Jump to content

Talk:Sweden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Sweden at the Olympics - Adding Olympic Medals of the EU?

Could this be of interest to members of this forum? I created a table for all the Olympic medal count winners including Sweden. It also includes a total medal count for the entire European Union (among many other things). The original article is here: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this article for deletion. If you want to comment on whether it really should be deleted, go to this article's entry. Thanks! Medalstats 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Old talk

user:Anders Törlind wrote in an edit summary: Not a colony, so no independence.

Would Sweden's leaving the Kalmar Union not be an appropriate thing to put in that box? --Brion VIBBER

user:Henrik Clausen While the Danish kings were trying to extend their rule to unite the three Scandinavian countries, they never succeeded, and the various governmental institutions (Rigsråd etc.) remained separate during the Kalmar union. Thus Sweden was still a separate nation that happened to have the same monarch as Denmark and Norway. Eventually several of the Danish monarchs messed up so much they were rejected and an independent Swedish king came to power.

Anders, thanks for helping to edit this page. A few notes on your edits:

  • the English name for the Swedish currency (and the Norwegian and Danish) is krone, not krona
  • Sweden may never have been a colony, but the history tells that Sweden separated from Denmark in 1523 under Vasa. Wouldn't that be the independence date?

regards, Jeronimo

Aha! Well, I was certainly now aware that it was krone...Thought I'd read otherwise somewhere, but I will take your word for it :-)
Hmmm, atlapedia lists it as Krona. Have a look: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/sweden.htm --Ato
Regarding independence, this is an interesting point. Also, I don't know the bitish/american standpoint on this, but in the Swedish educational system, it is counted as liberation from foregin occupation more than independence...Splitting hairs maby...

cheers, Ato

RE Swedish currency: I would check the website of the Swedish National bank and see if it has an English translation, then use the name for the currency that is mentioned there - they print it and managed it so they should know what it's called... WojPob
Well, checking out the English version of http://www.riksbanken.se/ yields "Swedish krona", so I guess that's what it'll be then :-) --Ato
You appear to be right - a google search gives the same outcome. I should throw my dictionary out of the window... Well, I liked the Swedish name better anyway :-) Jeronimo
You could also see the old Encyclopedia Britannica: http://1911encyclopedia.org/S/SW/SWEDEN.htm --Ruhrjung

Something to satisfy you statistics freaks out there, from the Swedish central bureau of statistics: http://www.scb.se/allmanmanadsstatistik/tabellereng.asp --Ato

The english version of the website of the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics is;http://www.scb.se/default____2154.asp. --User:84.217.8.122

Yeah, but that url doesn't look very impervious. :-)
http://www.scb.se/ is better. There one can most definitely expect a link to the English language section.
/Tuomas 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is still lacking a decent government and culture section. Shall I move it to main or wait for a good editor to arrive? Jeronimo

It looks good to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with one or two empty headings but anything more than that really starts to look unprofessional and unfinished. --mav

I'd say go for transferring it as well. Culture is something that should ideally be added by a Swede anyway. -Scipius
Second that, transfer away! --Ato

"In the 13th century, the three countries of Norway, Denmark and Sweden were united under a single king, who founded Sweden." It is unclear what this refers to, and it is difficult to reconcile it with the List of Swedish monarchs for that century.
S.

This is something I never heard of, I doubt that it ever happened. Does anyone know? -XeoX

Official language

On official language. Even though Swedish may not hold status as official language it is far more than just most common. Laws are given, and official documents are published, only in Swedish. It is the language of the dominant culture and few countries may have been so exclusively comitted to a single language culture, as Sweden (after 1809). The terminology de facto standard language may be replaced by a better one, albeit accurate. -Mic

On Swedish (language) I'm about to write: Swedish is the national (but not official) language of Sweden, mother tongue for the Sweden-born inhabitants (7,881,000) and aquired by nearly all immigrants (1,028,000) (figures according to official statistics for end of 2001).

The prior statement there (Swedish being spoken by nearly all inhabitants of Sweden) wasn't really to my liking. At the same time, I propose the term "national language", but please change it back if it looks awkward.

On official language (continued) I was taught (in my Swedish class) that Swedish was declared the sole language of the government in the late 17th century. I'm puzzled by not being able to find any references to this. (I mean: I don't find it in the Real World, on the library.) -- Ruhrjung 11:02 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think the term national language works. It is potentially confusing but to some extent it is an improvement over previous terminology in making it less officious. There is currently a government bill proposing to give Swedish status of official language. The bill is meant to be analogous with introduction of the minority languages, but the general sentiment is that the it will fail to become law due to lack of support in parliament. -- Mic 11:51 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Hmm I have wondered hwt shall we do about the coat of arms, as the "lesser arms" were shown but now have been replace by the "greater arms", the are both coat of arms but what one should be shown? or should they btoh be some how fited in? -fonzy

As you know there are two official "Riksvapen", or coats of arms of the realm. The larger one represents the Monarchy and Sweden as a state. The lesser arms is a part of the larger and primarily used to represent the authority of the elected government within Sweden. There is Coats of Arms article in the works as well as more on official heraldry in Sweden. -- Mic 12:07 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I remove the following paragraph from the page:

Sweden is one of the world's most secularised societies, and the church has so many members only because, until recently, Swedes automatically became members of the State Church at birth.

