articles. That's what's been done here, and the problem has finally surfaced as serious enough in Sweden to be mentioned in the lede. It's a sad and serious and embarrassing problem, but it's not going to go away just because it "feels weird". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are you discussing my person? We all, you included, have political ideas. You have expressed them many times. And one could say the same thing about your reasoning, as you do about mine. But I do not see any good outcome from such an approach. You often point out what you think is my POV, and never take my arguments in regard. It is somewhat tiresome. So please do not reject my factual arguments in this way. I think you can adress a problem in different ways. Metapedia do it in one way, which they think is neutral, and Wikipedia does it in another way. I believe this lies closer to that of neutrality of Metapedia, then of Wikipedia. If you call my position political POV, then you will have a problem with your position as well. I do not want to go down that road, so i beg: please stop making remarks about me as a politican. My activity lies for most parts with RFSL: I work with politicians from across the political spectrum (from the right to the left), to find support for the policies RFSL consider important. Regards, Dnm (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All in all, I might add; Implying that someone's claims are false because they're a "politician" is edging into ad hominem territory. Whilst it can affect one's projected POV, it still should not be used as a basis to denounce anyone's comments. Just because you are one thing or another doesn't mean what you say is more correct/false. That judgement should generally be made based on the comment itself, as far as I'm concerned. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)¨
Added "undue weight" tag to the statement, due to the many disputes about its prominent appearance in the article. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. You cannot claim that anything the New York Times writes about Stockholm is notable with respect to Sweden only because it is written in the New York Times. I agree that the NYT is a generally respected newspaper. However, do you really consider this newspaper an authority on the issue? Their main audience consists of North Americans, but the article relates to the affairs of a European country. Look at the article more closely! It is weak and shallow! Look at the sweeping, poorly supported statements! Did Sweden become "the center of a heated debate across Europe about immigration and the tensions it causes in a time of deep economic malaise"? I have searched for articles on this topic in French and English media. Le Monde showed the most interest and put the riots into context in a fairly indepth article (www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2013/05/30/emeutes-urbaines-en-suede-le-prix-de-la-segregation_3420578_3214.html). However, since then, French media seems to have lost interest and I find no continuation of the discussion from the month of June. Furthermore, it seems that only English language newspaper that has continued to write anything about the topic in June is The Local, which is Sweden-based (!) and has very little impact. It seems this "heated debate across Europe" died pretty quickly!
I live in Switzerland, and I discuss topics such as these with Swiss, French and Italians among tohers. They found that the topic was passé one week after the Husby riots. If I asked them today, then probably they wouldn't even remember that it happened. I believe the reason to that is that the riots were simply too meek and therefore didn't leave a lasting impression: According to the wikipedia page on this topic, 150 vehicules were torched, causing a loss of about 63m SEK (€7.1m). They involved some 50-100 persons. To put into perspective, the Paris riots in 2005 led to the torching of 8,973 vehicules and the loss of about €200 Million. 2,888 arrests were made and two people died. Do you see this event described in the lead in the article about France? And do you really think that the Husby riots carried echoes of the riots in Paris? The comparison made in the article you refer to is simply patheticly naïve.
You mention concerns among Stockholmers that you know. That is not an authoritative source.
Again, this sentence has nothing to do in the lead. You believe that the riots are important for the country's future, but they happened only slightly more than a month ago. In your last paragraph, you are describing your personal feelings and interpretations. Again, not a very strong authority. I may feel that soccer-related hooliganism is a bigger problem and that's been around for several decades. Why don't we write about Sweden's serious problems with soccer-related hooliganism in the lead?
For the sake of consistency and relevance, this sentence has to go out of the lead. It can appear further down in the text with some more substance (perhaps in the public policy section). Please edit!
Jonas Henriksson (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved your latest entry to the end here where it won't cause so much confusion. If the dates weren't carefully studied, it looked like you were satisfied, with brevity, after being very dissatisfied, at length.
It hard to see how the mention, as reworded now, can be anything but relevant in the lede. To people overly ímpressed by wording that is just before this mention, it only seems natural to point out that Sweden has experienced things that are less than perfection. By all means, feel free to add that hooliganism if you wish, but then also add widespread drunkenness (despite gov't control), and why not a note on the (government's) domestic espionage organization Radionämnden, now expanding government activity into direct tyranny?
Or else, why not let's have people who are not swayed by Swedishness (like you and I may be) decide this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What you describe is not coherent with how other articles are written. You refer to some type of fairness or balance. In fact, most country articles have a lead that pushes the strongest arguments to why the country is notable. In addition to that, there are several reasons to remove the sentence:
1. The source you are referring to, the NYT, is not an authority on European public affairs.
2. The article you refer to is written in a sensationalist, poorly supported way.
3. The riots were pathetically small compared to those that other european countries have experienced. Yet their articles do not mention social tensions.
4. The riots are already forgotten by public media abroad.
5. Foremost, an encyclopedia cannot be written in a way that it has to be changed every month. The lead should last for a while. If we see more riots appearing more regularily, then maybe this is really something important about Sweden that needs to be given important space. If not, then even the Stockholmers are going to forget about this in a few weeks and then nobody will understand why this sentence is in the lead.
At this point, it is a downright embarrassment that the wikipedia article portrays the mentioned events as if they were essential for Sweden's future.
Certainly no WP article on a country should read like a promotional item, like propaganda on how perfect the country is? Other than that, I repeat, cordially: why not let's have people who are not swayed by Swedishness (like you and I may be) decide this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done: - discussion ongoing here, no need for any action through edit request. Mdann52 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Jonas Henriksson has a strong case based in facts. I agree that the text should be removed. At the moment, it seems like the only one that want this text is SergeWoodzing (is this the way to link so that the user see that he/she as a comment/note to read?). I think it is perfectly reasonable, that the issue of the riots is mentioned in the article, but not in the beginning. The question should be explained more clearly and problematized, with social tensions as a factor (which is the throughout presented theme of the media reportings). Dnm (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"Promotional item" are your words. My point was that if you look up a few other countries on WP and read those articles' leads, then you will find that they usually do not contain the type of sentence that you have added to the Sweden article. I also argue that the events you picked are not particularly important and this becomes very clear when they are put into perspective.
You are being stubborn. You have not addressed my arguments. Instead, you have tried to redirect the discussion by saying that I am only making my argument because of my nationality. That's completely false. I have not lived in Sweden for several years so you could might as well consider me as a Central European, well on my way to become Swedish-speaking Swiss (I wonder what the Americans will say). I would offer a pretty good foreign perspective. That, however, is not the point here. The point is that you should evaluate the arguments put forth in the discussions, not the persons putting them forth or their background. Other people are of course welcome to give their point-of-view. Still, I insist that the outcome of the discussion should be well-founded on arguments. Jonas Henriksson (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Henriksson, get your basic facts straight! I did not add that item. I reinstated it when I felt it had been removed arbitrarily, regardless of a valid source. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. What difference does it make whether you put it there or not? You were arguing that it should be there. I say it should be removed and my arguments have not been addressed. It seems you have retreated from your previous position. Can we please remove the sentence now? Jonas Henriksson (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No, and I have not. Neither has the editor who added it from the beginning. Nor has the New York Times become as insignificant of a source as you'd like us to pretend. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if you believe that the NYT is an authority on European politics, you have not explained the discrepancy between the lead for the Sweden article and the France article. France suffers from significantly larger integration problems. This became evident during the riots in 2005. That problem is not mentioned in the lead about France. The widespread drunkeness you mentioned is also a bigger problem there (alcohol consumption is 50 % higher in France than in Sweden). France and Switzerland also suffer from significantly higher suicide rates than Sweden. Japan suffers from severe gender discrimination and has a state debt of 200 % of the country's GDP. None of those things are discussed in the lead of those articles. Instead, the story goes that these countries are highly developed, have extremely long life expectency, wields massive economic influence, huge R&D investments and yaddah yaddah yaddah. It is time for you and the initial editor to explain why the lead in the article about Sweden deserves this out-of-the-ordinary negative touch. Jonas Henriksson (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I won't be commenting any futher, because I think the matter should be decided by people without native bias (and perhaps more respect for NYT). Your bias - including "yaddah yaddah yaddah" - is more and more obvious to me. Every article about a country should contain balanced info, even in the lede, and i will be very disappointed if a lack of neutrality and balance is to decide this issue here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it then completely irrelevant, in your opinion, whether the lede of different country articles are written in a similar way or not? In other words, do you think it is a problem if we only give nice statistics about, say France, and then give negative points about, say Sweden? You may replace "yaddah yaddah yaddah" by "and the list goes on with positive points". It was an informal way for me to say that this is currently praxis, while writing about negative points is not. I am sincerely trying to be fair. I have raised arguments to the discussion, arguments that people should be able to evaluate intelligently, disregarding their personal bias. I have raised factual points. From my point of view, you have ignored these arguments. Both I and Dnm have argued that the mentioned sentence should be removed. You have dismissed both of us by calling us biased. I would say that you are biased; how else could it be that you only repeat opinions (comments?) and consistently ignore discussing factually based arguments? This is truly the behavior of a biased person. Not biased about Sweden, I think you are biased about being right: you realized later in the discussion that your initial position was wrong, you didn't know the facts and now you are too embarrassed to admit it. But that is just my (biased) interpretation.
Anyway, to move on, could we please get some fresh, non-swedish brains to evaluate this so that we are both happy? Jonas Henriksson (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
After looking into wikipedia: undue weight more indepth, it is clear to me that the sentence "Nevertheless, according to the New York Times, the country has experienced social tensions, particularly in areas in which significant numbers of immigrants have settled." must be removed. Putting this sentence in the lede gives the issue a disproportionate significance which is not coherent with having a neutral point of view. The sentence is based on a news report concerning events that are very recent. From Wikipedia's text regarding a Neutral point of view:
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
The sentence is based on a recent news report. Editors may have been affected by the attention peak that the events received. However, that attention died out very fast. In addition, the article is about the country of Sweden, but the events took place in a very localized area. The mentioned sentence gives a disproportionate significance to the events for this article. I would like to advise more care to be taken in future editing. Jonas Henriksson (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done: An edit request is not the venue you're looking for here, I think. To get some fresh eyes on this issue I recommend seeking assistance at WP:DRN. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor who has not been able to get consensus for h POV here on the talk page has now adandoned it and begun doing this type of arbitrary edit (bordering on edit war), to get his way anyway. I must object to the method. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I made the mentioned edit because the sentence that was removed broke the rules of Wikipedia. It was a mistake to seek consensus from the beginning; the removal of a rule-breaking edit is not subject of discussion and does not need consensus. I ask SergeWoodzing to respect the rules and to help in maintaining the article in a state of having a neutral point of view. Jonas Henriksson (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As i see this discussion, there is only one user that wants the edit, and the rest are of the opinion that it should be removed. It is not only a question of Wikipedia:Undue weight, but also a question of Wikipedia:Consensus. And the policy of concensus does not mean that ALL must agree. However, when it comes to POV and undue weight, consensus for removing such edits is not necessary. I totally support the edit of Jonas Henriksson, and his arguments throughout the whole discussion has been really good. I guess, if the rules of Wikipedia wont be met, the question has to be raised elsewhere? Regards, Dnm (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Truckfighters
Truckfighters are a fairly popular Swedish band. Can they be added to the list of bands under the "heavy metal" title? TurboThunderdome (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have never heard of them. Can you demonstrate any kind of notability or significance on Swedish music as a whole? Nymf (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the other bands listed I guess they aren't that popular...yet. And not being Swedish, I can't demonstrate significance. TurboThunderdome (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
RFC re: listing Crown Princess Victoria
It has been suggested that I bring this to the attention of editors here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 June 2013
The table on religion is outdated , please add
| 2009 || 9,340,682 || 6,664,064|| 71.3%<ref>[http://www.kyrkanstidning.se/kyrkanstidning/nyheter/inrikes/dystra_siffror_for_dop_och_vigslar_0_13864.news.aspx Dystra siffror för dop och vigslar] {{sv}}, [http://www.kyrkanstidning.se Kyrkans Tidning], May 27, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.aspx?id=645562 Svenska kyrkans medlemsutveckling år 1972-2009]</ref>
|- style="text-align:center;"
| 2010 || 9,415,570 || 6,589,769 || 70.0%
|- style="text-align:center;"
| 2011 || 9,482,855 || 6,519,889 || 68.8%<ref>[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.aspx?id=890756&ptid=48063 Medlemmar i Svenska kyrkan 1972-2011.pdf] svenskakyrkan.se</ref>
|- style="text-align:center;"
| 2012 || 9,555,893 || 6,446,729 || 67.5%<ref name="svenskakyrkan.se"/> thanks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterniels (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Bad source
The climate source doesn't work. I strongly suggest to use the SMHI very thorough data instead (period 1961-90)
First I question the terminology. There has never been any Emperor that has ruled any Swedish territory. The British Empire is different, since the Queen/King in the UK also was Emperor of India. But the map - I would argue that before the beginning of the 19th century, the border between Norway and Sweden was undecided. Along the coast Norwegian fishermen lived all the way to the Kola-peninsula (in Russia). But further away from the coast, and north of Jämtland, only the Sami people lived (except at the Baltic Sea coast). Other maps from this time usually doesn't print out any Swedish-Norwegian border north of Jämtland. Boeing720 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
About terminology, Swedish Empire seems to be the prefered english frase for "Svenska stormaktstiden", so it has support in WP:COMMONNAME. I don´t think actually having someone (in english) called an emperor/empress is an absolute necessity to use the term empire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Definition of Sweden in the first sentence
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The definition of Sweden being a "Scandinavian country" in the first sentence should be removed or placed further down. This information is secondary and does not define Sweden at this basic level. Instead Sweden should be defined as a "parliamentary constitutional monarchy".
213.100.99.103 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: both facts are in the lead section (the constitutional type is in paragraph 3). I guess different people will have different priorities regarding geographical, cultural and political facts. --Stfg (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Reputable boast?
I have previously asked several times that there be less unflattering & embarrassing boasting about Sweden in this article, and I recently removed a huge boast by a little private organization that few people have ever heard of. Because of this edit and the previous one, where I was reversed, I have now red-linked that "prominent" organization (quoting another user), which I still do not believe should be used for a boast that huge. If so it should be well known enough for it's own article. Who/what else says it's "prominent"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The Administrative Divisions section of the article gives the impression that municipalities are subdivision of counties, and thereby subordinate to them. This is not correct.
The geographical boundaries usually do coincide with the outward boundaries of the outer municipalities. But there are two separate Governmental institutions covering the county geographic area: the County Administrative Board - which is an arm of the Central State and purely administrative; and the County Council - which is an elected body with a supporting administration whose primarily responsibilities lie in health and public transport.
The County Council is legally at the same LOCAL GOVERNMENT level as the Municipal Council, also with its own administrative system. The municipalities have a wide range of statutorily compulsory and some voluntary fields of responsibility. These do not include health and public transport. However, because of the nature of some fields of responsibility - like care of the elderly, and of children, local roads and their associated infrastructure (drainage, street lighting etc.) there are obviously many points of contact. Swedish public sector organisations are generally known for their high level of cooperation and coordination.
Sweden is also remarkable in the extent of decentralisation of authority. Local authorities (municipal and county)receive the lion share of income tax with payment to the municipality/county of residence - not employment; they have a virtual monopoly on planning (municipal plans do not require approval at any higher level). Once again, there is a great deal of consultation, coordinatin and cooperation between different organisations, and among municipalities themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohembo (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement on this page - links to bad link of 'list of US senators'
Could you be more specific? The Demographics section is a long one and I have been unable to find any such link. Sjö (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit request: found typo in Climate paragraph
"Sweden receives between 500 and 500 and 800 mm" --> "Sweden receives between 500 and 800 mm"
The first known dwelling place, found in southern Sweden, dates from around 12,000 BC.
http://sweden.se/society/history-of-sweden/
This is Sweden's government website and they know there own history. The language is German based not the people. Facts are Germany does not have a DNA project!. So how can you prove they have Germanic blood. And Swedish peoples DNA is most similar in ratios to other Central European countries like Czech Republic and Poland.
Google, Jomsborg, Jomsborg Vikings, Skane slavic, Skane slavic pottery, slavic pagans, King Eric of Pomerania
Also old English did not exist before the late 12th Century ( You must mean Latin/Roman)
Does it hurt to do a little research?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.7.110 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There was the 30 year war from 1618 - 1648 which was in/with the German provinces. In wars there is always some kind of DNA exchange, i.e. soldiers fathering children near the battlefields or boys taken to fight with the invading forces and then taken home with the invaders. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sweden Democrats
I wonder what in the classification of the Sweden Democrats as centre-right constitutes a compromise? There was no scientific research supporting such a description. A quick Google Scholar search for "Sweden Democrats" yields papers supporting the opposite (populist right, racist right and radical right populist are the first three descriptions of the party[5][6][7]) and while they may not be considered neutral by proponents of the Sweden Democrats they are indicative of most theory regarding the Sweden Democrats. A compromise could be describing the parties in government as centre-right and the Sweden Democrats as right-wing.
Martymcflyer (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not elitist press has reported thus, the evidence in their parliamentary work suggests that that party does not belong to the right, left or center. Since there is so much propaganda about that party, I suggest we take care not to include any of it in this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If it does not belong to right, left or centre it is erroneous to class them as centre-right. If we are unable to find a correct classification of the party, it should not arbitrarily fall under centre-right. There should, if the left-right scale presented is based solely on economics (which is the only possible reason for placing the party in the centre of the spectrum), be a footnote explaining this and that parties would be placed differently if there was a libertarian-authoritarian dimension. The Wikipedia page on left-right politics does not focus solely on economics. The site referenced in the section describes the Sweden Democrats as "far-right" so however anyone chooses to regard the party's politics, the information should, to remain objective and correct according to source, be changed. Alternatively, a new source should be used where the Sweden Democrats are described as centre-right.Martymcflyer (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That depends entirely on your definition of political centre. The core issue for the Sweden Democrats is restricted immigration, harsh laws (especially against violent crime), nationalism and the preservation of a cultural identity. These are issues that, in the cultural context of Sweden, are considered far-right. They would not be, for example, in the US where they would only be ordinary-right, or "centre right". That is, if I understand where the mainstream of the US Republican party lies which is difficult since I am Swedish. If we by illustration try to envision what the equivalent "far left" is, then that would be free asylum for everyone, criminals are treated in the equivalent of mental hospitals or incarcerated in free-roaming rehabilitation facilities, "workers of the world unite" and a rejection of any form of cultural (or gender) identity. There adherents of this left-ish stream of thought are quite popolous in Sweden, in fact, and constitute the underlying bulwark of what is considered "correct" today (we are a consensus-based society so we can indeed speak about "what is considered correct" in the context of Sweden.) 85.229.143.90 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is the mistake? Sweden does not allow homeschooling, period. If a child is being kept from school then the Police and Social Services will take action. This is how we do things here, unfortunately. There is also the more recent case of the Malaysian diplomat couple whose son compained to the teacher that his mother had hit him on his hands - right off to court they went, and the children off to temporary protective housing. Or the case of the Spainard who physically disciplined his son in public, same thing there. The key thing to understand is that parents have no right to their children, but the children have a right to themselves (and a right to be free from any abusive or stupid decisions their parents make.) 85.229.143.90 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Fluffy, unsubstantiated sentence
It says: "Post-war era:
Sweden was officially a neutral country and remained outside NATO and Warsaw pact membership during the Cold War, but privately Sweden's leadership had strong ties with the United States and other western governments."
This sounds somewhat sneaky, as there's a front of neutrality and behind everybody's back they have strong ties. This ought to be substantiated because it implies the accusation of hypocrisy. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It ought to be substantiated but it is correct in the same way the sky is blue. Our whole military defence is aimed at Russia and Russia alone. We do not join NATO because we know we would be defended anyway, and in a situation where we wouldn't (essentially WWIII) then the situation is so dire that it doesn't matter. Furthermore Sweden does business globally and therefore has strong ties to whomever we can sell things to, as displayed for example in the current very positive mutual investment relationship with China. 85.229.143.90 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Lead paragraph
I apologize if I did not explain my edits. The lead should never contain specific details about some magazine ranking this country in this place and so on. It should contain very general information and the main highlights of the country. For example, is it really necessary to specifically mention Newsweek and what ranking they gave the country? This should be mentioned later in the article, not in the lead. See any featured or good article and you will understand. All these rankings can just be put under "Sweden does well in comparisons of this, that" and so on, which is what I did and why I said the lead should be modified. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The motto, "För Sverige - i tiden" is now translated as "For Sweden – With the Times".
A better and more accurate translation is "For Sweden – In Time".— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Not done. "For Sweden – With the Times" is the English translation on the Royal Court's website[29]. Also, in Swedish "i tid" (in time) is not the same as "i tiden" (with the times). To be "i tid" means not being late, to be "i tiden" means being modern, being relevant to the current time or being influenced by current events. Sjö (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
While you're right that if the Royal Court uses it, then of course that is the one we're sticking with. But what I want to say is that "i tiden" -> "in the time" (lit. translation). "With the times" -> "Med tiden" (lit. translation). The difference between "i tid" and "i tiden" is that the latter is the definite article. We both know that the motto of Sweden has nothing to do with being late or not, neither was I implying that it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.25.188 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Modern History
In the subsection "Modern History" there are two references to the potato, in the first and third paragraphs respectively. However none of them is highlighted in blue ( I mean, they are not hyperlinks linking to the potato article).
The potato, as the article clearly demonstrates, was a VERY important crop for the very survival of many nations such as Sweden (and MANY others in Europe and elsewhere). Therefore the word potato should be hyperlinked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.10.77 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox
We shouldn't be listing the prime minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
r/Gotar/Geats/
In the introduction, the text goes "Germanic peoples have inhabited Sweden since prehistoric times, emerging into history as the Gotar and Svear tribes and contributing to the sea peoples known as the Vikings.", I think Gotar should be replaced with Geats, especially as Gotar redirects to Gotlander
"Swedes/Svear" was a good idea and should be matched by "Goths/Geats" in that case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Problem in the Science Section.
I'm pretty sure Tycho Brahe was Danish, even though being born in a now swedish city.
At the site for Tycho Brahe, it says he was danish, so putting it in the section for swedish science would be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.69.99 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Tycho Brahe was most definitely Danish not Swedish, and died long before Scania was ceded to Sweden. So he should not be listed as a Swedish scientist... Thomas.W talk 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first paragraph it states that Southern Sweden is predominantly agricultural and northern Sweden mainly forest. This isn't true. (I am Swedish and I live in Sweden all my life). Only the southernmost tip (Skåne) is mainly agricultural. Forestry is the main industry (and covers most of the land) in the rest of Southern Sweden too. See for example the article on Småland. (Which is clearly southern Sweden). See how the land is there? It is also mainly forest and lake. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The current phrase is problematic. Here, "predominantely" by definition means that more than 50 % is agricultural. However, there is no source to support this claim! Moreover, "Southern Sweden" is vague. Does this refer to the geographic southern half of the country? In this case, then surely much less than 50 % of the land is agricultural, which means that the statement at present is directly errenous. I would propose two options to deal with this problem:
1. Find a reliable source that gives figures for the percentage of land occupied by agriculture and forest in the different regions. Adapt the text accordingly.
2. Moderate the current phrase. Instead of "predominantly", the phrase could read, for instance, "While the land in Sweden is predominantly covered by forests, significant parts of Southern Sweden are agricultural."
Let's be a bit creative and find a better solution to this! Jonas Henriksson (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.. You've stated a change, but then you said "find a better solution", implying that that change was only an example of what could be done, and not what you want to do. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following part from the religion section:
"Sociology professor Phil Zuckerman claims that Swedes, despite a lack of belief in God, commonly resent the term atheist, preferring to call themselves Christians while being content with remaining in the Church of Sweden.[168] Other research has shown that religion in Sweden continues to play a role in cultural identity.[169] This is evidenced by the fact that around 70 per cent of adults continue to remain members of the Lutheran Church[170] despite having to pay a church tax; moreover, rates of baptism remain high and church weddings are increasing in Sweden"
seems to be from highly speculative research. I would also argue that this research is not well-recognized for this area and constitutes a very thin opinion. Therefore, I think this section should be removed since it gives the reader a speculative (and with a non negligible high probability incorrect) insight on religion in Sweden.
For instance "This is evidenced by the fact that around 70 per cent of adults continue to remain members of the Lutheran Church" is misguiding since this number is steadily declining every year. The sentence makes the user believe that this number is steady around 70 percent. This is evidently not the case since the percentage (this information is taken from table in the wiki article) is down to 67.5% in 2012. If one checks the history of the wiki article one can see that the sentence has been around for a while but the numbers have changed. It was changed sometime after june 2013 from 80 to 70 percent. I would therefore strongly advice that this specific sentence should be removed since it's not scientific. The removal of whole part would also increase the quality of the article.
Not done: all the sources they use seem to be reliable at first glance. if you have doubts, bring it to the reliable source noticeboard or start a request for comment. either way, this is not a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree in full with the IP's complaint - the whole section is alarmingly one-sided, lacks balance and damages the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Sad to see this irritating false information saying Swedes denounce the word "atheism" and are becoming more (sic!) "Christianized". Apparently, the person saying no to an edit didn't read what I wrote in the section above this, so I quote myself:
"As already been established above, there's a mandatory tax (begravningsavgift) all Swedes pay no matter if they're a member of the Church of Sweden or not. Upon reflecting on this since my last post, I have to conclude the statement that Swedes are staying as members are completely false. Hard facts doesn't lie in this case: The amount of the Swedish population being members of the Church of Sweden has dropped from 95.2 % in 1972 to 65.9 % in 2013.[2] I'd say that fact totally contradicts Phil Zuckerman's alleged notion. Alleged? Looking at a summary of his book about his findings in Sweden and Denmark says nothing about "denouncing" the word atheist.[3] Also, the study is qualitative, although he interviewed 150 persons in Denmark and Sweden. This is by no means statistically significant. I'm unable to make the changes that obviously should be done to the article, but hope someone who can will. /14-12-20 again"
Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Please remove this nonsence and stop going errands for people who wants to portray Sweden as a country of Christian believers. It is not. /15-04-30 (aka 14-12-20 above :) )
Addition: By the end of 2014, the percent of the Swedish population who were members of the Church of Sweden had dropped to 64.6 % (65.9 % in 2013)[8]. Around 48 000 persons chose to leave, while 8 000 entered.[9] As I said above, facts don't lie. But perhaps Wikipedia wants to wait 10 more years until the number is below 50 %? /15-04-30— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.254.208 (talk • contribs)
We go by what the reliable sources say, and you're welcome to request a change that's supported by sources. I agree that the decrease in membership of the Church of Sweden is a data point that supports the idea that religiosity is on the decrease. However this report from the SOM Institute says that there has been no large decrease in religiosity during the last two decades. 05:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in "<any year>"" for Sweden?
I do not know how long Sweden have been a country for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.71 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The first King of Sweden is recognized to have died in 995 or 996. The exact founding of the kingdom cannot be determined, due to poor sourcing, partly because of the disastrous fire of 1697. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Then 7 centuries later, what had cause to have a disastrous fire?
The National Archives burned then (as I wrote above) and most of medieval history was lost, except for documents which had been copied elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No modern historian would backdate the founding of the modern state of Sweden to the 10th century. And as far as I know, the idea that Sweden's medieval history was all "lost" in the fire of 1697 is an exaggeration.
Experts on the fire and its ramifications (as cited as reliable sources under the articles on the fire) would not agree with your attempt to proclaim them insignificant in this context.
Furthermore, the Swedish Government, as well as all other reliable sources that I know of, officially recognize the first King of Sweden as having died around 995. The question was not about the "modern state" here, as far as I can see, so I don't know how your very personal POV could be relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any sources to support my comment on the effects of the 1697 fire, but neither do you. It might be perfectly true, but I recommend not taking it for granted since I've heard otherwise.
The main issue here was the date of establishment of the modern state of Sweden. That's the topic of this article. The Swedish government is not an authority on history and has no power to "officially recognize" any king but the current one. History writing isn't done by decree nor do we write articles that way. The issue of how far back the entity today known as "Sweden" goes back does not a definitive answer. Especially not without explicit referencing.
I don't see any reason to have several different dates for the establishment of Sweden. The current nation state as we know it goes back to 1523 according to most interpretations. There is a pre-history, but since this article is about the modern state, it's unclear why anything but 1523 should be in the infobox.
Motivations are needed and, more importantly, they need to be in sync with article content. The infobox has to be a summary of the article and should focus on the most official or widely recognized facts. Anyone who wants to describe nuances like prehistory or other major political changes can do so in the article, where proper context can be provided.
I think that is a very odd idea, Sweden clearly was an independent nation long before 1523. I doubt very much that you can find any history book that states that Sweden achieved "independence" in 1523.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict, so I'm first posting what I wrote, then answering
Tried to bring the infobox text in line with infoboxes for other European states. Not sure where to begin. I used Eric Victorious as a starting point, but just because it was in the article from before. Peter Isotalo recommends another date, and I'm sure there is merit in that argument. Who is the first definite king of Sweden and when did he rule?
As for why we should have several dates, well, because it's common practice. Look at Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands, Norway etc. If you think Sweden should be an exception from the common practice, please explain why. Furthermore, you seem to have a serious problem with WP:OWN, reverting anyone who edits this article without conforming to your view. It's not helpful. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems that three users are in favour of an earlier date than the Kalmar Union and that Peter Isotalo is the only one who keeps reverting it against the consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't those countries, though. Why should there be more than one date for the establishment of a modern nation state? There is a very lax attitude to basic policy when it comes to infobxes and this is an issue that is clearly at odds with both WP:NPOV and WP:V.
We do not vote on these issues, so please come up with a motivation isn't simply "this is the way we've always done it".
No, we do not "vote" but we operate by consensus. This article used to say the Middle ages, several different users have been in favour or going back to the 10th century (I count at least three, possible more) while you appear to be the only one opposed, yet you keep reverting. As I said, it's a quite serious case of WP:OWN and you really need to stop.Jeppiz (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is dependent on verifiability. We discuss these matters based on what reliable sources have to say on the matter. So accordingo to which sources was the modern state of Sweden established in the 10th century?
(edit conflict)It depends on how you define "Sweden". Up until the middle of the 13th century the main part of present day Sweden was divided into two countries, Svealand (the land of the Swedes), and Götaland (the land of the Geats), and the merger of those two is usually counted as the foundation of Sweden as we know it. Thomas.W talk 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo, it's only your interpretation it has to be the "modern state of Sweden". That is not the practice for any country, and didn't use to be the interpretation here either. Like Thomas.W says, the merger of Svealand and Götaland represent the foundation of Sweden.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the modern state of Sweden, though. Why should it be the establishment of anything else? And why should we include dates that are not actually about establishment?
WP:NPOV applies here, no matter what the "practice" is regarding to other countries. Like Thomas points out, what definition of Sweden is being referred to? And where do these perspective come from? How do modern historians define any of this? This can't be treated as something that individual users agree upon based on whatever they feel is right.
Well, that is your view and you're apparently pretty alone in having it, while most others agree that Sweden beging with merger of Svealand and Götaland. For all your talk about WP:NPOV, you have not presented a shred of evidence for why your preferred version is more WP:NPOV. For the record, this article goes all the way back to Swedish prehistory, it is not exclusive to modern Sweden.Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "The "modern state of Sweden" is just a myth, Sweden has a continous history as one single independent country going back to the merger of Götaland and Svealand in the middle of the 13th century. The Kalmar Union was a a union of separate and independent countries that voluntarily formed a union, and had only one thing in common, the ruler (and much of the time not even that, with Sweden being ruled by a "rikshövitsman"). The reason 1523 is mentioned so often is a) it was a symbolic entry into Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, and b) when Sweden wanted a "national day" 6 June was picked, because that was when Gustav Vasa made his symbolic entry into Stockholm in 1523 when Gustav Vasa became king of Sweden (and noone knew the exact date, or even exact year, that Stockholm was founded...). And since then all focus has erroneously been on 1523. If we need a more exact "founding date" than "mid 13th century" I suggest we write ~1250, because that was when Stockholm was founded (by a Geat ruler BTW, Birger Jarl of the House of Bjelbo). Thomas.W talk 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas.W, though a quick look at different sources suggest the rule of Olof Skötkonung represents the beginning of Sweden. The unification of Geats and Svear seems to represent the beginning of Sweden in most sources.Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, let me know when you're willing to discuss something other than you own views on history (or "myth"). Currently you're simply touting your own take on historical facts and theories on state development. And note that 6 June was when Gustav I was elected king of Sweden at Strängnäs, so the date has far more than a symbolic meaning.
Jeppiz, please stop hammering the point that I'm "alone". This isn't Swedish Wikipedia. Article content here isn't decided by simple consensus decisions without consideration to sources. We all seem to agree that 6 June 1523 is a generally accepted date as the establishment of the Swedish state and it's supported by sources in the article. The other dates, including the EU accession and the union with Norway, have no concrete motivation.
All of that is purely your own WP:POV. And contrary to what you argue, there is indeed an effort to keep infoboxes similar and comparable. And yes, we do operate by consensus. A consensus cannot overturn established facts, but all you've offered this far is your own WP:POV (and a lot of edit warring) and that is most definitely overturned by a consensus to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, we do NOT agree on 1523. Don't you read what others write here? 1523 has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of Sweden (in the modern sense) as a country. The correct year/time period would depend on what definition of "Sweden" we use, Sweden as "the land of the Swedes" (which would bring as at least as far back as ~1000AD) or Sweden as a unified country (Swedes + Geats, which would put us in the middle of the 13th century). Gustav Vasa has nothing to do with it. Thomas.W talk 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo: I suggest you read the article about the Kalmar Union, especially the parts where it says that the union was a personal union, and that the three kingdoms legally were separate and independent states, with an elected "Union King" (i.e. it was not a hereditary job, and the natonality of the king/queen varied over the years, so it was not a matter of one of the three countries dominating the other two). And since Sweden was an independent country already well before the Kalmar Union it can't possibly have become independent in 1523... Thomas.W talk 21:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 1523 date is referenced in the article and is widely recognized as a founding date of the modern state. What references do you have that actually refer to any other historical events as establishment dates?
The article isn't about "the modern state", it's about the country of Sweden. And there's a big difference between the two. "The modern state" refers to the post-Kalmar Union period of the history of the country of Sweden, a history that goes much further back in time than 1523. Like we talk about "before noon" and "after noon", it's a convenient divider between the well documented history after the Kalmar Union and the less well documented history of the times of the Union and before that. Thomas.W talk 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Or to emphasise it even more: the term "the modern state of Sweden" clearly implies that there was also an "older/less modern state of Sweden", because there would be no need to emphasise that we're talking about the modern history of the state of Sweden if the state of Sweden didn't exist before that. Simple logic. Try it, you might like it. Thomas.W talk 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As Thomas.W has pointed out already, nobody excepts Peter Isotalo agrees on 1523 as the starting date. The article used to say the Middle ages for years, until Peter Isotalo changed it in February, and has kept reverting anyone who opposes.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 1523 date is the only date that is actually verifiable, though. There is no editorial grandfather clause for article content so it doesn't matter how many years it was stable.
Nobody except you has even proposed we need an exact date, so it's a strawman argument. The year is fully enough. As for sources, where are are your sources Sweden did not exist before 1523?Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is the concept of "establishment dates", not the existence of cultural or political entities at certain points of time. I'm not an consistent supporter of precise founding dates, but 6 June 1523 happens to be a verifiable establishment date for the state of Sweden. And the article is clearly about the state of Sweden, not an abstract Swedish cultural region, or history of Sweden or Kalmar Union specifically.
Unreferenced statements can be removed per WP:V. I don't see why any of this should be controversial.
Yes, you have presented your WP:POV already, and nobody else has agreed, but I asked for your sources.Jeppiz (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
We disagree on some historical interpretations, but I'm not the one insisting on including unreferenced statements. The 1523 date is referenced (Scott, 1977, p. 121) in the article. It's "officially" sanctioned through the National Day and is widely seen as a key date in forming the modern state.
The other dates are there simply because individual users have decided they should be there. The 970 date isn't even backed up by any references in the article itself, and it refers to "The First Swedish Kingdom" by piping the term directly to Eric the Victorious.
(edit conflict) @Peter Isotalo: Another misrepresentation/misunderstanding. The year 1523 as foundation date for Sweden is not in any way "officially sanctioned" by the National Day. "Nationaldagen", previously "Svenska Flaggans Dag", is a modern invention, first celebrated in 1893 as a private initiative at Skansen in Stockholm, intended to draw visitors to Skansen. And with the date chosen by Arthur Hazelius of Skansen. So it was more or less by chance that it was on 6 June. It wasn't until later that it was decided that it should be celebrated in memory of both Gustav Vasa's election as king in 1523 and the acceptance of the instrument of government of 1809 (1809 års regeringsform), which both happened on 6 June. So it is NOT celebrated in memory of the establishment of Sweden as a state, whether modern or not, and never has been. Thomas.W talk 07:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Some further info: Utrikespolitiska Institutetstate that a unified Sweden, comprising both Svealand and Götaland has existed since the 12th century, and the Florence Provinciale, or List of Florence, a manuscript that in its earliest copy is dated to 1120, lists the dioceses/provinces of Sweden (sv:Florenslistan; I downloaded "Mission und Kirchenorganisation Zur Zeit der Christianisierung Schwedens" by sv:Kjell Kumlien, published in Konstanz, 1968, which includes information about the List of Florence, as a pdf in German from the library of the University of Heidelberg, but the Google reference link is blacklisted, so I can't add it here; if you do a Google search on "Nomina insularum de regno sueuorum" on Google you'll get a download link there), including both Svealand and Götaland, showing that a unified Sweden has existed since before 1120. So the article should say "Established as a unified country not later than the early 12th century". Thomas.W talk 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And we have one more reference concerning the List of Florence: Fornvännen, 1952 pp 178-187, author Adolf Schück (downloadable as a pdf in Swedish). So we now have multiple references supporting that a unified Sweden existed in the early 12th century. If we continue searching we'll no doubt find many more, but that ought to be enough. Thomas.W talk 10:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, you are citing a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research (UI) or that don't even discuss the issue of state formation. History is an established academic field with plenty of published resaerch. When in doubt, you look up the latest research. You can't just present your own theories and explanations based on selective readings.
I'm heading to to the library after work today to have a closer look at what established historians have written on the subject. I suggest you do something similar, because simple Google searches aren't going to get you anywhere, especially when it comes to Swedish history. The relevant sources simply aren't there to find. Not all topics are researchable online.
Both Kjell Kumlien and Adolf Schück are historians, discussing a historical document and concluding that it lists provinces of a unified Sweden. That's how it works, historians analyse historical documents, so your objections to it, claiming that it is "a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research" is just a desperate attempt to protect your version of the article (with the totally ridiculous claim that Sweden as a country was established in 1523...). So I'm beginning to agree with Jeppiz that we have a serious ownership problem here... Thomas.W talk 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with the others that I don't see any reason not to have multiple establishment dates if these are adequately supported by RS. I'm not sure whether EU accession is one to include, but as mentioned below since this is one which affects most EU countries in a similar way, it's likely that most should be treated the same way and therefore it would be best to have a centralised discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nil Einne above and Sjö below that a centralised discussion would be better, and repeat what I said yesterday that I think there is some good in infoboxes for similar countries being similar, and Peter Isotalo has not yet answered my question why Sweden should be an exception. I also note that Peter has deleted every source I added yesterday, so the apparent WP:OWN behavior continues regardless of the discussion here. Peter himself has done a large number of edits since the discussion started, none of which I have reverted, but any edit by someone else is reverted by him, even with it's the addition of good sources. This just cannot go on.Jeppiz (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What should we source?
Is Peter Isotalo now seriously requiring a source that Sweden joined the EU 1st January 1995 ([30]), or is the use of tags just to make a WP:POINT?Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It's listed under "Establishment". What sources describe the EU accession as an establishment date of the state of Sweden?
I agree with Sjö that Template talk:Infobox country is the proper venue in one wants to change the format of infoboxes. Having looked at a number of infoboxes for other EU countries, I have not found a single one that mentions just one event, except the version of Sweden that Peter Isotalo pushes. The argument about conforming to article content is null and void as all the events in the consensus version that Peter keeps deleting are discussed in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: "Established as a unified country not later than the early 12th century"
Supported by the "List of Florence" (references:"Mission und Kirchenorganisation Zur Zeit der Christianisierung Schwedens" by sv:Kjell Kumlien, published in Konstanz, 1968, which includes information about the List of Florence, including describing the list as being a guide for travellers, with the names of Swedish provinces, rather than an ecclesiastical list of names of dioceses (it is available as a pdf in German from the library of the University of Heidelberg, but the Google reference link is blacklisted, so I can't add it here; if you do a Google search on "Nomina insularum de regno sueuorum" on Google you'll get a download link there) and Fornvännen (one of the most highly regarded scientific publications about Northern European history, if not the most highly regarded), 1952 pp 178-187, author Adolf Schück (downloadable as a pdf in Swedish), plus Utrikespolitiska Institutetstating in their country guide that a unified Sweden, comprising both Svealand and Götaland has existed since the 12th century. Thomas.W talk 11:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, no, since this is really just synthesis (see reply above). Thomas is clearly trying to expose "myths" and "misunderstandings" by evaluating primary sources, not by checking up what historians are saying.