Seems rather POV to me, and maybe hard data of attendance to mass, daily prayer, communion, or feeling of closeness to God would be better? -- Ruhrjung 11:31 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Swedes do become members of the church at birth, though - it takes some considerable legal effort to revoke one's membership, too - David Stewart 12:03 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Apparently that was before 1995. If one of a childs parents was a member then the child would automatically become a member too. And leaving the church just requires filling out a form.. at least according to [1]. Here are some statistics on how many people have joined/left the church in the last years [2]. -- Jniemenmaa 13:59 May 16, 2003 (UTC)
The Church of Sweden was the official registrar of Swedish citizenship and domicile until 1990, when these tasks were transferred to the tax authorities. The separation of church and state was effectuated on January 1, 2000. It has been possible to transfer membership to another church since 1850s and leaving the church altogether since 1950s. Leaving the church requires a filling out a form, which has to be completed and returned by November 1 if the member wishes to leave the following year. Many chose to leave the church over membership fees, amounting to roughly 1% of the income, and still beeing collected by the tax authorities. -- Mic 16:36 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Being a Scanian, I might agree that Scania is one of the worlds most secularized countries :-))), but you don't have to go further than to Småland (i.e. to Sweden) to find lots of churches of different denominations in also the smallest villages. Well, seriously, I think the removed sentence was rather unneccessary. In an American Criminal Court drama, the Defence would have shouted "Objection, speculations" or something similar. -- Johan Magnus 01:21 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Users have been latinizing all manner of place names in Swedish location names on the English pages. This has to stop. I swear, this is an over the top offensive slight to the pages and to Scandinavians. When a page is written in English, that does not mean pseudo-latin. I, for one, am severely disgusted. Somebody with some enforceable authority change and protect those pages, please. Latino-maniac arrogance has no place in non-latin location names.
68.0.150.158

Well, if you couldn't find a more important fight to pick, start editing and be bold in updating pages. With regards to pre-20th century concepts, you ought to consider that also for English speakers Latin was the lingua franca.--Ruhrjung 17:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swedish provinces -- Mic 15:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I asked this on Image talk:Sw-map.png, but (not surprisingly) it appears that no one reads that: Why does the map of Sweden show a bridge? —Bkell 08:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably since someone thinks the Øresund bridge is very important - and maybe it is.
--Ruhrjung 10:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(I modified title, you can undo if necessary) --Ciro07 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Languages (Was: Official language (2))

I think we should write the six official language that are stated in the laws. Swedish is not the national language either, only a country language. Compare CIA fact book over Sweden, which lists some of them, although not all of them. Why does it hurt to list them all? It's a good info! // Rogper 04:43, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

As it is stated in the article and as is discussed elsewhere on this talk page Sweden does not have an official language. Further information is also available at Swedish language. The minority languages, which recently received official standing as such, does not constitute official languages of Sweden. They are, as the term might preclude, minority languages, not official languages. -- Mic 08:05, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
The six languages have been domestic before the formation of Sweden 1550 (or similar date..) and the Sami group have an own "constitution" since end of 1980s. Instead of Official languages one would rather use "Domestic Languages" or simply Languages. I think one of the meaning of the fact box is to show what languages that have been spoken in the region during the kingdom's lifetime since mid-16ths. Swedish have taken word from these languages, e.g. tjej, pojk, härk, jo, Kiruna, etc. are non-Swedish and not to mention the usage of ä instead of æ.
I think it is good information to write these six languages in the fact box, and this is my wish. :-) // Rogper 19:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The content of the factbox follows the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. The reason why there is a template is to make it easier for the reader, and not to have separate definitions and layouts for each country. -- Mic 06:24, May 29, 2004 (UTC)
There is the point where I wanted to come. Other countries with no official languages, not many official languages, list their domestic ones. Therefore I think the article about Sweden should do so too. // Rogper 20:23, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
(cf. Australia, Eritrea, Luxembourg, Tuvalu) // Rogper 20:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, it is somewhat unclear what you are getting at. It would seem that you are implying that existance of erroneous information elsewhere ought to be an argument to enter incorrect information here. Such an argument is needless to say moot. Secondly, for me it is hard to see the point of pursuing an issue like this. It would seem more productive for someone concerned with the language questions for Sweden in general, or the position of the minority languages, to set about creating articles on these subjects instead of inappropriately fitting information where it would not belong. -- Mic 09:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, wheter right or wrong one can in that case really wonder wheter there should be any language in the fact box at all. We simply write
"Languages (no official lanugage): Swedish.
note: small Sami, Finnish, Tornevalleyfinn and Romany-speaking minorities." (cf. [3])
I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries should note this since the already existing ones treats "officially language" as the major language spoken. Don't you like to hear that there are other languages also (I'm native, too) or is it simply because you are unaware? 25% of Swedish territory don't speak Swedish daily and they haven't since stone age (when there was no inhabitans)! :-) Regards, Rogper 23:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Official language is a good criterion and it serves its purpose well. What can be considered in the case we're discussing is whether, or how, to improve on the present information given. I would see no problem in supplying more information in an additional footnote. The information given there ought to be brief and to the point. I can see a breakdown in three instances which may considered in such a case (1) the Finnish and Sami speaking communities, (2) the recognized minority languages and (3) minority languages in general.