And here's my reply to those comments (let's keep the discussion here from now on): Both Kjell Kumlien and Adolf Schück were noted well regarded historians, discussing a historical document and concluding that it lists provinces of a unified Sweden. That's how it works, historians analyse historical documents, so your objections to it, claiming that it is "a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research" is just a desperate attempt to protect your version of the article (with the totally ridiculous claim that Sweden as a country was established in 1523...). So I'm beginning to agree with Jeppiz that we have a serious ownership problem here... Thomas.W talk 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's very much an ownership issue. I also have doubts about all the tags Peter Isotalo have placed since this discussion started. As an admin explains in this discussion [31] it appears that when a consensus went again Peter Isotalo on another article, he started adding templates and removing content with a vengeance, just as we've seen here in the last day. So I thank Thomas.W and suggest we proceed as proposed, and just delete and report further disruptions from Peter.Jeppiz (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, neither Kumlien nor Schück make any such claims (if I'm mistaken, please cite where they do). As far as I can tell, you're referring to the actual content of the primary source called the "Florence List" and drawing conclusions from that. There's bound to be some debate among historians about establishment of the Swedish state and how it relates to the modern nation state. It would be very useful in a discussion like this, but I'm not seeing any of that here.'
You're also basing this on your definitions of the terms "state" and "country", even though they are entirely synonymous in this context. This looks like pure original research.
That is, quite frankly, a load of cr*p, Peter. And you know it. I have pointed out your errors, your flawed reasoning/logic and your obvious lack of knowledge about Swedish history, but you just keep on defending your preferred version, a version that noone else agrees with. Thomas.W talk 13:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
When it boils down to "YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP AND NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU ANYWAY", you know it's about something other than keeping article content accurate and balanced.
Is wearing people out by posting nonsense your new tactic to "win" this? Thomas.W talk 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems to be, at several articles. That is why Peter is discussed at ANI, and comment about his behavior are better taken there. This user has a serious attitude problem, obvious across several articles. Can I suggest we move the discussion forward to discuss how to improve the article, and just ignore this purely disruptive user. As I already said, Thomas, I think your suggestion is good and suggest you go ahead and implement it.Jeppiz (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, I looked up the sources you referred to and couldn't find any comments by Kumlien and Schück on this matter. If I'm missing something, why not just prove me wrong? Just point out where they comment on the issue of Swedish state formation.
I'm not going to continue playing silly games with you, Peter. You've tagged everyone else's edits with {{cn}}, except your own unsourced addition of 1523, which you didn't provide any sources for even when you added it in February of this year, and there are still no sources for it, other than your claim here on the talk page that it is "widely recognised as being the foundation date". Widely recognised by whom? Your word for it isn't good enough. I'm not an en-WP newbie, BTW, and I can assure you that you're not going to be able to bulldozer me, so you better provide some sources for it if you revert me. Thomas.W talk 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits and for your diligence, Thomas. It's unfortunate that Peter tries to wear down anyone disagreeing, but as you point out, he has never provided a single source himself, and his random tagging, removal of sources and continued edit warring against consensus is purely disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Support The proposition by Thomas.W, which appears well sourced, and also suggest keeping other significant date, such as the dissolution of the Kalmar Union, as well as the Swedish-Norwegian Union. As for EU accession, I recommend we follow the procedure for infoboxes for EU countries.Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Thomas W's proposal. I consider Peter to be a good editor, and have a good relation to him in general, but here he seems to be wrong. I think for an infobox the proposed text may be too long and would suggest putting simply "before 12th Century"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Maunus' Rules of Thumb
When in doubt, don't fill in the infobox parameter, or at least don't waste too much time arguing about it. Infoboxes är djävulens verk.
Dont put information that is likely to confuse, surprise or antagonize readers into an infobox.
Well, without any appropriate sources covering any of the establishment dates, I'm definitely in favor of simply leaving the establishment parameter blank. Infoboxes are very good for summarizing hard, easily agreed-upon statistics, but they are usually hopeless when it comes to less precise stuff like history.
Yes, unless there is a fixed date that is widely agreed upon then it is better to leave it out. In this case I think it is safe to put something aloing the lines of " no later than 12th century" or something like that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Some sources
"Denmark was founded by Gorm the Old, and Norway by Harald Norway and Fairhair, about A. D. 875; while Sweden was founded by the royal race Swedem of the Ynglingar about A. D. 900."[32] I would call this the "traditional view", which readers will expect to be reflected in the article.
"When and where Sweden originated have long been matters of debate... It appears that Swedish provinces where first united in the 12th century. The earliest document in which Sweden is mentioned as an independent and united kingdom is a papal decree by which Sweden in 1164 became a diocese with its own archbishop in Uppsala"[33] This is a more balanced and nuance view, which seems to reflect the current state of scholarship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks ·maunus. I'd be happy for us to use those sources. If 1164 is the first time Sweden is mentioned, then that may be a good year to use.Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think something like "prior to 1164" would be better. Since 1164 is only the diocese which necessarily postdates the country.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "no later than the early 12th century", as I suggested above, would be as close to the truth as it can get. Thomas.W talk 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure it is the same for most non-post-colonial states, that their emergence is gradual and does not lend itself to a specific date.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Looking at other countries, some mention a specific event that was crucial in the formation of the state, some rather refer to the the first period of emergence.Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
So what is the EU accession date doing in the infobox? How is it relevant to state formation?
Do other EU countries have those in the infobox? Strikes me as rather irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many other EU countries have it in the infobox which is the reason I put it there for reasons of conformity across infoboxes.Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Checked a random sample and UK, Spain, Poland, Germany and Italy mention it, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Greece and France do not - so doesnt seem to be a good numerical basis for uniformizing, since either is about equally common. What is anpther argument for including it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are we discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, though? That one or several users added facts into infoboxes doesn't make it relevant. Either it has something to do with state formation or it doesn't.
Well, you've made that point already and it seems every user who has commented on the topic has disagreed with you and seen some merit in looking at infoboxes for other countries. As always and on every article, you just don't WP:HEAR any counterargument and keep repeating the same question ten times even when it's been answered over and over. It's very disruptive and not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFF is a relevant argument in so far as it says something about what other editors consider relevant in similar contexts, and in determining questions of cross-article systematicity. The articles that do have mention of EU accession do not mention it as a fact about state formaiton, but in a field of the infobox called "history", simply considering EU accession to be a significant event in the countrys political history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can stick to the argument now, instead of meta-arguing. [meta-metaargument/]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to argue the issue here. Jeppiz' personal commentary is starting to get out of hand, though.
If there is a consensus to leave out the EU accession, I won't object. As I said, I just put it in as I followed the praxis of other EU country infoboxes but it's not something I have strong feelings about one way or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's find out what consensus is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for your information, I think the EU entry in the box was once added to all EU state articles by a single user about a year ago [34], without any discussion; this certainly doesn't constitute any kind of valid precedent or consensus for such inclusion. We had a discussion about it at Greece a few months ago (here). Fut.Perf.☼ 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes the situation clearer. ·maunus already edit to implement the consensus version, and quite rightly left out the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Survey: Should we add EU accession to the infobox?
Undecided I don't see a compelling reason to add this to the infobox. It seems to require first changing the header of the infobox section from "establishment" to "history" - which I think would probably be a good idea. But on the other hand I think overcrowding infoboxes make them even more useless, and it will be difficult to determine which historical events should go in such a mini-history section. So maybe leaving it out altogether is best.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Prefer exclusion of all events besides establishment sometime in the 12th century.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm for leaving it out altogether. It has no significance to the formation of Sweden and is no more important than a whole bunch of other events (independence from Denmark, Thirty Years War, losing the Baltic possessions, losing Finland, the 1809 constitution, first democratic elections, WW II, etc.) PeterIsotalo 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a good argument, it will be very difficult to argue that EU accession is more important than any of those, and including it is likely to lead to infobox clutter, protracted discussions and general unhappiness.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Undecided I'll look at all the other EU states. If there's a clear majority one way or the other, I think there's something to be said for conformity. If not, I don't care one way or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Still undecided If I calculated right, 20 states mention the EU, 8 states do not. So a very clear majority of over 70%, but not all other states.Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not going to oppose if there's a consensus in favour of it, but IMHO having a mention in the infobox about being established as a unified country in the 12th century is enough, there's no need to include information about the Kalmar Union, the union between Sweden and Norway or entering the EU. People who want to know more can read the article. Thomas.W talk 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, this is historical events that are better explained in article prose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I won't oppose it if that's the final consensus decision, but that would be rather unique. As I said, 20 out of 28 EU countries I checked mentioned several important events and included accession to the EU, but even among the 8 that did not mention EU accession, most infoboxes still mentioned more than one event.Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they have more to mention, such as foreign occupations, and more recent things to mention? Thomas.W talk 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is being very reasonable here, which is nice. Let's leave it out untill we have a clear idea of what else (if anything) might be the most notable events in Swedish history that ought to be included. If we just include it without deciding what to exclude then we open up for long discussions about including different events.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, I agree it can be hard to compare with very different countries, but a quick look at Norway shows that the infobox mentions things, apart from consolidation, like entering the Kalmar Union, its dissolution, Sweden-Norway union, its dissolution and the German occupation. The German occupation is moot here, of course, but I'd say the Kalmar Union and the Sweden-Norway Union are equally relevant for Sweden and Norway. That is not to say we have to do the same, but I tend to believe that some conformity across infoboxes is a good thing.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I just need to point out that I have never before encountered the idea that OTHERSTUFF arguments can or should decided content so decidedly. The only exception is when there's obvious uniformity across the board (90-95% follow a distinct pattern). In these cases there is usually some offshoot of WP:MOS or a WikiProject guideline to refer to. When there are no codified guidelines or recommendations, the normal course of action is to start a centralized discussion rather than try to figure out patterns by oneself.
I dont see anyone arguing that OTHERSTUFF determines the outcome, but clearly some degree of cross article standardization is useful and also practiced. Considering it is certainly valid, but it does of course not force the outcome of a discussion. But no-one seems to have been arguing that it does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And just as I was writing this, Fut. Perf. pointed out the most obvious problem with OTHERSTUFFing: the false assumption that all article content is based on sound consensus.[35]
Yes, that is a good and important point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose As Peter says, it's no more important than a lot of other events, and in no way can it be counted as an "establishment" event anyway. Sjö (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Compromise?
I tried to implement the result of our discussion as a kind of compromise version, removing EU, adding the kalmar union and the 12th century establishment of the first unified kingdom. I hope this is agreeable to all and I havent misread the consensus? Otherwise Here is a place to make further suggestions for improvements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Full support Great job, seems to be a very accurate representation of the consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For future reference
It seems to be irrelevant by now, but in case a similar dispute arises, I looked up general works on the history of Sweden and tried to identify what established historians have to say about establishment. Here's a short summary with quotes (quotes in parentheses are chapter names):
Alf Åberg (1978) Vår svenska historia (6th edition)
p. 154 ("Sverige enas"): "Sverige hade blivit ett självständigt rike [1523] och landet hade fått en härskare av Guds nåde [...]"
Ingvar Andersson (1969) Sveriges historia (7th edition)
p. 40ff ("Kapitel V: Från ätte- och hövdingasamfund till enhetligt rike, 1050-1250")
p. 140ff ("Kapitel XIV: Riket segrar över landskapsmenigheter och kyrka"): this relates to the events after 1523
Carlsson, Cornell, Grenholm & Rosén (1993) Den svenska historien. 2, Från Birger Jarl till Kalmarunionen
p. 5 ("Den tidiga medeltiden"): "Grunden har lagts till ett ståndssamhälle, som skulle komma att bestå till in på 1800-talet. Den författning, som skulle bli den enda fram till 1719, har börjat växa fram."
p. 6: "1164: Sverige får ett eget ärkebiskopsdöme i Gamla Uppsala och till dess förste innehavare [?] alvastramunken Stefan
p. 190 ("Sveriges politiska enande"): "En gränsläggningsuppteckning i den äldre Västgötalagen, vittnar om att Sverige var enat åtminstone vid 1000-talets mitt."
Carlsson, Cornell, Grenholm & Rosén (1993) Den svenska historien. 4, Gustav Vasa: riket formas
p. 16ff ("Sverige blir en riksenhet under Gustav Vasa")
Note that mention of the 1164 archdiocese is only mentioned in passing in Den svenska historien part two. This is why I always argue against any attempts to argue the importance of history based on personal evaluation of events.
Also note the similar terminology used about the consolidation of the medieval kingdoms and the establishment of the modern kingdom under Gustav I; the two are clearly seen as pivotal events. This the result of quick check at slightly dated popular works on history written by professional historians at the SU library. There might be very different perspectives in more recent works (which was unavailable at the time). None of this is going to show up in any Google searches, mind you.
It is established that the English language use Gothenburg (not "Göteborg") as well as Scania (not "Skåne") and this is English Wikipedia, not Swedish. Things like IFK Göteborg and Region Skåne are more specific and lackes English names. But when talking about in what province a city is located in, isn't among those specific matters when we use Swedish terminology here. People from provinces less known through British history shouldn't take offence just because Scania and Gothenburg exist in the English vocabulary. Please remember this is written for English readers. Boeing720 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Gothenburg" is the standard term in English, but "Skåne" is common in English-language texts, so it's an acceptable alternative.
Most English readers don't know how to pronounce "Skåne" and are not interested in learning, so in English it should be avoided. We are not here to give people Swedish lessons, whenever it isn't necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Skåne" is not common in English, which is why the name of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME, is "Scania". I've never met an English speaker who used "Skåne" instead of "Scania", the only times I've even heard a native Englishspeaker with no connection to Sweden (unlike me, since I am half British/half Swedish) use the word "Skåne" was when trying to pronounce it after I had told them that that's what Scania is called in all of the Scandinavian languages. Thomas.W talk 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been rehashed in talk:Scania on several occasions. Both "Scania" and "Skåne" are clearly used, but the former is more common (examples[36][37][38][39]
Scania is the current title per the relevant guidelines, but users are free to use "Skåne" in prose is they so wish. Both terms are clearly in use in English-language texts. All these arguments about difficult pronunciation and whatnot is based on pure personal preferences. This is the same reasoning that placed articles like Östergötland and Södermanland at "Ostrogothia"/"Sudermannia". Just stop trying to right great wrongs.
Your first two links go to sites owned and operated by Region Skåne, and the other two go to different pages on a single site, so they're hardly representative. I have no problems with using Skåne in the body of an article here on en-WP as long as it's explained to the reader when the term is first used in the text that Skåne is the Scandinavian name for Scania, and article names reflect what is commonly used in English, i.e. Scania; what I objected to was your comment that "Skåne is common in English language texts", which is clearly wrong. Thomas.W talk 13:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I object to any attempt to personalize this discussion and confront fellow editors with snide wording like this "All these arguments about difficult pronunciation and whatnot is based on pure personal preferences. [my Italics]"
Quoting Wikipedia's Manual of Stylehere: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do." That's my preference, which I go by, and I see nothing useful in trying to give non-Swedish readers of English WP articles (98-99%?) unwanted Swedish lessons. They do not know how to pronouce Skåne and they aren't interested in that. Why force it on them? All our texts are supposed to be able to be read aloud, without unnecessary phonetic obstacles. This is a case where such can be avoided, and should be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think that the idea of alternative terms was something controversial, but since you're insisting that "Skåne" has to be exorcized from articles generally, we'll have to settle this. I believe the relevant questions are:
How much more common is "Scania" than "Skåne"?
How "uncommon" does an alternative name need to be for it to be proscribed in article texts in general?
Everyone, drop the sticks and step away from the horse carcass...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What does that kind of a dictatorial order contribute here?
I object to being falsely accused and to the personalization of the discussion. An accusation like "you're insisting that "Skåne" has to be exorcized from articles generally" is an inappropriate fabrication. I've never done any such thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It means that you are engaged in a fruitless debate that has already been settled once and that you are simply wasting time, bandwidth and intellectual capacity in continuing it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I can then only deduce that your comments mean that you are trying to personalize a discussion unnecessarily and doing so now with what borders on personal insults. We're not here to be dismissed by you like that. Please stop making that kind of condescending contributions! They are worthless to Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I would note that Alakzi is arguing that the footnote for the flag may be altogether unnecessary. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox country § Flag captions. —sroc💬 22:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [corrected username 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)]
| flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}}<span style="display:none"><!-- elaborate code required to display footnote symbol in flag caption correctly -->
Although the code is imperfect, it is necessary to make the {{infobox country}} template format the caption correctly. So, what's wrong with it? —sroc💬 17:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks fine to me.Bgwhite has again reverted without explaining why "its [sic] broke". Can we get the D going? —sroc💬 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
With no explanation from Bgwhite forthcoming, I have restored it again. As you can see from the image here, it looks fine to me, so I don't know what is "broke", let alone what to do about it. —sroc💬 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Obvious bias towards depicting Sweden as a religious country
Citing a nytimes article and a obscure book to say that swedes resent the word atheist and the church wedding are increasing is false and should be taken care of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.217.245 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Being a Swede, I have to agree on this. To say that Swedes in general call themselves "Christians" are just rubbish. But a few people do this, especially in the younger generations. Those who do are often strong believers. Also, the article states as a fact supposed to support that Sweden is in fact religious, that people remain members of the Church of Sweden although there is a tax for that. First of all, until 1996 all Swedish children were automatically made members of the Church of Sweden. After that year, people _entering_ the church has declined dramatically. Second, yhe tax is so low most people don't care and many pay it, ie stay a member, because they endorse the social work made by the Church of Sweden. To say Swedes denounce the term "atheism" is just pure nonsense. /14-12-20
According to The Church of Sweden 71 700 persons (1,1 percent of members) chose to leave in 2013. 8 377 persons entered.[1] /14-12-20
Fixed re: "resent" - the source had been falsified there. Also, someone should counter all that pro-religious bias by finding a good source that explains how Swedes remain "in the curch" only because the Church of Sweden still conrtrols almost every cemetery in the country and burial becomes complicated and much more expensive if you leave the church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be hard since the premise is incorrect. Everybody pays a burial fee, begravningsavgift, and has the right to a burial plot and use of a burial chapel among other things.[40] The costs are similar [41]. Sjö (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Where, more specifically, did you get your opinion that buying a new grave is priced similarly for non-members and members? I believe the difference is substantial, as it also is in most cemeteries for locals and non-locals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Kammarkollegiet source: "When a person dies he or she has the right to recieve without any cost to the estate … a grave in a public cemetery for a period of 25 years." I.e. you don't buy a grave, it's paid for by the burial fee, which is paid by members and non-members of the church alike. In addition the Fonus source explicitly says that the cost doesn't have to differ between a religious and a non-religious funeral. Sjö (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
As already been established above, there's a mandatory tax (begravningsavgift) all Swedes pay no matter if they're a member of the Church of Sweden or not. Upon reflecting on this since my last post, I have to conclude the statement that Swedes are staying as members are completely false. Hard facts doesn't lie in this case: The amount of the Swedish population being members of the Church of Sweden has dropped from 95.2 % in 1972 to 65.9 % in 2013.[2] I'd say that fact totally contradicts Phil Zuckerman's alleged notion. Alleged? Looking at a summary of his book about his findings in Sweden and Denmark says nothing about "denouncing" the word atheist.[3] Also, the study is qualitative, although he interviewed 150 persons in Denmark and Sweden. This is by no means statistically significant. I'm unable to make the changes that obviously should be done to the article, but hope someone who can will. /14-12-20 again
This really needs to be looked at, because that Zuckerman statement is just ridiciolus, most swedes doesn't even think much about religion (or non-religion for that matter) in their daily life, and just as has been previously stated, an article in an american newspaper about how someone (Zuckerman) supposedly talked with "hundreds" of danes and swedes (which seems to imply a combined total of "hundreds"), the number being very vauge, can't be enough for a claim like the one in the actual article, can it? To me this feels like someone is deliberately trying to push a POV. AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your unexplained removal of a large chunk of text since you need support from other editors here first, before removing it. You not liking it is not a valid reason for removing it. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Libertarianism 1850-1950
I was reading this article: How laissez faire made Sweden rich:
Seems on the Wikipedia search of the central figures discussed in the article the facts seem true. I haven't read a lot of Swedish history so is this revisionist or is this article fact and should be better represented in the 1850-1950 2.5 Modern history section? The current section makes it seem like the government socialist actions "government-sponsored programmes" and "Strong grassroots movements sprung up in Sweden during the latter half of the 19th century (trade unions" were responsible for the success of Sweden in this time rather than the market based policies and individual freedoms espoused in the above article. Should some reference of these be made? Happy to be corrected if the linked article is disproved by better sources or for it to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkhi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The band Ghost (or Subvision, Magna Carta Cartel, Repugnant or Tid) is not mentioned and should be I think...just a suggestion.
2602:306:364C:250:BCD4:D77B:7B94:511F (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I know today's Sweden is not a former Sweden.Although I don't know much about Sweden, however, there are friendly people and charming that I yearn for the local customs and practices. Has been to Sweden, in Sweden for a period of time has become a dream, I like sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.82.36.109 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Royal motto translation
See [42]i2 d for translations. Either we go with a proper translation or we don't display one seeing as there is neither an official or a RS-sourced translation. Sweden - With the Times is simply incorrect—Sweden - Through Time is correct if not ideal. (Ping Thomas.W) CFCF 💌📧 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Arguably incorrect, but I found a source for the translation With the Times. CFCF 💌📧 12:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not incorrect. See message on your talk page. Thomas.W talk 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is arguably incorrect—but now it's officially sourced, so I don't see the point of arguing here. CFCF 💌📧 12:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Etymology
"The Swedish name Sverige (a compound of the words Svea and Rike ..." - Almost, 'rige' is the Danish word for 'rike'/'kingdom'.
85.229.49.144 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Danish and Swedish were the same language when the term Sverige first came to use, with that spelling, not splitting until centuries later, but have since evolved in slightly different directions, Danish retaining "rige" but Swedish changing to "rike". So the spelling has absolutely nothing to do with Danish... Thomas.W talk 15:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Thomas.W - from Old Norse and the Vikinger to the Scandinavian languages, due to the long distances, and large unpopulated areas, did the Scandinavian dialects diverse. A bit. But still do we have TV-films in which the Danish speak Danish, the Swedes speak Swedish and the Norwegians speak Norwegian. And most can undertand it. In the autumn of 2015 was Swedish SVT and Danish DR co-airing the same debate-show. Sweden is also full of dialects wchich might be more difficult to understand than what proper Danish is etc. Boeing720 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Law enforcement and the military
The US has a separation between domestic "law enforcement" and the enforcement of US law elsewhere, particularly by the military in which the US Supreme Court lacks complete jurisdiction (I believe this civil/military difference derives from English law). Does Sweden have this civil/military law enforcement dictonomy? Can and does Sweden submit civilians to military justice? Can and does Sweden (always?) submit soldiers to civilian justice? Int21h (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Sweden does not have any military law enforcement. The crimes by professional servicemen are handled as normal civilian crimes in office and investigated by the civilian police. In theory, there is a process for handling minor offences by conscripts and involuntarily activated reservists but even this process is administrative, not judicial. As no such persons are currently in service, even this process is defunct. So the answer is no: there is no dichotomy, only the civilian justice system. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The Swedish military is forbidden to do police work that include violence or arrest, decided after the Ådalen shootings in 1931 when the military shot into a crowd of people, killing several.--BIL (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 30 external links on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Being a middle aged Swede with a liking for traditional cooking, I have attended more than 70 crayfish parties. Some of them have taken place in restaurants, some in the homes of friends and relatives. Some have been in western Sweden and some in the east. Most of them have been in August, but some have been at other times of the year. I would say that I personally have experienced most varieties of crayfish party. Never -- not once! -- have I been served potatoes with the crayfish. The source of starch (starch is never omitted in a Swedish meal) at every crayfish party is bread. Always bread. No potatoes, no dumplings, no pasta, no couscous, no rice, but always bread. The article needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:1:1041:C5AA:FF7B:1008:D5B8 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. As it is unsourced and IMO incorrect I will remove it. Sjö (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sjö - you shouldn't remove comments from other users. Please refrain from doing that in the future. In any case, I repeat what I said: This is a wiki, not a blog. --Wheatstack (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing an explicit request here. I you think a change needs to be made in the coordinates somewhere in the article, please explain clearly what that change is. Deor (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a balanced article
I don't know what happened here. Was this article written by Swedes or those who idolize Sweden? Where is all the balanced coverage here? Rates of divorce? Drug/alcohol problems? Leading causes of death? What Swedish television shows are watched, how do they compare to foreign programs? Seasonal depression? Patriotism and national pride? Perception of Sweden by foreigners (international perception)? Cultural uniformity? Bod (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bodi ! I don't really believe the article to be written by a bunch of idolising Swedes. But elsewise I can agree in much of your criticism. Please NOTE I'm a Swedish citizen, but I don't care much for this country north of the border Scanian border. I'm Scanian and pro Denmark. It's not that strange - I'm Scanian, lives along the Øresund and can see Copenhagen across the other side of the sea. That was all cards on the table. However I find the article lousy (also) for different reasons, much due to what isn't mentioned. Where are the chapters on Flora and Fauna for instance? And the changing nature from the agricultural areas and beech forests in Scania-Halland and Östergötland and Västergötland to the planted spruce areas in Småland and middle-Sweden. And the mountains (Fjällen) along the Norwegian border. Where are the differences in culture, cuisine and climat in a perspective from all parts of the country? And there are also parts of the already written material which can well be questioned. Boeing720 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You can expant the article to include the things you mentioned. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kingdom of Sweden
The article states that the official name of the country is "Kingdom of Sweden". I'm not saying this is wrong, but I am curious about where this is stated? Who decides it and where does it say so? At present there is no source provided about this that I can see. I'm a Swedish speaker myself and I've checked Regeringsformen, which is part the part of the constitution I would expect to find something about it, but didn't find anything at all about the name of the country there. Does anyone know? Yakikaki (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's defined in legislation (and it doesn't have to), but it seems to be consistently used in various international bilateral agreements as a long-form name for the country (for example, in Sweden's accession treaty to the EU, agreements on tax matters and defense), much as how Finland uses "Republic of Finland" without it being defined anywhere. Here's a source stating that the official name is "Konungariket Sverige" (Kingdom of Sweden), but that's all I could find for now. / Gavleson (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Climate
I would argue that it's a matter of interpretation in comparison to USA outside of Alaska. Much of Alaska is colder generally but across the continental U.S. only a few places would more fit the definition. It says "For example, central and southern Sweden has much milder winters than many parts of Russia, Canada, and the northern United States." An alternative way could be "For example, central and southern Sweden has much milder winters than many parts of Russia, Canada,ToggGrogg (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Alaska and some parts of northern continental U.S."[1] The source I'm citing is certainly a matter of interpretation because it depends where you draw the line on central Sweden and even then since it's on a much smaller scale.
@ToggGrogg: It's an undisputable fact that central and southern Sweden have milder winters than large parts of the United States: average low temperature in January is -1.4C (29.5F) in Malmö, -1.9C (28.6F) in Gothenburg, -5C (23F) in Stockholm and -9.1C (15.6F) in Östersund (located in northern Sweden, at 63°10′45″N 14°38′09″E, and about as far from the sea as you can get in Scandinavia, since it's half way between the Swedish and the Norwegian coast...), while it is -5.4C (22.2F) in Boston, -5.8C (21.6F) in Salt Lake City, -7.7C (18.2F) in Chicago, -8.1C (17,4F) in Denver, -9.7C (14.5F) in Albany, NY, -9.8C (14.3F) in Des Moines, Iowa, -10.2C (13.6F) in Omaha, and -13.6C (7.5F) in Minneapolis, just to pick a few examples. In spite of all of Sweden being far north of all of the American cities I listed... Thomas.W talk 21:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas.W. Having lived in Stockholm and Boston, I can guarantee first hand that Stockholm's winters are milder. But of course it's about sources here, though that doesn't change things, it's easily sourced. Then again, I do agree that "large parts" is very vague and perhaps it could be phrased somewhat better? Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
All of those places apart from Östersund and maybe Stockholm if we stretch it is southern Sweden. There are a several cities, further from the sea, like Östersund. Also the temperatures you suggested were comparable to Stockholm and Östersund, Why couldn't the article then for example show the exact differences in Celsius or Fahrenheit for example? Rather than use descriptive words to suggest that something is different. The numbers you presented weren't a whole lot. If we exclude Malmö and Göteborg then because sure alright those places are much warmer. Central Sweden is a much more undefined place because historically it meant Svealand but that isn't the geographical "central" Sweden. I do agree with the southern part but that still leaves "southern and central" Sweden in the same category while there still is obviously a difference and it isn't as black and white as the article suggests. Also the average temperature is -5,2C in Stockholm according to SMHI. Also Mora a city in central Sweden has -7,4 as average temperature in January and -7,2 in February. So it is not an undisputed fact. Maybe some parts are but generally? I think it could be rephrased more thoroughly. ToggGrogg (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@ToggGrogg: No, they're not. Per the common definition Stockholm is in central Sweden and Östersund in northern Sweden. Thomas.W talk 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC) (I can't follow your non-standard indentation so I'll answer here...)
@Thomas.W: I was talking about whether the article refers to geographical central Sweden or the historical central Sweden which is Svealand. (Stockholm is part of this region, eastern Svealand) Mora, which is a city in central Sweden is still inside Central Sweden whichever definition you use. When talking about climate, perhaps it would be wiser to use the geographic central point rather than the historical one because that region is placed in southern central Sweden anyway. The link you provided mentions Dalarna, That's where the city of Mora is located. ToggGrogg (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: So the common definition you cite is correct then? then follow the link inside that article and see that it lists Dlarna as central Sweden. Yet the average temperature in Falun, Dalarna during January is -7.4°C on average. Easily sourced. The average low is -11. That is lower than all the cities you suggested. Going by easily citable sources. [43] I can continue. Central Sweden, especially the middle parts are not milder than "large" parts of the US although maybe milder than some. So the wiki article currently is vague at best if you but could be improved if it mentioned that central Sweden (Which is geographically south by the way) is milder than some parts of Northern United States. What is incorrect is saying that NONE are. I'm not arguing that USA has colder places, however there are places in central Sweden which are colder on average than the cities you presented and there is sources to prove it. ToggGrogg (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess part of the problem here is that foreigners of course understand central Sweden differently than us Swedes. I guess most Swedes would consider Stockholm, Örebro, Norrköping and Karlstad as 'Central Sweden'. I understand foreigners (in other words, 99.99% of the world), would be more likely to understand Central Sweden as the part that geographically is in the centre, such as Umeå, Örnsköldsvik and Östersund. I agree that we should perhaps not use 'Central Sweden' is the way we Swedes think about it, as it's likely to confuse readers. Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah because the actual central geographic point is not near Stockholm. Stockholm is geographically south even though we think of Stockholm as central Sweden. But that still includes Dalarna and for example Mora which defies the point he made that it's "much colder" than in central Sweden. It is still subject to interpretation because its two different things unfortunately. Also Boston average temperature in January is 2.1 high and -5.4 low while in Stockholm the high is -2.8 and the low is −5. So while Boston has 0.4 lower it can also be warmer.[44][45] Interestingly enough Stockholm's coldest month is usually February. ToggGrogg (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Religion: biased reference to one (!) academics work
The last paragraph says people in Sweden call themselves "Christian", which is probably intended to portray Swedes as being increasingly religious. It is not something that suits Wikipedia, though, as it refers to only one academics work, which is not even a statistically significant study. It is qualitative research, consisting of interviews with a few respondents. I have therefore removed the first sentence and rephrased the other. /2016-05-04
EDIT: Apparently the article is locked from editing. Somebody that are allowed to edit it should do it. The work referred to is in itself referred to from an article. It doesn't really say anything about who Zuckerman interviewed - age, sex, location - and he interviewed both Swedes and Danes. Older people would definitely say they are Christian to a more extent than younger or middle-aged. To say that Swedes are "Christian" in the sense they believe there is a god, one sole entity, is frankly not true. /2016-05-04
You can't make changes like that without discussing it here first, and getting support from other editors for it, before making the edits. And you're not going to get my support for it... Thomas.W talk 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I can't make any edits at all, so you're quite right there. You say it should be discussed here. I cannot see anything in your comment that is part of or an attempt at a discussion. You only say you would be against "it", but present no arguments. I'd be happy to discuss. /2016-05-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.121.130.108 (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
"Both levels have legislative assemblies (municipal councils and county council assemblies) of between 31 and 101 members (always an uneven number) that are elecgted from party-list proportional representation at the general election which are held every four years in conjunction with the national parliamentary elections."
and should be corrected to:
"Both levels have legislative assemblies (municipal councils and county council assemblies) of between 31 and 101 members (always an uneven number) that are elected from party-list proportional representation at the general election which are held every four years in conjunction with the national parliamentary elections."
I have seen those difficult-to-verify sources being used to support various dubious claims on other articles, and want a chance to get hold of the sources and verify the claims, before the changes are made in the article. Thomas.W talk 12:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I can add that several experts in the field say that the GermanicSitones, mentioned in Tacitus' Germania in the first century AD, most probably lived in south-western Finland. So the main question is how to define/describe the Germanic Proto Norse/Norse "colonisation" of what is now Finland. If we go strictly by what can be described as "Swedish colonisation", i.e. colonisation organised by what we now see as a Swedish state, we don't get much further back than the 12th century AD, whereas we, if we go by colonisation by people/peoples identical to, or at least closely related to, the peoples who later formed the Swedish state in Scandinavia (i.e. the Suiones and the Geatas), get at least as far back as the first century AD. Either way we're talkning about people of the same stock and speaking the same language living on both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia... Thomas.W talk 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I deleted unsourced material and you demand sources to do that? Where is the logic? I added an relatively recent academic reasearch as a source ("När kom svenskarna till Finland?" from 2002) and a other source which focuses on the same issue more broadly (The Viking Age in Finland). You couldn`t provide any? In academic world there is not apparent controversy about the issue. And what comes to your sourceless speculation, as far as we know Germanic populations did live in area we call nowdays Finland in some or various points of time but that doesn`t have to do anything "Swedes expanding their swedish-controlled territories in Finland in 1100-1400" which is not correct and needed to be deleted. --Velivieras (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
(Copied from my talk page, to keep all of the discussion in a single place) I have seen far too many cases of academic studies being misused on Wikipedia, through both misquoting, selective quoting and straight out falsification of what they say, including lots of such cases on articles relating to Fennoscandia, which since your claims seem to be contrary to current (mainstream) historical research is why I want a chance to check the sources. And per WP:BRD being reverted means that you should discuss, and get support for, the edits that are reverted, before making them again, not repeatedly making them in spite of being reverted, as you do. You have made a claim and I have commented on the talk page of the article, so now it's up to other editors to also comment, and either support the edits or not. Thomas.W talk 19:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Your arbitary deleting in this article and in others is not a discussion. You have not presented any sources which means that we cannot have a discussion. So far you have only presented your opinion and your obsession with something called "POV", which I don`t know what it means and I will not bother to look it up. ALL my edits in Wikipedia are from reliable and usually quite fresh academic sources. Not ANY of them are against mainstream research because they present the mainstream research. Unless you cannot present a case, there is no case. --Velivieras (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I have located a copy of each of the two books, one at a local public library and the other one at the library of my old university (which is some distance away from where I currently live), and will most probably get hold of them by the end of this week. And since you are repeatedly making the changes in spite of being reverted I want to point out that you must add the references to the article too, with page numbers also for the first book, so that they can be verified (the first book is 182 pages long, the second one 519 pages, so there are quite a few pages to sift through...), and not just casually mention the books on the talk page. Thomas.W talk 09:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Good job, now we are getting somewhere. Other source focuses only on the issue at hand and the other has page numbers. You have to also notice that I cannot add these sources on the article because they deal with deleted inputs! The other add-ons I made deal with very well known first, second and third swedish crusade to Finland, which you also deleted from some reason. --Velivieras (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Claiming that things are "well known" is no excuse for not adding references with your edits, especially when the edits have been challenged. Thomas.W talk 09:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleting good pieces of information which are in Wikipedia already and which are related to this article is just wierd. Also at the moment you are defending unsourced material that says that Swedes had Swedish-controlled territories in Finland before 1100 which they started to expand in that time. This is badly against any understanding of history in any given time and can be really seen as a distortion of history, which leaves your motives relly unclear. Other editors of this article could also review the actions of Thomas.W and give their opinion.--Velivieras (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read what I wrote earlier in this thread about it mostly being a matter of how "Swedish expansion" is defined, the presence of Germanic people in what is now the south-western part of Finland long before the 12th century seems certain, people of the same stock and speaking the exact same language as in what became a unified Swedish kingdom in the 12th century, the only uncertainty seems to be whether those areas can be defined as being "under Swedish control" or not. If we go strictly by "Swedish" meaning a "unified Swedish state" they weren't, since there doesn't seem to have been a unified Swedish state before the 12th century, but if we go by ethnicity/language/kinship they were most probably as much under the control/influence of the "Svear" as a number of provinces/areas on the Scandinavian peninsula. Thomas.W talk 10:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Stop the edit warring. Thank you for your unsourced ponderings. Seek dispute resolution or I will. --Velivieras (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Population
The latest census shows a total population of 9 875 378 people, yet the introduction summary says 9,8 million people. Should this not be rounded to 9,9 million people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktion (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Ferries
I've rewritten the paragraph about ferries in the Transport section because it felt a little disorganised. While doing so, I've replaced the multitude of individual links for each ferry route (mostly in Swedish) with one link to a site that shows all routes by all operators. I hope this is ok - if not, I've no objection to re-instate the individual links but it seems a little clunky to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedris (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Växjö, the 19th biggest city, is located in Småland, not Värmland. 130.241.30.116 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Task complete. Anyway I made the change on the template. Thanks for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
UN repport
according to United nation's report Sweden will be a third world country by 2030 under the Libya. here page 41. please add this to the article. --– Hossein Iran « talk » 01:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hosseiniran Search the page for "2030". It's been in there for two years now. Thank you Valentina Cardoso (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The sources all build on the same report and a couple of things should be noted: The report doesn't say that Sweden will become a third world country. If you look at the numbers you will see that Sweden's predicted HDI for 2013 is .906 which is still very high. The reason it falls behind is that other countries improve so much. Secondly, the paper notes that "The findings, interpretations and conclusions are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP or United Nations Member States". Thirdly, Speisa isn't a reliable source per Wikipedia standards and the other two appear not to be, either. Sjö (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The Swedish fact-checking site Viralgranskaren (sv:Viralgranskaren) had an article about the claim that Sweden will become a third world country by 2030. One of the authors is interviewed and says that claim is a complete misinterpretation of the report. An employee of UNDP tells Viralgranskaren that the paper didn't meet the necessary academic and methodological standards, that it's not supported by the Human Development Report Office of the UNDP and that it's been removed from the website. In short, there's nothing in the report to support that Sweden will be a third world country in the future. Sjö (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Should not the statement be removed for the article entirely? I mean if the UN thinks their own report does not hold up and have removed it, should not Wikipedia also do the same thing? Or did I missunderstand your post, Sjö? Dnm (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I considered suggesting that, since it might be WP:UNDUE, but then I thought I'd let other editors weigh in first.Sjö (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@Tystarutan:Not done. No edit specified: you must specify what changes you want made, and provide verifiablereliable sources supporting your proposed edit. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
1. The table of membership in the Church of Sweden needs 2016's numbers added:
Citizens: 9 995 153
Members: 6 116 480
Percentage of population: 61,2%
2. The reference to 2015's member percent in paragraph 4 needs to be changed to 2016's. "At the end of 2015, 63.2% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden..." > "At the end of 2016, 61.2% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden..."
3. The last paragraph's last sentence says: "This is evidenced by the fact that around 70% of adults continue to remain members of the Swedish Church[229] despite having to pay a church tax; moreover, rates of baptism remain high and church weddings are increasing.[228]"
I think the whole paragraph is nonsense. I suspect it was put on Wikipedia not as an objective fact but to make readers believe Swedes being reluctant to the words "atheist" or "atheism", and by that indirectly believers/Christians. Mr Phil Zuckerman did not interview more than 150 persons! And he interviewed both Swedes and Danes, so there's no statistical significance to his findings whatsoever. His study is qualitative research on at most 149 Swedes and is therefore not at all relevant here. ("Zuckerman formally interviewed nearly 150 Danes and Swedes of all ages and educational backgrounds over the course of fourteen months." https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797237)
However the one who edits this sees what I've written above, the "around 70%" should be changed to "around 60%". (A drop in membership of 8.8% doesn't show anything in the veins of what the last paragraph wants to make us think is true though.)
@Elizabeth Lee Goodman: There's nothing wrong with the article or this talk page, it's your own computer that has been infected with malware or adware. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The ARTICLE is very slow - and strange to edit. The reason I don't know. Boeing720 (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Middle Age Sweden ?