The reasoning on which of the cases to choose is may not be as simple however. It should be understood that the use of languages will always transcend the bounds of official or majority languages, and any country may at any given time contain sizeable minority groups each with their own languages. Merely looking at the demographics of Sweden, and just to make an example, one could inquire whether or not Balkan and Middle Eastern languages are receiving enough attention. An appropriate footnote link in this case might be to the demographics article.

Minority languages in general enjoy protection in Swedish law, but five languages have been listed and enjoy a comparatively higher degree of protection, earning them the position of recognized minority languages. It would be more essential to explain the concept rather than listing its components and the footnote should link to a new article describing the position of the recognized minority languages in Sweden.

Finnish and Sami belongs to the group of recognized minority languages, but they also have a certain status in a number of municipalities in Norrbotten, where they may be used in dealing with authorities, schools and healthcare. This is a somewhat stronger position than the other minority and recognized minority languages and here it may be proper to refer to them as the Finnish and the Sami speaking communities.

So, what ought to be singled out? The Finnish and Sami languages that enjoy a special position? The middle group of recognized minority languages? Or, finally the entire group of minority languages? Despite the clear-cut definition and sanction existing in the second case, I would say that either the first or the third cases seemingly provides more relevant information.

On a more personal note; am I to understand by your comment and your recent focus on Sami topics that you yourself belong to this lineage? If this is the case, I think it is very positive to have someone with direct knowledge of the Sami culture contributing articles, and when I'm able I'll be glad to assist in this field. Have you given any thought of starting a WikiProject Sami? -- Mic 12:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I guess groups descenting with foreign languages are larger than the groups with minority languages (although I don't know if they use it daily.) I think these six languages are brief enough and suited in the fact box. Information in the fact box makes the reader more intrested -- I didn't know what mäkiäli was although I've mäkiäli friends (I never learn how to spell it ... it has a completely different name in Swedish !) :-)
The crown statement (=konungatiteln) was from the beginning (with Gustav Vasa) an abbrevation over the peoples and not the territory. This have laterwards only included Göter, Svear and Vender, but from the beginning also Samis, Finns, Estonians and Livonians was included. The latter ones fall of because territories was lost and perhaps some miss-honor to be associated with Sami, Finns, Estonians, Livonians. But the old sources views Sweden as rather a "Nordic union" (cf. European union) than "United kingdom" in the beginning.
I originally had ideas to start with project about Native Americans (cv. Etymological list of U.S. states) but turned later to Sami. But I have thoughs of WikiProjects (I'm not native Sami.) Regards, Rogper 20:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

National motto

För Sverige i tiden - but that is the motto of our current king. Does that make it a national motto? Habj 19:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It certainly does not. The cowardly way out would be to change 'national' into 'royal'. The straightforward way out would be to remove it altogether. Sweden has no national motto. -- Jao 09:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good observation. I won't subscribe to the idea of whether one action or the other may have a particular moral value, but there certainly is a distinction. The motto adopted by Carl XVI Gustaf is his personal motto in the role as Swedish monarch, and even though Sweden is a monarchy this does not make it a national motto. In fact in can be argued whether it is a royal motto (in the same way as in the United Kingdom, ie a motto for the monarchy), or merely the personal motto of a reigning monarch. I can see two possible solutions where it is either displayed like in the United Kingdom article, or making it into a footnote. -- Mic 14:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the motto given is not a motto of Sweden. I am not aware of a motto of Sweden. I would have changed it myself, but couldn't understand the format. The article on Norway gives the corresponding information correctly. Please change this someone.
I did so, although the result is rather lengthy footnotes, that maybe can be improved by someone else. Johan Magnus 20:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whichever you decide on, would somebody please change the currently incorrect motto ("For Sweden; in time") to the correct translation "For Sweden - With the times" (source eg. royalcourt.se). I don't get how to fix the box. Of course, feel free to remove this entry when that has been corrected.