Wasn't of significance. Perhaps during the House of Folkunga (Folkungaätten), but that was a different country with it's base at Götaland. It's correct that etnicity of the Monach doesn't matter, but for instance Albreckt af Mecklenburg ruled in league with the Hanseatic League. He was put at the thrown for the Hanseatics. That's of importance. Further Sweden was a part of the Kalmar Union for some 120-125 years (or ruled by the Hanseatics), and this must be reflected as well. The Kalmar Union, invented by Queen Margaretha, was an attempt to make Scandinavia stronger, so it could resist the Hanseatic League. And this isn't about nationalism and patriotism. But facts. Gustav Vasa founded today's Sweden. The Empire was founded by Gustav II Adolf, during his continental struggle for the Reformation in the Thirty Year's War. Other expansions were at "Scandinavian level" only. This is essential history. And also an article on Sweden calls for a global perspective. (Not a perspective limited to how Mälardalen see things) Boeing720 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There have been thorough discussions here about when Sweden was established as a country, and consensus here is that it is not 1523: see this discussion. And this article isn't about "modern Sweden", it's about Sweden as a country, from when it first became a unified country until today. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There was Swedish history before Sweden, one might say. But the state we today know as Sweden was founded by Gustav Vasa. "Unified" is a strange word, as its borders was unknown. The facts should not be tampered with. And by the way - when in the Middle Ages, do you mean ? Not an exact year but early/mid/late of what century ? Boeing720 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the English language encyclopaedia where articles are written from an international perspective, and for international readers the history of Sweden did not start in 1523, regardless of what kids are taught in school in Sweden (where even the history of the country, as taught in schools, is written from a "Mälardals-perspective"...), but when the Svear and Götar were united under one king. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Italian history goes back for atleast 2500 years, but Italy has only existed around 150 years. Boeing720 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
??? Please check what the infobox in that article, i.e. Italy, says about "formation". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you hiding some text ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If that comment was meant for me, you can see some of the various states - in Italian History. But today's Italy originates from 1861. We must differ between the history and the current state. I don't mean a monarchy becomming a republic, or border changes. But for instance the Polish differ between the old Kingdom of Poland and the Poland which emerged out of the end of WW1. And how would it even be possible to write the history of Austria, if counting from the old Habsburg ? And a problem with older Swedish history before Gustav Vasa, is the Kalmar Union. Please note the Swedish history doesn't begin with Gustav Vasa, but the modern state of Sweden does. And that ought to be included somehow. And as for the union between Götar and Svear, what name did that state have ? And the Regency length mentions "Swedish Kings" back to before this oh so united state in the Middle Ages. Back to the Vikinger. (That is explained by the "Great historical history panic" which hit Oscar II, after the result of the Norwegian independency referendum in 1905 [was it 30 out of 450.000 who wanted to keep the union, in Norway ??] Followed by a new referendum about the Danish King's brother as his successor ! The entire period 1905 - 1914 was a fearsome time for some Swedes. And most Götaland history vanished from school books.) The main point is that the Middle Age state didn't even know its borders, not in any of the cardinal direction, was vague, has been blown up (in order to cover gaps). And when was "SVERIGE" used the first time ? It's history is still Swedish, but today's Sweden doesn't equal the (brief) Middle Ages state(s). Was Småland included ? etc Boeing720 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The most significant facts about Swedish Middle Ages (The lead simply jumps some 500 years)
. Do you know why the article is so very slow to edit ? (just a question, if you do happen to know the answer)
. What about this - for the period after the Vikinger (a word that has been used by the BBC, in the three episode historical series about the year 1066) until Gustav Vasa ?
A Swedish independent state emerged during the 12:th and 13:th Century.
After the Black Death in the middle of the 14:th Century, which hit Scandinavia just as hard as in most other parts of Europe, killing about a third of the population [1]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
And by the end of the 14:th Century, was the Kalmar Union formed.[2]
By time did this Swedish-Danish-Norwegian union became unpopular in Sweden.
After a volatile and warring period which began in the middle of the 15:th Century
and ended in the early 1520's, did Sweden leave this union.[3][4]Boeing720 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you don't answer, must I presume this contribution is fine with you. Boeing720 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
^Facts - the union became unpopular in Sweden (Svealand at least) , including quote "Under resten av 1400-talet och fram till 1520 kämpade den svenska högadeln med danska kungar om makten över Sverige" [3]
Official minority/regional languages are always mentioned in the box of country articles in English Wikipedia. This article doesn`t make an exemption. Velivieras (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Official minority languages were added by Velivieras (talk·contribs) in the main part of the infobox, but then removed again by Sjö (talk·contribs), without writing any explanation. Both those edits were bad, the second because there was no explanation whatsoever – all edits must have good explanations, and especially if you undo an edit that is clearly in good faith. I myself was about to remove the first change as well, but with an actual explanation. The explanation why the first change is not good is that the languages are already mentioned in note c. With the edit, there is a conflict between note c and the new text – you can't have both of them. So either we should keep note c with only Swedish mentioned under Languages, or we should change note c and move what is written in the note up in the Languages field. It doesn't make sense to do only one of them, as Velivieras did, and which was probably the reason for Sjö's revert. Please keep the original status of the article until a consensus has been reached here. --Jhertel (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I just want to say that I touched the rollback link by mistake on my smartphone, but I thought that I aborted the rollback. It appears that it went trough anyway, a problem I've encountered sometimes. I have no particular opinion on where the minority languages should be mentioned, except of course that it should follow established consensus. Sjö (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, very good, it was all a mistake, and my guesses about intentions were wrong. So now it's all about my own objections as mentioned above: "The languages are already mentioned in note c. With the edit, there is a conflict between note c and the new text – you can't have both of them. So either we should keep note c with only Swedish mentioned under Languages, or we should change note c and move what is written in the note up in the Languages field. It doesn't make sense to do only one of them." So, Velivieras, did you overlook note c? If you want to make the minority languages more clearly visible, they should be moved from note c. If so, remember to keep the minority language source at a proper place so it's still there. --Jhertel (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Sjö, familiar problems. I think they should be moved because it would be in line with other articles (e. g. Netherlands, Belgium). If someone have knowhow to add template similiar to the Netherland-article that would be the best option from the visual perspective, but if not, I will try something. Velivieras (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the only thing i ask is to add the creator of the article Kider2005 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done – Not an edit request. ToThAc (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Finnish
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to 2 international approved organisations, Sweden is on 15th place in GDP per capita. Press in the text on (17th) and then look at the lists. 2/3 says 15th. Recommend you to change Trustweep (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2017
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Look, just dumping a bunch of trivia in an article, and asking others to do your work for you is bad enough, but some of the stuff is outright wrong. The whole 86% taxation nonsense, sourced to an op-ed and a think tank? Not what it says. Per WP:BRD, kindly self-revert and start discussing the sources and how they should be used if at all. It's pretty obvious that you're POV-pushing and think you're righting great wrongs, so I'll ignore your repeated cries of censorship. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You have not attempted to simply improve the text flow, or pruned inappropriate parts. You have systematically removed absolutely every single added statistics reference from a great number of pages, especially Crime in Sweden, simply out of personal bias. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. David A (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I must agree with David A here. All the claims were backed up several reliable sources (and no, nothing was "sourced" to a think tank, it was sourced to a major newspaper and correctly identified as the opinion of a think tank). It does seem as if the two users who have removed the content act out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the very least, the sources are perfectly good, and the content is obviously relevant for the article. If the users disagree with it, then the onus is very much on them to make the case for why they feel, for example, that statistics about crime in Sweden, from reliable sources, should not be mentioned under "Crime in Sweden". Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You can put together a collection of facts that are all correct taken separately but paint an entirely incorrect picture when taken together. In fact, there is a policy about combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, see WP:SYNTH. Also, at least some of the text isn't supported by the sources or by sources that are not WP:RS. The tax paragraph that you mention isn't supported by the source, which is about the who gains more when a person goes from welfare to work. The text about 8 % rapes handled isn't supported by the source that say that 8 % have been solved. The reliable source in the paragraph about rapes of children doesn't make that claim, and the opinion pice that is also used as a source only makes it indirectly. Those are the ones I checked and they were three out of three not in line with Wikipedia policies. That together with WP:SYNTH is the reason that I will remove the adits again. I have no objection to adding statistics if they are well sourced, not cherrypicked or used for synthesis and accompanied by a discussion of the information. 07:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That is fine. Collaboration is fine. Then remove the ones that are inaccurate, and keep the ones that are reliable. Just don't categorically remove everything, and then try to get me banned for adding them. That is not reasonable or fairminded behaviour. David A (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input here. David A (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why should a section about crime in the article about Sweden - not the article Crime in Sweden, mind, but Sweden itself - be a collection of randomly chosen statistics rather than a summation taken from the article Crime in Sweden? If the statistics belong anywhere (and I'm not sure they do), it's there and certainly not here. How is this in any way superior? Also, the "major newspaper" source is an op-ed from a member of the think tank itself. It says so in the article. Not to mention, the use of the sources here (and even more blatantly elsewhere) was to imply that Sweden has an 86% taxation rate which is not what the think tank said. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Then feel free to remove that. I just mind that you have categorically attempted to remove everything, rather than just the sources that are unreliable. David A (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Sweden editing help needed
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I might get topic-banned soon, so I would greatly appreciate if somebody could please determine which of the following references that are relevant, and then add them. Thank you.
According to the Swedish police department, there are 53 socially vulnerable areas in the country, of which the ones wherein they have lost control of crime and religious extremism recently increased from 15 to 23.[1][2][3]
According to the National Security Survey (NTU) for 2017, the amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes in a year has tripled between 2012 and 2016. Only 11% of those surveyed stated that they have reported the crimes to the police.[4]
In the survey for 2016, 140000 depicted incidents could have been severe enough to be considered attempted or completed sexual coercion or rape, compared to 97000 in the previous year.[5]
Only 8% of all reported rapes in Sweden 2017 have been handled by the police.[6]
According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war.[7]
Twice as many have been killed by gun violence in Sweden 2017 compared to 2016.[8] and there has been an average of one criminal gang shooting every day.[9]
According to Dagens Nyheter, at least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by either immigrants or those with at least one immigrant parent.[10]
According to Expressen, 94.5% of all members of career criminal gangs in Stockholm, Sweden, are either immigrants or have at least one immigrant parent.[11]
A report from the safety officer of the severe crime division of the Swedish police department described their situation as unsustainable, with officers that are near their breaking points from stress and pressure.[12]
@David A: Well, this material may be appropriate but I think we need some secondary sources that tie this all together in some manner. In other words for this to be WP:DUE it needs to be getting significant coverage, ideally in a way that is not just citing statistics. For example, are the major Swedish newspapers regularly reporting that there is a crime problem? If so we should be citing that, not just numbers collected from different sources. To put it a slightly different way: what is an accurate generalization of how secondary sources are covering this topic and what points do they hit on? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: Yes, the Swedish newspapers are frequently reporting on the extreme crime rate and the catastrophic state of the police. Or at least the ones that I read (Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten). David A (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok well let's pick some major recent articles and look at what points they are making. I.e. come up with some descriptive sentences that paraphrase what they are saying, then maybe include some statistics that directly relate if they don't include full statistics in the news. If the major newspapers say there is a rape problem then rape statistics are appropriate but let's start with that the newspapers say about it. This may somewhat duplicate the conversation going on in Crime in Sweden but for here we are looking at what are the most important generalizations to make about the situation. The reader can go to that article for details. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, here are various articles in regular newspapers that reference the massive increase in sex crime statistics over the last few years according to NTU, so as you can see, this is a very big deal: [46]
The newspapers in Sweden have turned much better in terms of transparency of social problems over the past year or so. David A (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
That link didn't work for me. What we need to start with are some statements about the situation that are not just statistics. A statement about what sort of coverage is taking place, a statement about reactions from the public or experts, that sort of thing. And we should probably try to limit this to a paragraph or two (4-5 sentences per). Then if there are some relevant statistics after we come up with a paragraph that stands on its own, we can look at adding a few. But again the details are best left for the main article. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for not being of sufficient help. I have worked for 13-15 hours a day several days in a row, so I am mentally disoriented and exhausted at the moment. Anyway, here are links to some newspapers that discuss the new NTU survey: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53]David A (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, Sweden is a small country, so it is very hard to find expert opinions about every social issue. Normally, even major events simply receive several newspaper articles and opinion columns. Occasionally somebody interviews the criminologist Jerzy Sarnecki, but he is severely biased, as he thinks that absolutely every criminal in the world is solely driven by poverty as a motivating factor, and nothing else whatsoever. David A (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If we should keep this brief, it is probably best to strictly mention the 23 areas in which the police has lost control of crime and religious extremism, and the greatly increased sex crime statistics. Both come from official government institutions, and have been mentioned in several major newspapers. David A (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you're still looking at this from the perspective of what you think is important to include rather than analyzing hat the secondary sources talk about most. When the major newspapers are mentioning crime, what are they most often saying? That's where you need to start. It doesn't sound like the 23 areas thing would fit that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, recently they usually seem to mention that the police is completely overwhelmed and on the verge of collapse, with a police officer family home being assaulted by an uzi, police houses attacked with hand grenades, and most frequently that stone-throwing lynch mobs assault them in the problem areas. David A (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia is not news, we don't need to summarize what is in the news right now. We need an overall idea of what the sources have had to say about the topic in general, so we know what would be due weight to give to any particular subtopic. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I can only speak for my overall impression of the news that I have read, but there seems to have been an lot of ongoing talk about the Swedish police being completely overwhelmed, and lots of police officers giving up and leaving their profession. David A (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If it helps, this article interviews the criminologist Felipe Estrada about the NTU survey results: [54]David A (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Sweden doesn't have 21 counties anymore. It only has 20 this year.
But the page says "20 county councils", not "20 counties". —MRD2014Talk • Edits • Help! 22:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done. It's been almost two days since User:MRD2014 requested clarity but really, they shouldn't have had to in the first place. Requests for edits need to be completely understandable or we won't be able to comply with them. CityOfSilver 18:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Dubious tag
I added a dubous tag to the followng meaning in the lead:
the Hanseatic League threatened Scandinavia's culture, finances and languages.
This is a strong statement that lack references. I suspect the writer must have got this from a nationalist historiography similarly to what is teached at Swedish schools. I suggest that either this phrase get a really got source, or it is deleted or transformed into a more soft statement. Lappspira (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Unified Sweden ~1000 CE
Olof Skötkonung was the first king of unified Sweden, ruling both the Swedes and Geats. His reign was 995–1022, so why does the info box give the date of "A unified Swedish kingdom established" as "the early 12th century"? Swedish Wikipedia also says ~1000. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Crime
The emergence of the Sweden prison system occurred during 1810 to 1840 when the number of prisoners quadrupled. This caused overcrowding and violence as prisoners were packed into old fortresses, jails and workhouses. During this period, there was a lot of discussion with the goal of bringing about reforms in the system. One of the most prominent supporters of prison reform in Sweden was the Crown Prince Oscar, who wrote a highly received work about the new system that was translated into several languages. Eventually this led to the Parliament to grant money for the construction of the first Swedish penitentiaries, resulting in about 45 nearly identical regional institutions of the Philadelphia model. 5 of those prisons contained a large number of the cells that were intended for prisoners in solitary confinement. Sweden saw the Philadelphia system as the more profound and sincere system when it came to reforming criminals while also referring to its deterrent effects [1].
After being reorganized in 1998, Sweden’s prison system today is that unites the three branches of prison, probation service and remand prison. In this new organization of the prison and probation service, all personnel are believed to manage both help and control. This concept can be referred to as “caring power”, a term coined by Dutch researchers Annemieke van Drenth and Francisca de Haan. This essentially explains that it is exercised with kindness and in a spirit of doing what is best for the person in need of help. This combination of help and control is very prevalent in corrections services as punishment and discipline require control and the ideology in society asks for help for the disadvantaged. [2]
. Strattonp96 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
References
^ Nilsson, R. (2003). The Swedish Prison System in Historical Perspective: A Story of SuccessfulFailure? Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 4(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/1404385031001077
^ Svensson, K. (2004). AN INTEGRATED ORGANISATION FOR INSTITUTIONALISED CARING POWER: PRISON AND PROBATION IN SWEDEN. British Journal of Community Justice, 3(1), 57-68
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Pensioners living in poverty
I have removed the claim that "Swedish elderly live under the by far greatest poverty in the Nordic countries, with 355000 below the poverty line" since it's not what the sources say. What the sources say is that 328,000 pensioners have an income of less than 60% of the EU median income, and thus, according to the EU, risk poverty (an EU measure of "risk for relative poverty" that at current rates of exchange is equivalent to USD ~16,000 per year for a single person, or about 35% higher than the poverty line in the US...), it does not say that they live in actual poverty... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion seems to imply that the western definition of relative poverty is arbitrary and ridiculous.
HOW COULD YOU, FILTHY CAPITALIST SCUM /s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.218.211 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Swedish famine lacks a link
A significant event in Swedish history, the Swedish famine of 1867–1869, does not have a link in this article. Under "Modern history", the image illustrating the famine in northern Sweden links to the Finnis famine in 1866-68, not to the Swedish famine of 1867–1869. The Great Famine of 1695–1697 also lacks a link further up the article, even though it is mentioned. --92.35.226.13 (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the part of the article where the military is discussed, the article is written in future tense, i. e. that conscription will start in 2018. Since it is now 2019, this has to be changed into past tense. Stora Kogha (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hence, change the sentence "At the end of 2016, 61.2% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden..." to "At the end of 2018, 57.7% of Swedes..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.185.252 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
noi discussion of xenophobia and racism which is a big problem for foreigners in sweden.
Formal name
@Mechanical Keyboarder: Many countries have two versions of their name, one short and one long, e.g. Sweden and the Kingdom of Sweden. In the case of Sweden, the short name version is widely used, e.g. on the Swedish government's web site. As far as i understand, both name versions are official names. In order to distinguish the two versions from one another, the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) calls the short version the short name and the longer version the formal name. Please see: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ That's why I changed officially to formally on March 8, 2019. Besides, the Swedish foreign office (Utrikesdepartementet) also bases its nomenclature on UN usage and has published the Foreign namebook (Utrikes namnbok). In that, they also denote the Kingdom of Sweden to be the formal name. --K1812 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess that K1812 read the same discussion on sv:Diskussion:Sverige#Officiellt namn as I. In a nutshell: there is no source that there is an official name, but Utrikes namnbok, published by the Government Offices, page 65 and 93 says that the formal name (formellt namn) in English is the Kingdom of Sweden. Because of this the Swedish article uses formellt.
As far as I can find there is no law or anything similar that says what the long form of Sweden's name is. There is nothing in the constitution and it's unlikely that there is a law that defines it. So, IMO, the long form isn't official even if it is the de facto form that's used in formal contexts. Sjö (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mechanical_Keyboarder reverted my edit from March 8, 2019, Sjö restored it, and Mechanical_Keyboarder reverted Sjö's edit. WP:BRD suggests that we should discuss the edit after a revert. I therefore opened this discussion. While Sjö and i have put forth arguments explaining why we prefer formally over officially, no one has presented arguments to the contrary. If no one objects, i will change officially to formally again. --K1812 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "long name" would be better, to avoid changes between "offically" and "formally".Sjö (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
As no one has pleaded for the use of "officially" for more than a month, i change "officially" to "formal name:". --K1812 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Long name" would probably be just as good as "formal name", i just find it important to avoid "officially", as such usage would imply that the short form "Sweden" would be some kind of nickname, which it certainly isn't. --K1812 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Continuous vandalism by moroccan IP's
You might be interested in checking the versions predating april 2019. 102.98.25.45 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thousands separators
Since 2003, the use of spaces as separators has been officially endorsed by SI/ISO 31-0 standard, as well as by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the American Medical Association's widely followed AMA Manual of Style, and the Metrication Board, among others. So ... Can anyone sober (I'm not) fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"of which 2.5 million have a foreign background"
This is, in my opinion, unclear wording.
As per Statistics Sweden, 2.5 million have what would be termed a "full" foreign background, where either the child or both parents are born abroad, and an additional 0.77 million have a partial foreign background, where one parent is born in Sweden and another abroad. The definition of the unqualified term changed in 2003, from referring to a partial foreign background to a "full" foreign background.
An international reader can not be expected to be familiar with this nuance, and I can't seem to find any English-language sources on it. Thus, I would like to suggest that this wording be changed to something along the lines of note d, so as to not imply that the remainder (7.8 million) have no foreign background at all, which would be a misleading claim.
In case this is considered misleading, I would like to propose the following somewhat verbose but accurate description:
"Sweden has a total population of 10.3 million, of which 3.3 million (35%) have a full or partial foreign background, with those of a full foreign background (2.3 million, 25%), defined as being either born abroad or having two such parents, constituting the largest share of this group"
Another approach would be to keep the current wording, but add another reference to note d for further clarification.
Furthermore, note d should be updated. The statistics from December 2012 ("approximately 27% of the population had a full or partial foreign background") are no longer accurate, and more recent statistics are readily available.
Could you please add /ˈswiːdn/ ? 85.193.247.94 (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The figure of people in the Church of Sweden in the infobox to the right is wrong. It says 60.2% but it should be 57.3 according to the section Religion in the same page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Religion83.53.182.122 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The figure listed in the infobox are 2017 estimates, so I specified that since changing it to 2018 would mess some data up b/c what are the data to the other ones? {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 23:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Motala
Motala is the best city in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.115.99 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
{{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 23:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Vegetation flaws
The Vegetation section is strangely focused on the cultivation of spruce, with some mentioning other trees. Non-woody plants are not even mentioned. The distribution of tree species is largely flawed, see e.g. Hultens atlas (maps shown in denvirtuellafloran). Rowan occurs throughout Sweden, holly only occurred on one island off the west coast and is now extinct, etc. Bogs, covering over 10 % of the country, are not mentioned, neither is alpine vegetation, or seashores or lakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.56.71 (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change loaned to borrowed. Terencerex (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This is in reference to the § Etymology section, which was copied here in whole. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Cleaned up the section with an OED citation. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
the vikings edit
Hello,
I see under the subject Vikings in the article of Sweden nothing about Frisia.
in this article Frisian history underneath the subject 'kingdom of Frisia,'
you can read that Vikings were also settled in Frisia in the 840s.
I think there's a typo in the second last paragraph in Politics -> Administrative divisions -> each county administrative board(s) Danilosf (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
uuuuuhhh, Ikea?
We need something about Ikea STAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User 5643 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality
Sweden participates in war in Afghanistan and occupation of this country - how does it agree with neutral status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit Request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request that following this sentence 'Every fourth (24.9%) resident in the country has immigrant background and every third (32.3%) has at least one parent born abroad.' in the 'Demographics' section, this be added: "Half (49.5%) of people born abroad were born in a Western country, defined as Europe, the Americas and Australia." Source: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101E/FodelselandArK/ (tool)
I also request that: 'There are no official statistics on ethnicity, but according to Statistics Sweden, around 3,311,312 (32.3%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2018, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with at least one parent born abroad.' be changed to "There are no official statistics on ethnicity, but according to Statistics Sweden, around 2,634,967 (25.5%) inhabitants were of a foreign background in 2018, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with parents born abroad." since the definition for foreign background in the article is arbitrary and not the same as the Swedish Bureau of Statistics, SCB. People with one parent born in Sweden and another abroad are incorrectly counted as having a foreign background in the article. Source: (Swedish) https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101Q/UtlSvBakgGrov/table/tableViewLayout1/)
Why is that relevant to add? Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Because it's information about the origin of immigrants to Sweden, such information is included in the Norway and Denmark articles, so I think it's appropriate to include it in the Sweden one. The Swedish migration debate has also been the subject of international attention and misinformation campaigns, so the article ought to give as much clarity as possible. 217.209.1.128 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical to inclusion. The definition of "Western country" seems somewhat arbitrary and the source contains no information about immigrant background (but the numbers look about right). Sjö (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If you select the variables and press continue you should get results. Perhaps this would be better: "Almost half (43.4%) of people born abroad were born in another European country."? 217.209.1.128 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I can get birth countries/areas but nothing about parents or background. And why select this number? This is information from a primary sources and like most statistics say very little by themselves. To give context and to show WP:DUE you will need to find some secondary reliable sources that discuss it.Sjö (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Because I think more context is needed, I'm confident many people reading the article are wondering where immigrants to Sweden are actually from. Since Europe is the most common continent of origin for immigrants to Sweden It think it should be included. I also noticed a mistake (I think?) in the article which I'm also requesting to be changed, this: 'There are no official statistics on ethnicity, but according to Statistics Sweden, around 3,311,312 (32.3%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2018, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with at least one parent born abroad.' The definition for foreign background is incorrect since one can read the following (in Swedish) on SCBs website:(https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101Q/UtlSvBakgGrov/table/tableViewLayout1/) "Personer med utländsk bakgrund definieras som personer som är utrikes födda, eller inrikes födda med två utrikes födda föräldrar. Personer med svensk bakgrund definieras som personer som är födda i Sverige med två inrikes födda föräldrar eller en inrikes född och en utrikes född förälder." People with one parent born in Sweden and another abroad are incorrectly counted as having a foreign background in the article. So I also request it be changed to: "There are no official statistics on ethnicity, but according to Statistics Sweden, around 2,634,967 (25.5%) inhabitants were of a foreign background in 2018, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with parents born abroad." 217.209.1.128 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I have made a new version of the map of the Swedish Empire from 1560 to 1815, and I was wondering if I would be allowed to replace the old one with the new one. The new one follows a more modern look and presents the information in a more simple fashion. I used the old map to produce the new one and as far as I'm aware the new one still preserves all the important information of the old one e.g. when territories were gained or lost.
It's very well toned, but it'd be nice if the names of neighbouring states/countries were also present so one can get the idea of exact locations. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I have added the names of the nations like in the original map. Chhrls (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In both maps the borderline in Karelia is in wrong place. See e.g. Old Finland. I could make Finnish version of the map also. Velivieras (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good. Chhrls (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
How about if the map would show all of the Swedish empire? As it is right now, the northern parts are not present, i.e. north Sweden and Finland. Also, the years on Pillau should be changed with each other. /21-01-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.34.143.59 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Islam percentage clarification across articles
There seem to be drastically different claims for what percentage of the population follows Islam in Sweden from page to page and even from section to section of some pages. For example, in the infobox on this page it states the percentage following Islam in Sweden in 2017 to be 5.0%, whereas on the page Religion in Sweden it states the figure to be 8.1% for the same year. The page Islam in Sweden also states the figure for 2017 as 8.1%. In the Religion section of this page the percentage of those following Islam for the next year (2018) is stated to be 1.9%. It seems highly unlikely the population of those following Islam fell by around 6% in one year. I understand these statistics were recorded by different organisations but there still seems to be very large differences over very short periods of time. I think we should either seek more up to date statistics or at least make the figure more consistent across articles and articles sections, or just further explain/detail why such different figures may have been recorded. To summarise the articles and sections I'm referring to that need to be more consistent and/or detailed: the infobox of this page and the Religion section of this page, the pages Religion in Sweden and Islam in Sweden. Helper201 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ethnic groups in infobox
Was asked to bring this up on the talk page. Just going to mention that the actual numbers are not in dispute, the dispute would be whether they are worth including in the infobox. I added statistics on how many of the people of "foreign background" were foreign-born and the five countries from where most of them came. I feel it's important because with 25 % of foreign background, certain people will immediately jump to the far-right "Islam is overrunning Sweden" narrative, when two of the largest groups of immigrants are Finns and Poles.
Also, as some of you may be aware, ethnicity is a contested subject in Sweden. Are there reliable/official sources that use the term "Swedish background" and "foreign background"? "Swedish background" needs to be defined - it clearly disregards children of immigrants, despite them also being born in Sweden. Though they are relatively few in number, I also feel like it is an oversight to not include statistics on the actual officially recognized minority groups in Sweden; Jews, Romani people, Sweden Finns, Sámi people, and Tornedalians. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
World War II
Sweden was directly involved in World War II. Without the Swedish iron ore Germany's war effort would have collapsed in 1940. (86.132.155.226 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
That's the definition of "indirect". Would you consider "training insurgents in Axis' enemies' countries to also be a "direct involvement"? 90.227.126.45 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the middle of the 17th century, Sweden was the third-largest country in Europe by land area, surpassed by only Russia and Spain. Sweden reached its largest territorial extent under the rule of Charles X after the treaty of Roskilde in 1658, following Charles X's risky but successful crossing of the Danish Belts.[64][65] The foundation of Sweden's success during this period is credited to Gustav I's major changes to the Swedish economy in the 16th century and his introduction of Protestantism.[66] In the 17th century, Sweden was engaged in many wars, for example with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, with both sides competing for territories of today's Baltic states, with the disastrous Battle of Kircholm being one of the highlights.[67] One-third of the Finnish population died in the devastating Great Famine of 1695–1697 that struck the country.[68] Famine also hit Sweden, killing roughly 10% of Sweden's population.[69]
The date of the Battle of Kircholm should be added as the article makes it look like it was near the end of the 17th century qith the famine, while in reality, it was in 1605 Carolean Penguin (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done. I think the current wording is fine, and I don't understand how you read it that way. 1605 is in the 17th century, and anyone curious about when Kircholm happened can click the link. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think under the head "Administrative divisions" it should read in the penultimate paragraph: "Each county administrative board (not: boards) is led ..." perhaps somebody who is entitled to edit would like to correct it? Dan Elin (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Fixed that and also updated with name change from county councils to regions.Sjö (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
New PM
Magdalena Andersson officialy replaced Stefan Löfven as the swedish PM on the 24th of November. 88.89.238.243 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Andersson doesn't officially take office as Prime Minister until November 26. [1] --TylerBurden (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Precedence
The speaker appoints the prime minister. It may not make sense to everyone but it is how it works in Sweden
Quote from the link:Talmansämbetet är den högsta post en person kan väljas till i Sverige. I rang kommer talmannen efter statschefen, alltså efter kungen, men före statsministern. (The office of Speaker is the highest elected official in Sweden. The speaker comes after the head of state in rank, i.e. the king, but before the prime minister.) If the offices in the infobox reflect rank the order should be the rank according to Swedish conditions, that is Monarch, Speaker and Prime Minister. However, if we choose an order based on actual power the rank should be Prime minister, Speaker and Monarch, but we really should not use a mix of the two systems. Sjö (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"Power" is subjective, and irrelevant to the ordering when there's a clearly defined constitutional order of precedence.Lirae22 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Section regarding crime
Why is there a section regarding crime filed under Demographics? This does not appear to be standard procedure for country pages. Seems it should be moved to the Politics chapter, and possibly merged with the section on Judicial system.193.150.216.5 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No - it's fine as-is.50.111.58.135 (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
New Prime Minister of Sweden Updated 170.235.215.89 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Not Prime Minister yet, WP:Crystal. WanukeX (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Paragraph "Language": There are no continental Scandinavian languages
At the end of the paragraph "Language" is written:
Because of the extensive mutual intelligibility between the three continental Scandinavian languages Swedish speakers often use their native language when visiting or living in Norway or Denmark.
This is wrong. There are three continental North Germanic languages – Swedish, Norwegian, Danish. These are the Scandinavian languages. Icelandic and Faroese are the insular North Germanic languages. The article "North Germanic languages" is full of this term "Continental Scandinavian". It might be used a lot elsewhere but it's nonsense, as Scandinavia isn't islands in the ocean but a part of continental Europe. Calling Faroese and Icelandic anything+Scandinavian is nonsensical too, as the Scandinavian languages are quite distantly related to old Scandinavian and Faroese+Icelandic. It'd make more sense to call Swedish, Norwegian and Danish "Continental Insular-North Germanic" as S-N-D are descendants of dialects/languages which resemble modern Faroese and Icelandic.
So ... please stick to scientific sense (people are fallible) and write it out as it is: Continental North Germanic; Insular North Germanic (or if you must: Continental Nordic and Insular Nordic. Faroese and Icelanders don't see them selves as Scandinavians (and they really aren't, albeit their cultures obviously are related). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.5.176 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
There is more than one way to classify languages, and which one you choose to use depends on context. Continental Scandinavian (or Mainland Scandinavian) is a valid classification, and so is Insular Scandinavian. Insular Scandinavian does not sound very logical, but the term focuses on the Scandinavian origin of the languages, In this context, where focus is on the languages in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Continental Scandinavian is a good term, and IMO there is no good reason to change it. Sjö (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. casualdejekyll 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The crime section information is significantly out-dated. The crime in Sweden has risen significantly in recent years. Add the above information to this section. - Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
However gun violence in Sweden (Swedish: skjutningar or gängskjutningar) has increased steeply among males aged 15 to 29 in the two decades prior to 2018, in addition to a rising trend in gun violence there was also a high rate of gun violence in Sweden compared to other countries in Western Europe.[2]
By 2021, gun violence by crime gangs had increased tenfold since the early 1990s.[3]
According to a report published by academic researchers in 2017, shooting incidents with fatal outcomes are about 4 to 5 times as common in Sweden compared to neighbouring countries such as Germany and Norway when taking population size into account. The city with the highest prevalence of shootings was Malmö. [4] Based on 33 per cent of the population (2017), 58 per cent of those suspect for total crime on reasonable grounds are migrants. Regarding murder, manslaughter and attempted murder, the figures are 73 per cent, while the proportion of robbery is 70 per cent. Non-registered migrants are linked to about 13 per cent of total crime. Given the fact that this group is small, crime propensity among non-registered migrants is significant.[5]Policynerd3212 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Done, although I removed the Swedish translation. casualdejekyll 03:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe they supplied mostly iron ore, not refined steel to Nazi Germany ... this should be corrected. And also referenced. 50.111.1.101 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the crime section it states: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downward trend the last 25 years."
However this source does not(!) mention anything regarding a downward trend in violence. In fact it states the opposite in regards to, for example, gun crime. Furthermore statistics from Brå's (The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention) shows the exact opposite trend. Lethal violence has doubled since 2012: https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/murder-and-manslaughter.html
I propose the following changes: Violence ( both lethal violence and non-lethal) has increased since 2012. Lethal violence has nearly doubled. In 2020, 124 cases of lethal violence were confirmed in Sweden compared to 68 cases in 2012.
Please can you respond to their proposal here. Pious Brother (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pious Brother: I have never once responded to edit requests so I don't know what to do here. They added much of this in themselves, some of it is still there, some of it has been edited and amended. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
A brief response to the proposed changes will suffice. Pious Brother (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(Response not only to the request above but also to other edits by Policynerd3212): I don't oppose the removal of "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downward trend the last 25 years" (and have not added it back), not do I necessarily oppose the inclusion of more up-to-date statistics on crime or the percentage of the Swedish population that is muslim. I do however feel that this is a bit of a strange combination and I believe contested, controversial and politically charged issues such as this needs nuance and objectivity. I oppose adding that 8.1 % of the population is "documented" to be muslim when this is just one of the possible estimates (adding it as an estimate is fine, but it would also be good if it was accompanied with other estimates and that there are no official statistics, and perhaps if the media reaction to the study was mentioned). I also feel that these edits are politically motivated, not only given the removal of Adamson's ideological framework but also given the information in the edit request above and the content of the edits. This page was cited for an overall increase in crime, which is correct, but no mention was made of it also showing an ongoing decrease since 2018/2019. That hate crimes rooted in racism and other causes are also up was also never suggested to be added or edited in. This is a complex area and just adding in the statistics that support a certain narrative, without any comment, is IMO not the way to go. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: I have updated a nearly decade old crime section and added nuanced information. I have explicitly mentioned a decline in sexual assaults since 2017 and that Sweden is one of the safest countries in the world. I furthermore use reliable sources such as Swedens official bureau of statistics. Furthermore Ichthyovenator claims that we are seeing an 'ongoing decrease' in crime since 2019. This is technically true but the decrease in 2020 is one datapoint over a 10 year period, and it is almost certainly an outlier due to the corona-restriction. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33072489/
and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01139-z. It is therefore not an indication that crime in general is showing an 'ongoing decrease'. To the contrary crime has gone up in Sweden over the last 10 years, which the section therefore reflects.
I do not feel Ichthyovenator aggressive and condescending behaviour towards me is warranted. And calling my edits 'some of the most poorly formatted and tenditious editing I've ever seen" seems to be personally motivated.
Regarding my demographic information on religion, they are based on Pewresearch estimates. They are reliable and Ichthyovenator offer no contradicting evidence. My source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/ --> These estimates are based on data. I would argue the frase 'documented' or 'estimated' are semantics. In any case if Ichthyovenator is more comfortable with the phrase 'estimate', I have no objections to this.
@Policynerd3212: I don't know if you're deliberately ignoring some of what I said in the ANI discussion or if you're arguing in bad faith. I'll respond to everything you say here point-by-point (even though you ignored some of the stuff I raised) but hopefully someone else will also weigh in on this because I don't have the time to keep repeating myself and keep making the same arguments only for them to be ignored.
I have updated a nearly decade old crime section and added nuanced information. I have not contested that the section was outdated but I don't think you can claim to have added "nuanced information". You just dropped some crime statistics in there without any commentary on them. You'll notice that I have not removed the parts of your edits that were not tenditious.
I have explicitly mentioned a decline in sexual assaults since 2017 and that Sweden is one of the safest countries in the world Yes, you mentioned one positive trend, but then ignored other positive trends and just added the negative ones. As I mentioned in my original response here you deliberately ignored positive trends visible in some of the sources you cited. Your addition of For a long time ranked amongst some of the safest countries in the world can IMO easily be read as saying that Sweden used to be one of the safest (it still is) since it was immediately followed by your negative crime statistics.
I furthermore use reliable sources such as Swedens official bureau of statistics Yes, but the issue is in how you used them (what information you used, what information you didn't use etc), this should be obvious from everything else I said. You claimed that there's been a constant increase, while we're currently seeing a decrease. You initially claimed a significant rise in lethal crime from 2015 onwards and when I pointed this as out as wrong you changed it to 2012.
It is therefore not an indication that crime in general is showing an 'ongoing decrease'. but it literally is? We could mention that the coronavirus may have had an impact but are you saying we should lie and say that it has continually increased? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
To the contrary crime has gone up in Sweden over the last 10 years, which the section therefore reflects I have not once said that the article should say that crime has not gone up. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This is technically true but the decrease in 2020 is one datapoint over a 10 year period the diagram in the source shows decreases in threats, assaults, sexual offences and robberies (not a single data point) and nearly all of the statistics are data covering such a period? You yourself cited this source for a continuous rise in crime, which is misrepresentation.
and it is almost certainly an outlier due to the corona-restriction the graph in the source shows a decrease in sexual offences since 2016/2017, so that's not attributable to the corona restrictions, what makes you conclude that it is "almost certainly an outlier"? One of the articles you cite is a study on the entire world so not really a strong source and I can't see whether the other actually concludes that there is correlation (can't access it). If you can produce better sources the impact on the pandemic can of course be added, but you can also not deny that other programs such as Sluta skjut in Malmö have also had effects.
I do not feel Ichthyovenator aggressive and condescending behaviour towards me is warranted. And calling my edits 'some of the most poorly formatted and tenditious editing I've ever seen" seems to be personally motivated Yeah right. I think edit-warring while the ANI discussion was going on was pretty aggressive and I think flinging back my own edit summaries at me while doing so and (I have to assume) deliberately ignoring some of the stuff I've written was pretty condescending. I think I've shown why your edits were from my point of view tenditious. How are my efforts to keep the article neutral "personally motivated" when I have never interacted with you before? This isn't getting us anywhere.
They are reliable and Ichthyovenator offer no contradicting evidence So first and foremost I find it suspicious that your focus is on only adding statistics on crime and the muslim population. Second of all, I did offer rationale for opposing this but I guess you're ignoring that. I mentioned in the ANI discussion (and on this page!) that this particular study has been criticized in the Swedish media - here is an article that refers to it as "disputed" (omstridd) and mentions its possible use in scaremongering propaganda. Here is an estimate from another source already used in the article that places the population at 6.5 rather than 8.1. I linked both of these in the ANI discussion. There are no official statistics on religion in Sweden so adding one estimate and claiming it to at first be "documentation" is pretty tenditious.
I would argue the frase 'documented' or 'estimated' are semantics Ridiculous. "Documented" implies fact and certainty. "Estimated" implies what it actually is - an estimation.
If we are adding idiological positions of experts such as Adam Göransson, we should also add it for all other social scientists. But we do not. For example why has Ichthyovenator not added the ideological position of Jerzy Sarnecki, when he added him to the section? In the ANI discussion I explicitly told you that you could add Sarnecki's ideological position if you want to. Preferrably we should include several studies and not just these two so that we can see if there is some consensus, before I added Sarnecki's study the section only included Adamson's (not Göransson) study with no indication that he was critical of "multiculturalism". I think you can see why this is biased given that different opinions and results exist.
Jerzy Sarnecki is a criminologist and have been criticized, by among else, experts and journalists from SVT, the national Swedish broadcasting company and others, for stating opinions on crime which are not based on data I have not opposed mentioning any of this, but I reiterate: it would be preferrable to include more than two studies. Sarnecki's statement that "overrepresentation of people with foreign backgrounds in crime was likely due to socioeconomic factors; crime has always been more rampant in lower social classes" seems to be the general opinion so that could for instance be stronger sourced (see for instance: 1, 2, 3, see also Race and crime) - this is an example of nuanced information that is necessary (let's not be implicitly racist); adding just statistics is in no way nuance. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: I can't possibly respond to every single one of your tangents. But let me address your main points.
--> "You just dropped some crime statistics in there without any commentary on them." I presented the statistics neutrally and clearly. You have not added anything of substance which changes the substance of the section since my edit.
--> "the issue is in how you used [the statistics] them (what information you used, what information you didn't use etc), this should be obvious from everything else I said. You claimed that there's been a constant increase, while we're currently seeing a decrease." This is inaccurate. Over the last 10 years we have seen a significant increase in crime in Sweden and the trend has been going up. Your argument is like saying that climate change isn't real, because on a year by year basis the temperature sometimes has gone down compared to the previous year. But you have to look at larger period of time to call it a 'trend'. Otherwise it is just an outlier. Ask any scientist.
--> "not a single data point" Yes, it is a single yearly datapoint. Compared to the overall data/picture looking at the last 10 years. Picking one year out is cherry-picking data.
--> "I find it suspicious that your focus is on only adding statistics on crime and the muslim population." You are the only one connecting the muslim demographic and crime. As BA.scient.pol myself I am interested in data. Therefore I have updated significantly out-dated data on the Swedish page. These are separate edits. Come from reliable sources and have nothing to do with each other.
--> With regards to the Göransson and Sarnecki edit, You are implying a bias for one and at the same omit Sarnecki, who is himself a controversial expert in the field. This is problematic. To me this seems like you are trying to give weight to one expert and discredit the other instead of presenting them both neutrally.
Policynerd3212 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Going to begin by pointing out that in response to my detailed breakdown of all of the claims Policynerd3212 made in their original response they've responded by replying to just four of my statements; I still feel like they are either not reading through all of what I wrote or deliberately ignoring parts.
I presented the statistics neutrally and clearly. I've already explained how you didn't. Good to at least see that you've stopped claiming to have done so in a nuanced manner.