Holidays

Under Holidays, it is said that: "The Swedish holiday calendar consists mainly of Christian holidays. Many of these are however a continuation of pre-christian customs, such as Midsummer and Walpurgis Night." This gives the impression that Midsummer and Walpurgis Night are, in fact, today considered a Christian holiday. To the best of my knowledge, it is not. Does anyone have an explanation of the reasons behind the chosen wording? Alarm 13:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, both are or were, according to my understanding. ...although I don't have energy right now to go and check it up, I am told that "Midommardagen" and "Valborgsmäss" (-mäss meaning the sacral mass) were taken up by the Nordic churches as holidays. In Danish, this is more obvious, where Midsummer is celebrated to S:t Hans.
--Ruhrjung 15:30, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

In the case of Walpurgis this is true, but no-one can say that the traditional midsummer has anything to do with the church, other than that is used to coincide with the birthday of John the baptist. BrorMartin March 2006

The Swedish Economy

Hi! I'm doing a project on Sweden,and i need to know about the economy. I was searching for some info, and i noticed that there isn't anything about the economy. Could someone find the Gross Domestic Product of Sweden in 2000? I seem to have trouble! Thanks. user:Proud Canadian

You can probably find something here Swedish economy Talous 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the last paragraph in the Economy section, there are some conflicting ideas. At first it says that Sweden has a very low level of economic disparity. However, in the last sentence it goes on to say "Two remnants of the event are the great economic segregation . . . ". I can only understand "great economic segregation" as economic/income disparity, no? If I am not understanding this correctly please let me know and clean up the language in the article. Thank you! user:JeffreyN 2006 Dec 15

Independence of Sweden

I believe that the independence of Sweden usually is counted since Sweden left the Kalmar Union (or when Gustav Vasa formally became King). The CIA fact book share the veiw[4] and I think that I remember seeing it elsewhere. I'm not sure if the council has to be abolished for a country to lose it's independence. I personally have no real prefernce if the Kalmar union should count as indpendence or not. I just want to make sure that we have the correct facts (if there is anything right or wrong in this case) - Jeltz talk 11:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be correct instead of repeating common misunderstandings. Also the US government and its agencies do sometimes misunderstand things. So is the case here. A state can't get independent unless it's been dependent. It's IMHO rather safe to rely on the opinion of the locals in a case like this.
--Ruhrjung 15:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I am one of the locals. :) I agree with you about that we should not repeat common missunderstandings and that the world factbook isn't the most reliable source. In this case I have no idea of what is correct. Jeltz talk 17:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You see the discussion higher up on this page?
--Ruhrjung 23:10, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
And yet, interestingly, we still rip the entire economy section straight from the CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ ... someone should change this, as its blatant plagarism, right? --Freshraisin 03:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes - however, that's been one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, to fill up with public domain material until someone cares to write something better. Go ahead!
--Johan Magnus 06:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To add my view on the independance "thing" (I to am a local :). I don't count the leaving of the Kalmar Union as an independance day. Strikly speaking, Sweden was in the union by free will and had existed as an independant state since at least the middle of the 13th century. The wars at the beginning of the 16th century was about leaving the union yes but it wasn't a war like the US indenpendance war. Just because a state is in a union doesn't mean it ceases to exist as an indenpendant state.
I second that view. The Kalmar Union was a weak one. By comparison, the EU is stronger, and I don't think anyone is prepared just yet to say that the EU nations are not independent. Sweden was always a seperate entity, politically and culturally. The only danish king with real ambitions to control Sweden was Christian II, who was replaced by Gustav Vasa for that very reason. An unfullfilled ambition cannot count. Also, if this was the independence of Sweden, then the series of strifes during the history of the Kalmar Union was a very odd "War of Independence", since the struggle (such as the Battle of Brunkeberg) was mainly fought between pro-union and anti-union Swedish factions, not between Swedes and Danes, although Vasa and later rulers would happily try to portray it otherwise. Vasa was by all accounts a very good propagandist, who worked hard to create an image of himself as a great liberator and father of the nation. Obviously, the effects of this are still being seen. :)

Pronunciation

IPA for Sverige would be nice.

X-SAMPA svErjE I think

I'm not an expert on the IPA system and what-not, but being a native swedish-speaker I can assure you that at least svErjE is not correct. The basics of it is correct, meaning the "s", "v", "r" and "j", but the first and the second Es aren't the same sound. The first E is pronounced like we Swedish-speakers pronounce the letter "Ä", the nearest english example I can come up with on short notice is the "a" in the english word "land". The second E is somewhat like the first "e" in the english word "letter". The stress is on the first E. This is, of course, totally unscientific, but should at least give you some pointers. Nappilainen 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in X-SAMPA, Sverige [sv\{4'j@] is fairly correct. (In IPA, [sʋæɾʲjə].)
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
It's [svæɾjɛ] or [svæɾjə]. I don't know of any forms of Standard Swedish that have [ʋ], e.i. labiodental approximants. The incidental palatalization of the /r/ and the devoicing of the /v/ (following the voiceless fricative [s]) is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about geography.
I've reinstated my original recording of the official name of Sweden until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation why the dialect of someone from Härjedalen (Jens) or Norrland (Herr apa) should be considered more neutral than someone from Stockholm. I don't mind people replacing my own recordings, but not with the motivation that a Stockholm dialect is per se non-neutral.
Peter Isotalo 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Swedish definitely has [ʋ] ratrher than [v]. Please, don't tell lies to ignorant people. I agree though that the palatal r, [ɾʲ], is not necessary to write out (though it would - again - be a lie to say it's not there in reality).
The problem with the way you speak is that it sounds like broken Swedish (I can hear some elements from Russian, though this seems irrational unless you lived there when you were a kid (!)). In any case, why would my dialect be considered less usable in the context than your? Sweden is far too Stockholmified, and since you even have a broken Swedish, I feel the necessity to put up my own recording, which I will do now. (With the user name Hunef.)
Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

French map

I know the phobia of "other" language, but the French map is clearly superior in that it shows lakes and rivers.

--Fred-Chess 08:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. The French map is a better map and so much superior that it should replace the English map untill a better one is found. I think that the World Factbook maps are of quite low quality. Jeltz talk 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made some improvements of the map and uploaded it. --Fred-Chess 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to cut down text

I would like your opinion on this. To give people a better overview, I would like to cut down on the text so that every section is 4-5 paragraphs long. The rest of the section would be merged with the "main" article.

Are there objections to this? If so, please give your own opinions.

--Fred-Chess 22:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've made som changes.
Concerning the massive history of the intro, I wrote it to go along with the anthem "du lever på minnet av fornstora dar".
--Fred-Chess 12:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To do includes cutting down the Culture and the Sport section to 4-5 paragraphs. The material will be moves to other articles. Please voice any objections. --Fred-Chess 14:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

edit conflict...

i was just about to edit the pre-history, but I will wait a while and paste it here for the time being.

Pre-history

Sweden was inhabited by hunters and gatherers during the Stone Age (6000 BC – 4000 BC), following the recession of the last ice age – the Weichsel glaciation. The region developed rather slowly compared to southern Europe; while the Romans wrote poetry, Scandinavia had just entered the Iron Age.

Sweden was first mentioned in the 1st century, by Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that the Suiones lived out in the sea and were powerful in both arms and ships. After that, the sources are scarce.

Sweden as a name originated in a so-called "back-formation" from the plural form Swedes (Old English Sweoðeod, Swedish Svear), the land of the Suiones. This referred to the inhabitants of eastern Sweden only, in Östergötland, primarily around lake Mälaren; towns of Stockholm, Sigtuna and Birka. The western parts were on the other hand inhabitet by Götar in Västergötland.

During the Scandinavian Viking culture of the 9th and 10th century, the Svears primarily went east, to Balticum, Russia and the Black Sea, and by lakes of Russia down to southern Europe. The Kievan Rus', from which Russia takes its name, traces its heritage to the Sveas.

With the Christianization in the 12th century, the country was consolidated, with its center at the water-ways of the northern Baltic and the Gulf of Finland. Like the rest of Europe it was in the 14th century struck by the Black Death (the Plague), with all the effect. But Sweden's expansion into the northern wilderness of Laplandia, the Scandinavian peninsula, and present-day Finland continued; the country today known as Finland was a part of Sweden from 1362 until 1809.

--Fred-Chess 10:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A minor detail about Boule

I see that the link to the game called boule is showing a totally different article and it's not about the game boule, could anyone who knows the rules of boule make a disambiguation page about boule (or is this game known under another name in English?)

I added a note at the page of boule, and corrected the link here to point to the correct name boules. --Fred-Chess 19:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the boules page I wonder if it shouldn't be changed to Pétanque instead. This rings a bell for me. It seems like the English term for the specific game known as "Boule" in Sweden, whereas "Boules" seems to be a collective term for several games played with metal balls. / Alarm
As the game is known as Boule is Sweden, "boules" seems like an appropriate term. I also can not state with certainty that the game played in Sweden is the specific variant petaneque and not the other mentioned variants bocce or bowls, it may also be a unique variant, or the rules may differ as with brännboll and krocket. -- You can of course add petanuque in paranthesis afterwards if you think this is highly vital. --Fred-Chess 21:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Swedish Language

How easy is it for an american like me with dyslexia (see my profile) to understand basic swedish? --Admiral Roo 17:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of factors. If you know German, you should be able to understand most (the same goes for a German knowing English). However, the average English-speaker lacking linguistic training would understand very little.--Wiglaf 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Its not that hard if you put your mind to it. Try reading some articles on Swedish Wikipedia. :-)
Fred-Chess 19:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Swedish inventors

As you can see, only a portion of these inventors have their own articles. I suggest that anyone proficiently familiar with the subject(s) would do Wikipedia a service if he/she would take the time to write a cuple of articles.

Maybe the article Sweden should also have a segment that deals exclusively with Science in Sweden. Well-known inventions/inventors and discoveries/discoverers etc. What/why/when/how regarding the contributions to the international scientific community. Tsaddik Dervish 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Socialist or capitalism?