You have not added anything of substance which changes the substance of the section since my edit If you feel like the section on the data is still decent ("you have not added anything of substance") I don't see why we need to keep arguing about it.
Picking one year out is cherry-picking data I've already highlighted how you cherry-picked data. It is not cherry-picking data to write what the sourcea actually says. You can't cite a source and then come to a conclusion that he source itself does not - that is original research.
Over the last 10 years we have seen a significant increase in crime in Sweden and the trend has been going up You've said this several times as if I have argued against this. I have not at any point disputed that crime has been going up over the last 10 years.
Your argument is like saying that climate change isn't real, because on a year by year basis the temperature sometimes has gone down compared to the previous year No it is not. You used the source to insinuate that crime has been going up continually. This is a misrepresentation of the source - the neutral way to describe what it says would be to state that crime has increased significantly but that it has also somewhat decreased since 2018/2019. Because that is what it shows. This is not comparable to climate denialism. You can't misrepresent the source because of your personal interpretation of what it shows.
You are the only one connecting the muslim demographic and crime I'm not. I'm pointing out that you've aggressively added tenditious statistics in regard to both - that is a concerning pattern and I think you understand why.
With regards to the Göransson and Sarnecki edit, You are implying a bias for one and at the same omit Sarnecki, who is himself a controversial expert in the field. This is problematic. To me this seems like you are trying to give weight to one expert and discredit the other instead of presenting them both neutrally. This is the response that mainly leads me to believe that you're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. As I pointed out his name is Adamson, not Göransson. Adamson has a clear ideological bias in the matter. I already said twice that adding more concerning Sarnecki's position and background was fine - go ahead and do so if you want. My secondary point here in the response was that the conclusion that immigrants are committing crimes because of socioeconomic factors is the most widely accepted one (both in Sweden and in similar cases internationally) - so that could be further cited beyond just Sarnecki's study.
We're clearly not going to come to an agreement here so hopefully an outside party will weigh in. I still question whether detailed statistics concerning nearly every crime have to be included here rather than in Crime in Sweden. Most other articles on countries don't even seem to have this type of "crime" section. Latvia has the highest homicide rate in Europe (link) but the country's article does not have a section on crime. Botswana has the highest rape rate in the world (link) but the country's article does not have a section on crime. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
"I'm pointing out that you've aggressively added tenditious statistics in regard to both - that is a concerning pattern and I think you understand why."
--> I have not 'aggressively' added anything 'tenditious'. I have presented the data as is. There has been a decline in sexual crimes since 2017, but over the last 10 year we have certainly seen quite an increase in crime in general. Which I wrote in the original edit. The edit was meant to made update the section as it previously stated: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downward trend the last 25 years." When the exact opposite was true.
--> I further find it weird that you object to demographic insight from Pewresearch. But yes we certainly need an outside party to weigh in. Policynerd3212 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Policynerd3212: I have already responded to both of the points you raise here (why do you keep ignoring most of what I write?). I hope you are aware that just presenting "the data as is" is not always sufficient to give a fair and nuanced picture. I find I further find it weird that you object to demographic insight from Pewresearch to be a pretty irritating comment concerning how often I've explained why and that you at no point refuted my motivation.
I've explained my viewpoints and my opposition several times but you either ignore it or don't care so I won't waste time continuing doing so further. Instead, I've written and included below what I would consider more nuanced approaches to both the muslim and crime statistics. Let me know what you think. The statistics on the muslim population keeps the pew source but also adds that there are no secure statistics alongside a lower estimate (so as to not hold up a single, criticized, study as the only authoritative estimate). The crime statistics keep the same data but add more sourced context and sources. There is no longer any cherry-picking from Brå but it summarizes everything (without any WP:EXCESSDETAIL) instead of leaving out data and conclusions. It also mentions that the recent observed decreases may be attributable to the pandemic (rather than not mentioning the decreases at all, which would be strange given that they are clearly visible in the source). If nothing else I think my proposed versions below also quite clearly outline why I believe the previous edits and proposals could be interpreted as tenditious, if not in cases misrepresentation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator and Policynerd3212: I will try mediate this dispute, but it would be helpful if you kept your posts below this point below one hundred words, and also list the points you dispute with numbers or bullets. I removed article content which was cluttering the page. Please also refrain from comments that appear to personalize the dispute. Pious Brother (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pious Brother: Thank you. For future reference I moved my proposed revision of both the disputed parts here; I agree that it clutters up the page but my last response doesn't make much sense without it. If nothing else I think my proposed text and comparing it with Policynerd's edits and proposed edits illustrates why I believe them to have been, at the very least, tenditious. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
--> 1. I am relatively content with the crime section as it stands now. I think Ichthyovenator in general added useful details, so I have no substantial objections. Although I would add that the decrease in 2020 probably is most likely due to corona-restrictions. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33072489/
and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01139-z. I
--> 2. I would also remove the ideological position of Adam Göransson. If we are adding idiological/political positions of experts such as Adam Göransson, we should also add it for all other social scientists. Jerzy Sarnecki for example has been criticized, by among else, experts and journalists from SVT, the national Swedish broadcasting company and others, for stating opinions on crime which are not based on data. But there is no information on this on the page. To me this seems like you are trying to give weight to one expert and discredit the other instead of presenting them both neutrally. But Ichthyovenator seems to be fine with adding this, so maybe there is no dispute here?
--> 3. I do not understand why the added information on religion is all that controversial if these are the facts from a reliable sources. Certainly the muslim population isn't under 2% as the section stated previously. Ichthyovenator seems to think, that I am trying to link crime and religion together (and thus that this datapoint is implicitly racist/xenophobic), and that this why he objects to this information being updated. But neither the crime section nor the religion section link religion to crime. These are separate sections on different subjects. Policynerd3212 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I will reiterate that I believe I've responded to all these points. Policynerd3212: What did you think about my proposed versions here (it removes the ideological position, adds the corona stuff and the religious statistics). My main point of contention was that for religion since there are no official statistics so to present a single criticized estimate as authoritative is not enough. For the ideological stances my proposal removes it from both and instead simply mentions correlation and comments on it - I think this is better per WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1. I do not believe in rewriting a whole section which multiple different people have contributed to. As I said I am content with the crime section as it stands now including your previous edits, but I would simply add that the decrease in 2020 is most likely due to corona-restrictions. And I would remove the political stance of the respective experts.
2. If you have other reliable sources which disputes the figure, you can add it. But 8,1% is probably a low estimate anyway given the continued influx of immigration from muslim majority countries (due to familiy-re-unification) since the estimate was made. Policynerd3212 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
But you already rewrote the section. My proposal keeps the data and information but adds context and nuance missing from your edit as well as data points you ignored. The only approach in which it would IMO be okay to not mention political and ideological stances of different authors would be to cite more sources (to illustrate consensus) and just include the parts that all agree on, to not fall into WP:FRINGE or WP:EXCESSDETAIL. This is the approach I took in the version I'm suggesting. It probably a low estimate anyway That's original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: I have built upon what was already there and you have further made a lot of changes to the section. You can't possibly argue that it should be completely re-written only by you. I have nothing further to add as I think my position is quite clear. At this point I would just be repeating myself. Policynerd3212 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that you did a lot more than just building upon it (any outsider can check the page history and make up their own mind though). Anyone who reads my proposal can see that it keeps the current information, rearranges it for better flow and adds more data and nuance. I don't know why you would oppose more sourcing and data (but I will note that the data in question includes increased hate crimes, factors more overrepresented than background and victim studies, all of which you ignored, as well as comparisons to other countries and what the government's position is - highly relevant IMO). Calling it a complete re-write is disingenous. If you have nothing further to add then neither do I – I will note for posterity that I personally feel that a lot of my points and responses were simply and deliberately ignored and that my proposed changes to Policynerd3212's edits and the article are better sourced and more in line with WP:NPOV. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: "Anyone who reads my proposal can see that it keeps the current information, rearranges it for better flow and adds more data and nuance. " What an objective take on your own proposal. As I said, you can't possibly argue that this section should be completely re-written only by you. I have made my positions on the 3 main disputes clear in the section above and we need a neutral to settle these disagreements. Policynerd3212 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. completely re-written only by you I already responded to this. It keeps the same information and data as before. If this is a rewrite so was yours - the difference is that I have not added anything without discussion. It however adds information that your edits left out. I argue that you cherry-picked data to fit your POV, my proposal does not. Do you believe data on hate crime, additional factors, victim studies, comparisons to other countries, as well as govermment and police positions to be irrelevant? Why did you leave it out? With the cherry-picked information in the section currently it reads more like far-right scaremongering than an accurate reflection of available WP:RS. Can we please get some intervention here? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: Once again: I have not rewritten the section. I have built upon what was already there by updating out-dated/wrong information and you have further made a lot of changes to the section which is included in the current version. Once again: You can't possibly argue that it should be completely re-written only by you. Regarding hate-crime that is very specific type of crime but I would not be against including/adding it to the text. Regarding comparisons to other countries it is already included in the current section. I have made my positions on the 3 main disputes clear in the section above and we need a neutral to settle these disagreements. Policynerd3212 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's hoping this is the last response I have to make before someone else weighs in.
I have not rewritten the section. I have built upon what was already thereYour edit is a pretty substantial rewrite of the first paragraph. I'll stop pressing this point and leave it up to others to decide.
by updating out-dated/wrong information As I've said probably five times I have not opposed updating or correcting the information. I am opposing the tenditious and cherry-picking manner in which you did so.
You can't possibly argue that it should be completely re-written only by you Are you not reading my replies? I think the section should present all of the data points and not simply the ones you added. You can't possible argue to the section should only present certain data and ignore other relevant data. I would also like to add that it is quite common for sections and entire articles to be re-written by single people. In this case it is simply not possible to argue that the current version in the article is a fair summary of WP:RS and that it fulfills WP:NPOV.
you have further made a lot of changes to the section which is included in the current version.Again, my proposed draft keeps the information currently in the article (and I encourage any neutral editor to read and compare them), In your words building upon it. It adds information which I am led to believe was deliberately left out by you initially, most prominently statistics on hate crime, statistics on factors more strongly correlating with crime than ethnic background, more WP:RS coverage on gun violence, victim studies, the position of the Swedish government and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, etc. (do you not consider this data relevant? why not?) I have removed most of Adamson's and Sarnecki's conslusions as to not overly emphasize only two studies, and have instead included the widely agreed figures and some widely agreed interpretations. Anything else would IMO be WP:SYNTH and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. I am still led to believe that your edits are politically motivated due to the cherry-picking of data and what information to include, as well as the source used for the statement "Sweden has experienced a significant upstick in crime" (Neuding is not exactly a neutral political commentator) - in my proposal that particular source is replaced with a Brå source saying the same thing.
Regarding comparisons to other countries it is already included in the current section Only if you consider the fatal gun violence rates. The proposal by me is more nuanced, contains more sources, and more comparisons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It is my firm position that Wikipedia cannot be a place that tenditiously uses cherry-picked data to reinforce certain political positions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: "It is my firm position that Wikipedia cannot be a place that tenditiously uses cherry-picked data to reinforce certain political positions. " I completely agree. Which is why I updated the section in the first place as it contained false and out-dated information. I have laid out the statistics as they are, nuanced and clearly from my perspective. The section in addition includes several major edits from you. The fact is, that crime is increasing and have been increasing over 10 years both in terms of violence (lethal and non-lethal), threats, robberies etc. This is not cherry-picked data. This is the overall picture when looking at crime in Sweden. I sense your edits are personally and politically motivated to talk down/hide these facts. For example in your proposed edit you write, that almost all types of crime is decreasing "from 2019 onwards". Which leaves the impression that crime has now been in decline for 3 years. But in practise it's only in 1 year, in 2020, we saw a slight decline. Which is most likely only due to the corona-restrictions. Looking at overall trend over a longer period of time it is not an accurate portrayal of the trend we are seeing. Policynerd3212 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator and Policynerd3212: I am reading your responses and the sources. I can see this is going to be difficult, so I hope you will both be able compromise a little. Pious Brother (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow.. you two have had fun. I am not going to take any kind of position as some form of ″deciding neutral″ here but I'll offer my thoughts on this ″dispute″ and the recent edits. First of all @Policynerd3212: I can't deny that I find it at least a little concerning that since you became active on the English WP last month your sole focus on the site has been on this aspect of the Sweden article, combine this with your edits where Ichthyovenator correctly pointed out you seemed at least to an extent cherry pick what to use in order to paint a certain picture (that is often painted about modern Sweden). The wording you used such as acting as if ″document″ and ″estimate″ are the same is also of concern, though that may have been an honest mistake since you're likely not a native English speaker judging by your user page. However you have repeatedely used as a defence the fact that you wrote ″For a long time ranked amongst some of the safest countries in the world″ and from what I can see here so far not addressed concerns about this clearly being written in a manner to make it look like Sweden no longer is, since you followed it up in a manner that I would give most the impression that it no longer is due to what you followed it with. I don't think you are stupid, so I have a strong feeling you knew what you were doing when you wrote it that way. Overall I have some concerns about agenda pushing here but I can also understand the viewpoint of updating out of date information.
@Ichthyovenator: You immediately became quite hostile in your edit summary when disagreeing with Policy's edit, not exactly the best way to go about things since it is more likely to encourage a dispute than prevent it. You two should have started this discussion here as soon as it was clear you were in disagreement and instead of writing a passive aggressive rather insulting edit summary you could have simply reverted stating your reason and said take it to talk. Though I think your efforts to at least paint the full picture are good, I don't get the feeling you're exactly neutral on this subject yourself given the quick hostility.
Overall to finish I question if this needs to be a section in the first place, like Ichthyovenator said there is a Crime in Sweden article and by all means go all out there, but you don't see other country articles dumping their detailed crime statistics into them and that includes countries with similar or higher crime rates than Sweden. But if it has to be in there then at least paint the full picture and offer perspective from both sides of the argument and be consistent about these ″expert biases″. It is dishonest to talk about how one expert is biased, and leave out the reports (when they do exist) on the one from the other side of the fence. Just as it is dishonest to cherry pick what you use from sources to push a certain POV. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I prepared an analysis of my own, but TylerBurden hits the nail on the head. Ichthyovenator your edit summary showed some hostility from the start, and the escalation to the administrator noticeboard was unnecessary. Policynerd3212 please focus on the Crime in Sweden article before bringing it back here. Pious Brother (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pious Brother and TylerBurden: First of all, I apologize for bailing on this discussion for the last week - I took some time off Wikipedia to reflect on this. I fully admit to escalating and becoming overly hostile immediately. I also fully admit that I too have political opinions that influence what I see as significant; I presume my political beliefs to be quite opposed to those of Policynerd3212. I plan to stay away from this article and other subjects that are politically charged in the future, a self-imposed topic ban as it were, because clearly I'm not the best person to engage in these types of discussions. I became hostile immediately because I interpreted Policynerd's edits as a concerning pattern and an attempt to add far-right dogwhistles into the article (for an analogue to what I was thinking imagine if someone tried to add the "despite making up 13 % of the population..." stat without further comment or nuance to the article on the US) and that they managed to sneak under the radar because Sweden is a quite small country. They added a bunch of statistics without much context and it seemed to me that a lot of statistics that did not fit with their narrative were left out. I'm not saying that excuses hostility, or that my initial view of the edits was necessarily correct, but that's where I was coming from and that's why I was so hostile and determined to work against them.
On the expert biases I would just like to point out that I stated several times that I did not oppose adding Sarnecki's bias as well but that I thought it would be best to add more than just two studies and determine what the consensus was; it would then in my mind be possible to just leave out biases altogether.
Perhaps a neutral editor (i.e. not me or Policynerd3212) more experienced in this type of material would at some point be willing to review the article as it stands now, perhaps the version of the disputed sections I proposed (which very well could be biased as well), and further sources to ensure this fulfills WP:NPOV? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: I don't think it is necessary to topic ban yourself, just remember to be civil and stay cool as well as be aware of any potential biases of your own affecting your work. It is clear you are a competent editor so I think you're being a bit too hard on yourself here, let it be a learning experience instead. I discovered yesterday that the ″ethnic groups″ infobox that I believe Policynerd3212 added was completely WP:SYNTH, as I tried to explain in my butchered edit summary (it was late) there was no information about ethnic groups in the source, only birth places. You can't make a ethnic groups infobox and base it on place of birth. Honestly this combined with Policy's sole focus on this article being on increasing and expanding negative (crime) and percieved negative (immigrants, religion) aspects is making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. Like I said there is an entire article on this subject, why do we need this section on this article when seemingly no other country articles have them? It reminds me of before I became active editing Wikipedia, this article had a part in the lead about the population describing how many of them are ″foreign″ and then a definition of ″foreign″ in this context. Again, no other articles have this. This was removed at some point as it is no longer there, but I think the article certainly is or at least has been a target of POV pushers. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@TylerBurden: Well thank you, politics and social issues are not generally what I edit anyway - in any case I will do my best to stick with WP:AGF in the future. On ethnic groups: yes, as with religion I don't think there are official statistics for ethnic groups (rather than country of origin). I agree with the remarks in the final paragraph of your original response - the crime section is IMO not necessary in the first place since several countries with higher crime rates lack similar sections; if the section is perceived to be necessary by the community it should accurately reflect the available sources and not engage in cherrypicking or POV-pushing. It should probably not be up to me to say what is and is not POV-pushing in this case but in my personal opinion the article as it was after Policynerd's edits and as it stands now is not entirely adequate in this remark. this article had a part in the lead about the population describing how many of them are ″foreign″ and then a definition of ″foreign″ in this context weird stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator you don't need to topic ban yourself. Your might have been right in this case, but you came out swinging. I think Policynerd should focus their efforts on the Crime in Sweden article. Pious Brother (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
::Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator and Pious Brother: I have been away for a couple of months and wanted to revisit this discussion. I appreciate that you acknowledge your hostility and bias @Ichthyovenator. As for the points made here for removing/censoring the discussion. There are certainly crime section on other countries wiki's with high and problematic crime rates such as: Mexico, USA and Venezuela just to name a few. Given that it is a contentious and highly politicized subject which is very important to the political discourse Sweden, I think it is important to keep this section and not censor it. However it is of course important to write it in a neutral and nuanced way. Policynerd3212 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Crime in Sweden is not censored, it has its own article which is linked within this article. Given your apparent great fascination with this topic, I do not see why you don't focus on expanding that article. You are essentially a WP:SPA with sole focus of expanding negative aspects about Sweden, not doing so to any other country. Mexico, USA and Venezuela are not remotely comparable to Sweden when it comes to crime, and even then the topic of crime in those places is best expanded in seperate articles rather than turning a general article about the country into essentially a smear piece. Look at other European articles, instead of picking a few carefully selected examples that contain what you want to include. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You quite clearly and deliberately censored it from the main page as you removed a relevant section because it doesn't fit with your political agenda. And yes crime rates has increased in Sweden and it is a contentious and highly politicized subject which is very important to the political discourse Sweden ATM. Therefore it is important to keep this section and not censor it. But you did. Very unfortunate. You say it is 'not remotely comparable'. Why not? Sweden now has the highest rate of gun deaths in Europe a stunning change over a few years. Source: Al-Jeezera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-hPThZO8Xo&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish How is this not relevant to mention? What is your argument? Other than you think it makes Sweden look bad? Policynerd3212 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source, and even if it does it still wouldn't be comparable to those countries. Your accusation of having a ″political agenda″ is completely unfounded, how do you know anything about what politics I am interested if I even am? On the other hand anyone can click on your edit history and see that you are the one pushing agendas here, you're a single purpose account, and that purpose is to fearmonger about immigrants and crime in Sweden on its main page. Like I said, crime in Sweden has its own article, which is accessible from this article, if you want to expand on the topic you can go as in depth as you want there as long as it is sourced and neutral. It is ridiculous how you are accusing me of having an agenda, when you are not even denying yours or addressing any concerns considering your own WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. You are now also edit warring again, just like what happened last time people got in the way of your attempts to shoehorn this content into the article. As for the political argument, if you want to add content with sources stating that crime has become highly politicized then there is a relevant political history section for that. Do not restore your edits again before you have consensus for them. TylerBurden (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no agenda nor ideology concerning this topic. In fact, I usually vote to the left in Denmark. I originally updated the crime section as it contained simply wrong, out-dated information. It stated: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downward trend the last 25 years." And then it got crazy from there. @Ichthyovenator insulting the edit etc. The reason for my persistent and original edits are, because it seems to me, that you two @Ichthyovenator (who has already admitted a clear bias) and you @TylerBurden are interested in removing very relevant and current information. Major edits have been removed and added very persistently only by you two people. @TylerBurden and @Ichthyovenator over the last 6 months. I didn't even return to this page for 3 months because I didn't have the time.