Welfare state is all nice and good, but does it make Sweden a capitalist economy or socialist economy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as there is no production control imposed or widespread looting of private property being committed by the state, such as nationalization, I would probaby hold a country as capitalistic. In this sense and in most others, Sweden is a capitalist state. It's not a country with an entirely free market, but what country is? Still it's worth to note that Swedish state IS controlling some sectors of the economy more than most countries do. /Gustav 01:25 2 November 2005

Traditionally (within the time-frame of modern times) Sweden has described itself itself as a "mixed" economy. Neither capitalist nor socialist. Of course the problem here, as Gustav points out, is that there is black and white here. All "capitalist" countries have regulation of their industries to some extent, and all "communist" or "socialist" countries allow private enterprise to some extent (even North Korea). Sweden has followed a general trend in Social Democracy towards privatization during the last part of the 20th century, but still retains a relatively large public sector by western standards. --BluePlatypus 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"Today, the country is defined by socialist tendencies and a strong national quest for equality". What are "socialist tendencies"? Since Sweden is mostly capitalistic, I don't see why the article should talk about "socialist tendencies", if Sweden has those dendencies then so do most european countries. 81.216.236.207 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to read "liberal tendencies" as you can see here, but some people keep vandalizing... :-(
Fred-Chess 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've criticized the "socialist tendencies" as well. As for capialist or not, as an economist, I prefer "market economy". "Capitalist" is more of a Marxist term. As for how much of a market economy Sweden is, I guess the Economic freedom index and other such indices are good indicators. Generally, Sweden is perceived to be a relatively well functioning market economy, although it does receive regular criticism from the likes of the OECD about the functioning of its labor market.KarlXII 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweden with annexed territories

The image Image:Sweden 1658.png and the assosiated text "Current day Sweden (red) with annexed territories (orange) in 1658." views the Swedish Empire from our temporal Point-of-View.

It maybe Ok to include the present borders of Sweden in the picture. This could be done by overlaying the outlines on the 1658 map. It is however factually incorrect to represent Scania as a part of Sweden proper and Österland (Finland) as "annexed territory". The exact opposite is true. -- Petri Krohn 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote text. The picture still needs to be redrawn. -- Petri Krohn 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Swedish sterilization

Removed this from article:

However, the Social Democratic Party presided over a massive campaign of forced sterilisation which belies the "well being for all" policy. Working class women, gypsys, mixed race women and those with disabilities were targetted in a co-ordinated sterilisation campaign which ranks second only to the Nazis in Germany. This aspect of Swedish policy is often conveniently fogotten. The last legal sterilisation took place in 1975.

Interesting and containing some truth, but not suitable just here, I think? // Fred-Chess 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also important: Though Socialdemocrats wanted this, so did all other parties (except the communists). It wasn't a form of welfare as much as something of the time, also done in many other countries. So.. what does it really say?

I don't get it. Is this true or not? Is this an exaggeration of some sort? If it is true, then why doesn't it belong to the main article? Being "bad" for Sweden is not an appropriate answer, I think; I deem Sweden as the beautiful country that it seems to be does not fear its history. I think that someone should comment on the truthfullness of this statement, change it accordingly and reinstate it in the main article. --Theoharis 09:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been TV-programs about this so it did occur at least to some degree. As far as I've understood it was only people with disabilities who were targeted though (don't remember hearing about "Working class women, gypsys, mixed race women" being targeted) because they wanted to stop the spreading of disabilities that could be inherited. (As the text says it was a "well being for all" policy.) Of course, they didn't know as much about these disabilities back then so many people were sterilized even though their condition could not be inherited by their children. /Jiiimbooh 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that only disabled people should have been sterilized is not true at all, it sounds more like propaganda by the Party, relayed by Pravda. ;-) Anyway, gypsies, working class women, women deemed to simply be to "stupid" to breed, disabled people, and so on, were all victims of these ideas. There are more info about this on the swedish wikipedia. It's in Swedish, but for the unfortunates who don't speak our language, there are some mentions of Sweden in the Eugenics article. As far as I know, Sweden ended up in a (fairly unflattering) second place in the eugenics/forced sterilization count. Nazi Germany as no 1, Sweden as no 2. Anyway, this should without doubt be mentioned in this article. It might even be worth an article of it's own. /Magore 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your right. According to the Swedish article it wasn't only disabled people being sterilized. I wouldn't blame this mistake on propaganda though, it was probably just me not remembering all the details. I'm not surprised that sterilization because of race was allowed in the 1930s when many people in Sweden sympatised with the nazis, but I think that sterilization because of race must have ended earlier than 1975, which the article doesn't reflect. I would be very surprised if racism of this sort was allowed in Sweden all the way till 1975.
Article about forced sterilization on the Swedish Wikipedia /Jiiimbooh 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it ended in 65 but I can't say anything about the "2nd" place because it depends if they mean per capita or over all. I think there was some cases where they sterilised women who where married to alcoholic husbands, to prevent them from getting kids. This is a dark page in Swedish history and should be exposed together with the ties to the naziideology(To my knoweledge, Sweden(Uppsala) was in the forfront of racesstudies during the 1900-1930is and influensed many german thinkers(Or something like that, I saw something about this on TV a couple of years ago.). )(I think the forum on skalman.net(if it is still up might be a good place for information on this subject.))(Sorry for the extremly bad english).

Demographics

I noticed that a FT article from 7/15/05 has significantly different demographics, specifically, it had the number of Muslim immigrants in Sweden at 350,000. Given the considerable difference, does anybody have a better way of getting this number? Malik

Depends on what you mean by "muslim". That number is probably the total of immigrants and native-with-both-parents-as-immigrants that originate in predominantly muslim countries. The most "optimistic" calculation along these lines is 400,000. The total membership of muslim congregations is about 80,000 so 100,000 is a reasonable number for the number of practicing muslims, and 350,000 may be a reasonable estimate of the number of people with an islamic cultural background. --BluePlatypus 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Parallels with Cuba

Sorry to have to make this point, so heavy handedly, but there are some endlessly commenting on Cuba who believe that Cuba is a socialist country just like Sweden. See some discussion below and more at [5]

e.g. ::The socialist/communist discussion is neverending and I don't see a way out either (by the way, I'm in favour of 'socialist' for roughly your reasons and because Cuba calls itself socialist - it's their country, so who are we to disagree). The use of the word 'state' is something like the word 'regime'. They both have perfectly neutral meanings, but most to most people they have a flavour and are therefore perceived as pov. So that's tricky. Should we be correct or follow common usage (such as in the media)? Or simply avoid the issue by not using the words? Ultimately, the best solution seems to be consistent. So if we call this a state, we should also use that term for democracies, as you point out. So I'm with you on this account too, but it remains a messy issue. DirkvdM 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk to call the Cuban government "socialist" without a modifier does a injustice to democratic socialist states such as Sweden. El Jigüey 12-3-05

El J - why then is it necessary for you to add the modifier to Sweden's designation? "Socialist" is not such a narrowly defined term as you want it to be. The debate as to what variety of socialism Cuba practises belongs her in the talk pages, not in the main article. MichaelW 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Oh! So sorry! So terribly wrong of me!!!! I should have realized that the "socialism" that Castro practices is equivalent to that of Sweden. Of course now I know, for you have informed me so, that in the one party state of Sweden, the dictator, Göran Persson who has held power for almost fifty years has people arrested for "disrespect" and for "dangerousness," and makes sure that all gather to do "voluntary" labor or to hear him speak for hours. Please accept my most abject apologies. El Jigüey 12-4-05

I'll answer to your original question, DirkvdM. Sweden's government is usually described as social democratic. Cuba is not a democracy. / Fred-Chess 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred I know that and this is precisely my point. But some dunderheads keep insisting that Castro's Cuba is a socialist rather than communist state. Sorry to have have troubled you and your tranquil country, wish Cuba were the same. El Jigüe 12/5/05

Here's one more article for you to ignore: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- Curps 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Electricity statistics

I updated and corrected the energy/electricity statistics and removed the old source. The old values mixed electricity production (from renewables) and total energy usage (from coal, peat etc.) in a very unlogical way. The new values are from Statistics Sweden[6] and deals only with electricity production. 130.240.200.146 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedish Culture

Hello, I've added the section "Swedish Nobel Prize Winners" --Cr34t0r 11:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

- Could someone delete Cornelis Vreeswijk from the Music-part? He never was a swedish citizen even if he released a great number of songs in Swedish./Martin

I fail to see why citizenship should matter. He was a resident of Sweden for almost all his life, and had a tremendous influence on Swedish culture. Of course, the fact that he remained a Dutch citizen could be mentioned, but it doesn't warrant his exclusion from the section. -- Jao 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference numbers are not correct

The reference numbers in the text go up to 7, while there are only 4 numbers listed below. Could someone fix this? (I don't know how to do that myself). Thanks, Bas

Vandalism

Hi,

I don't get involved here very often but I thought I should bring this to attention... I don't know how often this sort of thing happens or what the policy is towards correction, but the first sentence of the article reads as follows:

"The Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige (help·info)Stockholm accent) is retarded."

Thanks, Sören - 26 feb 2006

Sweden during WWII

I have added some information about Sweden's collaboration with the Allied forces during WWII that is necessary to include because it creates a balanced picture of Sweden's role during the war. Sweden breeched neutrality in favor of both sides, but for the Nazis it was forced upon them, while for the Allies it was voluntary. The cooperation with the Allies was actually a more serious breech of neutrality, but it is unfortunately often forgotten, probably because the cooperation with the Nazis is seen as more sensational. I haven't yet found an English source about this online, but maybe someone else can? The swedish source is: http://www.smb.nu/pos/02/06a_beredskapsserien.asp

Sweden had little choice. Sweden also gave shelter to many jews from other countries. (Blacksun 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

The article currently says that Sweden's "neutrality during World War II has been disputed because it was under German influence for most of the war". Yes, there was strong German pressure on Sweden and the Swedish government did bend its neturality to accomodate Germans wishes, but I it is a bit harsh to say that it was under German influence for most of the war. Yes, it had to adjust to / accomodate German wishes during part of the war, though once Germany looked less sure to win (by 1943 or so) this 'cooperation' was ended.

Could we change this sentence? ~~

I would say that Sweden "went with the wind". 1944 when the allied was winning, we started collaborating with the allies, thus beaking the neutrality. 1940-1943 was mostly nazi-german centered, then changed to england and to USA.