I would never have these detailed edits on this page, if it was not because I believed something seems wrong. You seem to be deliberately removing updated information on a very current and relevant topic. Furthermore my source is not 'youtube'. The source is Al-jeezera from 2022. Are you kidding me? Are you deliberately acting in bad-faith? Cf. WP:Reliability
Finally I am not 'single topic'. I have made edits on other Danish articles but it doesn't show up in the English contributions. Policynerd3212 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The channel doesn't matter, your source is still a YouTube video and therefore you're using YouTube as a source. I find it strange how you nitpick that sources regarding information on immigration citing university research in reliable sources claiming it is not useable because it came from what you call an opinion piece. It references actual research. Meanwhile you're trying to use YouTube videos as a source, it's beyond hypocritical. Your single purpose on the English Wikipedia has not only been this article, but very specific subjects on this article. Your English Wikipedia account is most certainly a SPA. And I am not interested in what you vote for in Denmark, you are clearly pushing an agenda on this article. You still have zero consensus for your edits, and yet you keep restoring them and show no signs of stopping. Don't see what else to do other than report you at this point since you refuse to discuss and gain consensus, you simply insist on forcing your edits through which is not how Wikipedia works and you would see that had you read the notices on your talk page instead of just removing them. The consensus that was reached was removing the section as it is already linked as a seperate article, and that you should focus your efforts on Crime in Sweden. It is evidently your way or the highway for you though and you keep ignoring that fact. TylerBurden (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Youtube is not the source. The source is Al-Jeezera from 2022. According to WP:Reliability this is reliable: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. "
Furthermore I have further referred to 3 other main sources. Studies. In addition you don't have consensus on this. Only @Ichthyovenator (who has already admitted a clear bias) and you @TylerBurden are interested in removing very relevant and current information. Major edits have been removed and added very persistently only by you two people. How is this consensus?
I have in addition removed an out-dated opinion-article because: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." - WP:Reliability Policynerd3212 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I would say if it cites research, then that would be a reliable source. Pious Brother who joined the discussion as a mediator also agreed you should focus your efforts on the crime in Sweden article, you do not have a single editor supporting your edits, which is probably why you insist on edit warring. The current consensus is against you, and the WP:ONUS is on you to change that. TylerBurden (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
He did not consent to a whole section being removed. That's only you who suddenly made this decision unilaterally.
Not to mention keeping adding at best out-dated/at worst false information from an opinion-article which has been debunked by major studies on the subject. Policynerd3212 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Which no editor objected to, in fact the edit recieved thanks notifcations. It has been stable and out for months, almost as if people see that it is better to go in depth on the actual article about the subject. What is false/outdated exactly? It would be good if you could give specific examples instead of just saying everything you disagree with is wrong and you are right. TylerBurden (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edits have now also been reverted by a third uninvolved editor, so if you still are under the delusion that you have consensus for these edits, well maybe finally you'll believe me when I say you don't. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There are several issues. But the main one are the passages regarding fiscal costs:"Even when accounting for increased expenses in terms of education and healthcare, the economic advantages of immigration over time outweighs the disadvantages." --> This is simply incorrect according to recent studies: "By reviewing the existing empirical literature, we demonstrate that the research on the fiscal effects of refugee (or non-Western) immigration almost uniformly supports the conclusion that the fiscal balance is going to be negative. The noble aims of humanitarian obligation to accept refugees seem to be in conflict with the pragmatic economic interest – a fiscally beneficial immigration – this time.#
I do not see either of your sources mentioning Sweden, in fact one of them seems to be specifically about Denmark. TylerBurden (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Correction, the second one does, I will read it. TylerBurden (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Policynerd3212: So researchers have arrived at different conclusions, then it would seem more appropriate and neutral to add an opposing second reference, rather than only present one side of the argument, wouldn't you say? The reference does not mention Sweden much, but it appears reliable and does offer an opposing view. So if you want to add that information (however keep it about the Sweden part) as a counter to the part you disagree with without removing it, I would not disagree with that. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Both studies are relevant to Sweden. Denmark and Sweden are comparable countries in terms culture, size and their universal well-fare model. In Political Science it is common practice to infer to other similar countries (external validity). Otherwise all studies would have to be made in all countries. Hence the title: "The fiscal impact of immigration to welfare states of the Scandinavian type". Policynerd3212 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
That's now how Wikipedia works, though, using sources to reach own conclusions that the references do not explicity state is considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. While it is true that Denmark and Sweden are largely very similar countries, Sweden is bigger in every sense of the word, but most notably with almost twice the population of Denmark, and they are obviously run differently by different governments. So conclusions reached about Denmark or other Nordic countries cannot automatically be applied to Sweden. TylerBurden (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Opinion articles with loose references to decade old research are not equal to objective neutral studies of today.
But have you read my original edit? It specifically says that is unclear whether the fiscal costs of immigration is negative or positive. I wrote: "The fiscal cost of immigration is in unclear. If the fiscal balance of immigration is positive, then migrants become net contributors to public budgets, helping to alleviate the aging related fiscal burden. However, research show that this is unlikely to happen with refugees entering extensive European welfare states, at least in the short and medium term.[1] Fiscal impact however depends on the characteristics of migrants, with young, in work, highly skilled migrants often representing considerable net gains to public finances. Fiscal impact also depends on the policy environment within host countries, including the extent to which labour markets absorb migrants, the informality of labour markets and migrants’ rights to work and receive welfare benefits."[2]Policynerd3212 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edits have added far more than that. TylerBurden (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
So you are complaining about the age of the research while your own reference is 5+ years old? Again, it seems you are cherrypicking here. TylerBurden (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said: Opinion articles with loose references to decade old research are not equal to objective neutral peer-reviewed studies of today. I am also not 'complaining'. I am saying it is biased information from an opinion article. Reminder - WP: Reliability explicitally states: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Furthermore these actual recent studies are both applicable to Sweden if you actually took the time to read them. Policynerd3212 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It states what the research stated, and that research is not opinion, it is conducted research. Are professional researchers not a reliable source? It seems more to me that you personally disagree with the research and therefore want it off the article, now you are trying to say that you should be able to use studies that don't even mention Sweden by name because you find them "applicable". You did this last time with ethnicities as well, included original research not explicitly stated by any sources. Is half a decade really much more up to date than a decade? To the point that it is useable but the other one is not? TylerBurden (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Either way I tried to compromise with you, and include both. But it is evident you only want to present one side of the argument, which is not surprising at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
You can find opinion articles from climate-change denying 'experts' which links to obscure research. It doesn't make it true. Especially when they don't actually reference the research.
And this opinion article doesn't even reference any research. It just says 'research in North-America and Europe'. It doesn't in any way link to any actual studies. Furthermore it is written by "Ellen Percy Kraly professor i geografi och and klimatstudie vid Colgate University". In what world is she an expert in migration in Scandinavia? She is a professor in geography and climate. Any political scientist would tell you that this debate-article is utter nonsense.
But okay! If you can find any actual peer-reviewed articles or research which supports their opinion. Then I will certainly include it, and we should keep this information. Specifically this claim --> "Even when accounting for increased expenses in terms of education and healthcare, the economic advantages of immigration over time outweighs the disadvantages." Because it is simply not the case relating to non-western immigration in Europe. Some immigration can certainly be positive. But the impact depends on the characteristics of the migrants. Young, in work, highly skilled migrants are often representing considerable net gains to public finances. Which I write in my edit.Policynerd3212 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I also think it matters to mention that over 1,2 million migrants have come to Sweden. This is more than 10% of their size. This is also very relevant to mention in an immigration section on Wikipedia. Why have you removed this information as well? Policynerd3212 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
You do not need to bold your words, I have good eyesight and can read what you write. It doesn't have the effect you want it to have either. You find it very important to include this information in the article, other people do not, as these subjects have their own article and all other European countries expand those rather than fill their main page with ultra scientific essays on crime and immigrants, ethnic groups and whatever other content you have been pushing on this article. Like I said, WP:ONUS, it doesn't matter how good you think your sources are, you are attempting to insert them into the wrong article and you are not able to gain consensus for it. TylerBurden (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Update: I've removed this claim of "long term the positives outweigh the negatives" as I can agree with you that the claim needs a better source. That's not to say I agree with the rest of your edits by any means, but until another source is found to support that claim it is better left out. TylerBurden (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
In my view, this wiki-page needs a whole re-write of the demographic and immigration section. It is tendentious and out-dated.
Sweden has received more than 1 million immigrants over 10 years which has brought profound changes. It is an important subject in Sweden which needs to be correct, neutral and nuanced. Why do you not want to add at least the below changes.
"The fiscal cost of immigration is in unclear. If the fiscal balance of immigration is positive, then migrants become net contributors to public budgets, helping to alleviate the aging related fiscal burden. However, research show that this is unlikely to happen with refugees entering extensive European welfare states, at least in the short and medium term. Fiscal impact however depends on the characteristics of migrants, with young, in work, highly skilled migrants often representing considerable net gains to public finances. Fiscal impact also depends on the policy environment within host countries, including the extent to which labour markets absorb migrants, the informality of labour markets and migrants’ rights to work and receive welfare benefits." Policynerd3212 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The date is dd/mm/yy and not yy/mm/dd Jwiw8 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From a quick google search, Sweden follows the ISO 8601 standard date format which is yy-mm-dd. If you have a source that shows otherwise, link to it here Cannolis (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
% Muslim population
- "% muslim population needs to be seriously updated -- last source citation was from 2018; it needs to be reflected in the demographics section -- pie chart (often the only thing people look at) as it is well over 1.2% cited" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.148.34 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Article length?
I don't believe this article needs the TOOLONG tag. It's sizeable, but to be expected for a country that has been around for a couple thousand years. It's well sectioned off and not superfluous. Lindsey40186 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Nonetheless, certain sections (for example the "climate" or "economy" parts, among others) need trimming and paraphrasing/rewording. Some contain 9 to 11 paragraphs! Merangs (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022 (2)
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "GDP (PPP) Total" and "GDP (nominal) Total" numbers in the right hand side panel should have decimal dots in them, not commas. 176.10.136.227 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Sweden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Minor edit: update to modern terminology
In the section "Government and politics", subsection "Constitutional framework", there is a reference to Swedish regional self-administration. In the text the outdated terms "regional COUNTY council" and "landsting" are used. The Swedish County Councils (sv: landsting) were formally renamed "regions" (sv. regioner) a few years back. I suggest updating the text to follow new terminology as follows, or similar:
FROM:
local authorities:[e] the latter include regional County Councils (Swedish: landsting)
TO:
local authorities:[e] the latter include Regional Councils (Swedish: regioner)
The Wikipedia main article "Regions of Sweden" seems to have it all right, and also refers to official sources that are likely sufficient to support my claim.
Thanks for doing a good job, and best regards! LJLiman (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a editor here who strongly thinks that ethnicity in Sweden does not exist, or thinks that Swedish-background =/= Swedish. This is weird. Looking at other articles of Western Countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Iceland, Spain, Portugal), they have the ethnicity statistics and percentages based on immigrants/country of origin/background/nationality, as they do not keep statistics on ethnicity.
Country of origin/background country is linked with ethnicity. Even a report by the Swedish police which examines ethnicity in Sweden uses the countries of origin as data (see https://www.regeringen.se/49bb9b/contentassets/7d4b40eebdc34df5929113cf2b0879a5/del-2-katastrofbranden-i-goteborg-drabbade---medier---myndigheter). So, is that wrong? If so, then all those other articles should be changed to delete any mention of ethnicity as they are based on similar statistics that Sweden has that apparently are not suitable for the ”ethnicity section”. That would mean changing a dozen articles. If not change those, then why are the statistics not suitable for Sweden but are for other countries? Where is the consistency?
I don’t want a edit war so I’m not going to edit it for now. All I want is discussion. Just saying ”don’t edit it anymore” isn’t enough. Finlandestonia (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Finlandestonia I have not said ”don’t edit it anymore”, I asked you not to edit war, since you again made the edit after being reverted instead of following WP:BRD. I also do not appreciate you making assumptions about ”strongly thinking ethnicity in Sweden does not exist”, whatever that is even meant to mean, because of course ethnicity in Sweden exists. Making such assumptions is not a good way to start a discussion. The problem is that you are using references that do not make mention of ethnicity or ethnic groups to add claims about ethnic groups, when in reality the references solely take place of birth into account, so you are making that conclusion yourself that it would fit into ”ethnic groups”, as opposed to adding it to an appropriate section such as immigration, where I believe such content already exists but if you have updates by all means that is where it should go.
This argument of ”what about other countries” doesn't hold weight either, because if you actually look at a bigger sample of countries instead of cherrypicking ones that include such content (which I do not have a problem with as long as it is sourced properly) you will find that there are many countries which do not have it, Germany as one example, probably because it can be tricky to source like it is with this article. If it was decided on other articles to add such content with WP:SYNTH references, like for example from what I can see on Norway (another Nordic country like you mentioned), that doesn't mean that Sweden should follow the same poor example. I'd rather such serious content is properly sourced, so unless you find references actually talking about ethnicity, rather than defining that yourself, this is not appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Would changing it to describe nationality be better? Like in the France article? (Also the report was from the Swedish government not the police) Finlandestonia (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
There would be no issue with that if there's references for it. TylerBurden (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Well the official Statistcial Central Bureau has statistics on country of origin which I did in fact reference. Is that a good enough source to put under ”nationality”? Finlandestonia (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Well that would be back to a WP:SYNTH issue, people can have origin from a different country but still be a citizen. The reference on France is a good example, and if such exists for Sweden (reliably) then that is the type of reference that should be used. TylerBurden (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Finlandestonia To clarify from the long, long discussion below, while I disagree with your edit made using those sources, I do not think you were acting in bad faith by adding them. So I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article at all, but the issue is with WP:SYNTH edits. If you can actually find reliable references supporting the relevant section, or citizenship statistics, then do share. TylerBurden (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Also don’t agree that I cherrypicked the countries. While not all Western European countries have that statistic (like Germany), most do (the exception being Italy, UK and Ireland, the latter two having their own ethnicity statistics. All other Western European countries use the country of origin statistics as base for ethnicity (but I agree nationality sounds better fit) Finlandestonia (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add that we have previously had a discussion on this topic where TylerBurden insisted on not updating a 5 year old section and keeping a lot of incorrect information as well as deleting relevant updates. I think Finlandestonia and/or others should update the section as it desperately needs a new rewrite given the 1 + million immigrants which have come to Sweden over the last decade (with a population of just 10 million). Furthermore nationality of the immigrants/refugees is very relevant to an immigration section which is why most country pages has added these. Policynerd3212 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Policynerd3212 You mean the one where consensus was reached that you should focus on relevant articles such as Crime in Sweden instead of trying to fill half of this article with detailed criminal statistics? Yea I remember that. Either way, you don't quite seem to grasp what's going on here. The issue is that birth places are being added as ethnicities, which is blatant WP:SYNTH. TylerBurden (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The crime section was removed due to 2 people (you being one of them) insisting on suppressing this information on the main page. I still believe it should be included given how much lethal violence has increased in Sweden of the past years. Sweden is the only European country where fatal shootings have risen significantly since 2000, leaping from one of the lowest rates of gun violence on the continent to one of the highest in less than a decade. This is unique and relevant to information regarding Sweden. Sweden is now the most dangerous country in Europe, despite previously being the most peaceful: https://www.bild.de/news/ausland/news-ausland/schweden-ist-gefaehrlichstes-land-europas-78054592.bild.html
The immigration section is however separate from the crime section as these are not necessarily casually correlated. The science is not yet clear although data seems to find strong correlations. Policynerd3212 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to use such dramatic wording like ”suppressing”, this article is almost 300k bytes in size and it was appropriately recommended to you by 3 people, not 2, that the focus for such content would be on you know, the actual article for it, which is the one above. I have no interest in repeating the same thing again, you have been at this since around February of this year or so, and you are making the same edits and the same points which have all been addressed before. The subject here is the ”ethnic groups” infobox section, which you restored moments ago with references making no mention of ethnicities. There is now discussion as you can see if you could stop trying to derail it into your focus on Swedish crime on if perhaps nationality could be included instead if sources can be found for it. TylerBurden (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I choose my words very carefully. In my view, you are clearly suppressing independent and relevant information updates on the immigration section. Even though the information on this section is severely out-dated. It seems driven purely by political agenda to hide information on how significant these demographic changes are.
In any case I believe the section should be rewritten/updated by finlandia/or others. And nationality and ethnicity is clearly relevant. Policynerd3212 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You're essentially a single purpose account (WP:SPA), and anyone can see that on your edit history. Your sole focus on Wikipedia apart from a handful of edits to a YouTuber KSI and football related articles has been to add content about immigration and crime in Sweden, so I don't think that you of all people should be making assumptions about agendas, because I'm trying to make sure this article stays in somewhat decent shape after years of neglect as agendas were clearly being pushed on it and no one seemed to bat an eye. There is a large group of people interested in highlighting these topics for various reasons, but it needs to abide by Wikipedia policy which it hasn't down to blatant misuse of references. Crime in Sweden is linked from this article, how that is suppression by your logic is certainly beyond me, it has its own article, and you are talking about suppression. It seems more to me like you are simply interested in presenting it here for personal reasons.
I don't think any editors that misuse sources should edit this article let alone any other, because WP:VERIFY is one of the most basic and important policies of the site and this is a high profile article about a country of 10 million people, not your personal sandbox for crime statistics and how horrible and dangerous the country is. I'm happy to involve more editors if needed. TylerBurden (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
On top of it, you can keep repeating how relevant things are all you want, it doesn't matter if you can't back it up with references. TylerBurden (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You keep going on and on with ad hominems all over the place which are not relevant. I have added to lots of different pages both on English and Danish. So you are simply just wrong on me being a single purpose account.
But let's just keep to the subject shall we? The information on the immigration section is severely out-dated and you are systematically deleting all updates which is very curious. The section should be rewritten/updated. And nationality and ethnicity is clearly relevant. Policynerd3212 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
If you don't want your activities on the English Wikipedia pointed out, then don't cast around accusations yourself. I don't know what to say at this point for you to get it, the references do not support what is being added, so it's being removed per WP:VERIFY. TylerBurden (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not clear what exactly your argument is/the reason for your unwillingness to update this severely out-dated immigration section?
As FinlandEstonia points out this is the standard when compared to other wiki-pages. In other articles almost all western Countries have the ethnicity statistics and percentages based on immigrants/country of origin/background/nationality, as they do not keep statistics on ethnicity. Policynerd3212 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Weird how you're talking about some alleged unwillingess about updating something that isn't even on the article, what are you even talking about? The ethnic groups section is not on the article currently, so how can it be updated, espescially when you are unable to find references to do so? What you're saying isn't making sense. So your argument is that because other countries have poor standards for referencing, this article should also follow the poor standard? So when people check to verify the claimed ethnic groups, they are instead led to a site where they need to manually enter settings to generate information about birth places, not ethnic groups. That is apparently completely valid to you and Finlandestonia, and if that poor practice is used on some other country articles that is embarassing on their part. If you can't reference something, you don't include it, and you certainly don't try to be sly about it and include a reference that says something different from the claim you're making. If your best argument is WP:WHATABOUT, I don't think you're standing on very strong legs. TylerBurden (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
To come to TylerBurden's defence, The section on immigration/origin in 'Demography' of this article is irrelevant to this conversation as neither you (correction you changed the opening line to it) nor Finlandestonia actually added or changed anything to it. While the infobox country template is lacking for a specific stand-in option on 'Background origin' of the population for when ethnic data is not available, this does not mean we should follow the lazy examples of the other countries such as the Finland article where we just imput origin data for ethnic data, as it is important to clarify that these things are not the same at all.
On topic anyway, You can update it if you want by following this link to Statistics Sweden's page on (some of said data is also on Demographics of Sweden) population composition which includes figures on immigration, CoB and origin figures. You can also find other such demographic figures on there as well if you would like to give it a go and add stuff. Tweedle (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
“lots of lakes”
In the first sentence this “lots of lakes” bit has such an imprecise and casual tone, can it be changed to “an abundance of lakes” or something of the sort at the very least? 2601:283:4400:5A:E500:C180:DF42:3D3C (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! Samwb123Please read 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see that phrase, or that section, anywhere on the article. Perhaps you're looking at a different article? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The article is showing the Largest metropolitan areas not just the largest cities which is why there is a difference in the lists, I believe at least. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Tycho Brahe was most definitely Danish not Swedish, and died long before Scania was ceded to Sweden. So he should not be listed as a Swedish scientist... Thomas.W talk 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done There are large agricultural areas in Halland, Blekinge, Västergötland, Östergötland and Uppland too, which, from a geographical standpoint, are also part of "Southern Sweden". Thomas.W talk 10:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.. You've stated a change, but then you said "find a better solution", implying that that change was only an example of what could be done, and not what you want to do. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed re: "resent" - the source had been falsified there. Also, someone should counter all that pro-religious bias by finding a good source that explains how Swedes remain "in the curch" only because the Church of Sweden still conrtrols almost every cemetery in the country and burial becomes complicated and much more expensive if you leave the church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Not done. No edit specified: you must specify what changes you want made, and provide verifiable reliable sources supporting your proposed edit. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: 2016 data added. Your last point seems to suggest WP:SYNTH. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This is in reference to the § Etymology section, which was copied here in whole. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
_en2.png)