Prime Minister/Minister of state

I do not fully agree with calling our 'Statsminister' 'Prime Minister': 1. Prime Minister gets translated to Permiärminister in Swedish. (fe. prime minister Tony Blair -> Premiärminister Tony Blair) Whereas Minister of State would be directly translated to 'Statsminister'. 2. If you asked a swede who the prime minister of sweden is he would probably be confused and not understand you if you asked who was the minister of State most people would quickly say Göran Persson. 3. Comparable to the Tsar (sp?) of Russia, we would never the monarch of Russia for king of Russia (Same goes with severall other countrys too, Emperor of China, Ceasar of Rome etc. etc.) Anyway I as a Swede would like it to be changed to Minister of State, with an explanation of it being equivalent to Prime Minister. 83.226.228.40 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Lyml

The Swedish Goverment Offices[7] use the name Prime Minister themselves, and I think that Göran Person usually (or always) is called Prime Minister in English media. While I don't think that it would be wrong to call him Minister of State the general usage is Prime Minister. Jeltz talk 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Google: "prime minister göran persson" - 68,100 hits. "minister of state göran persson" - 6 hits. So that's the end of that. He's most commonly referred to as "Prime Minister" in English, so that's what should be used. It's also what's used officially. As for 1) It's a different word, but still the same title. 2) I doubt that very much. I don't think many Swedes would have problems knowing the answer to "Who is your Prime Minister?". (in English) They might be confused if you asked them in Swedish and said "Premiärminister", but that's simply because it's not the usual term. It's still the same term as "Statsminister", even if "Premiärminister" is the more direct translation of the English term. 3) Exactly. It would be confusing to use a term other than the commonly-accepted one, even if it has the same meaning. Which is exactly why "Prime Minister" should be preferred over "Minister of State". (BTW, "Tsar" means "Emperor", not "King"). --BluePlatypus 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, Minister of State means an junior minister in English, i.e. someone who isn't even a proper minister. Thomas Blomberg 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jews in Sweden"

Someone adds this section. I'm removing it. Comments?

==Sweden and the Jewish people==
In the beginning of the war, nobody knew about the German concentration camps and the treating of Jews. But after some years of war the knowledge of these camps was spread into Sweden, and many leaders in the country knew about it, without doing anything. Sweden was the first country which got information about the concentration camps, the annihilation of the Jews, and about "Die Endlösung" the final solution. The reason to why Sweden didn´t intervene was that it wasn´t very good to make trouble with the Germans, and Sweden was also afraid of an invasion from Germany.
The Swedes worried more about the Jewish immigration than about the Jewish suffering in German camps. Swedish newspapers wrote about how bad the Jewish was treated in Europe, but the Swedes were often suspicious and thought of it as overstatement propaganda. People in Sweden saw how the Jews "stole" their jobs, and many thought of preserving the Aryan race. German tourists had no problem getting into Sweden, but Jews on the other hand needed two passports to enter Sweden. It was a Swedeish proposal to mark the Jews´ passports with a big "J" so they could be identified as Jews and stopped. Other countries also started with the same method, and later on there came laws which forbade Jews to travel through Sweden.
But, Sweden didn´t act that execrable all the time. It received a large number of refugees both from Norway and Denmark, and when the persecution of Jews started in Denmark, many Jews went over to Sweden to find asylum there. The greatest rescue operation during the war was carried out by the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who succeeded in saving thousands of Jews before he himself was brought to an unknown fate by the Russians. Sweden also sent the well-known White Buses, organized by Folke Bernadotte to rescue Jews from the concentration camps. Many of the Jews who survived live in Sweden today.

/ Fred-Chess 10:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred chessplayer: I see you are very keen in writing and exaggerate some things about Sweden.
It is good to show the good side of a country but it is also virtuous to show the bad.
So I think that at least some part of this article is apropiate conserning the recent history of Sweden.
I'll leave some links bellow. If you are Swedish, which I hope you are, since you seem to know a lot about Sverige, maybe you can read them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.230.18 (talk • contribs)
I agree with Fred that this article, which is supposed to summarize all aspects of Sweden, cannot possibly accommodate an enormous section on Jews in Sweden. It is enough to mention Jews briefly in the sections on religion and ethnic minorities in Sweden. In addition to being out-of-place here, the added section lacks perspective even from the narrow perspective of the topic of "Jews in Sweden". It can be compared to including several long paragraphs in the article on Sweden about the history of Gävle, all of it focusing on the history of Gävle 1938-1943. It is all about one particular episode. It also oversimplifies complex issues, by not putting different attitudes and actions in a larger context.
OTOH, we should have a separate article on the History of Jews in Sweden. I once wrote a couple of minor articles on related topics on the Swedish Wikipedia (see Aaron Isaac), but then tired of the theme. There is an outdated, but public domain article on Jews in Sweden in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which could serve as a starting point. It only covers the period until about 1900, but could be useful for that. But, especially as this a contentious issue, it is important to go to sources other than a few newspaper articles. There are after all serious historical studies both on the topic of Jews in Sweden in general and on Swedish foreign and immigration politics before and during WWII. I'll actually start the article now with the JE material, but it will need to be expanded later. up◦land 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. The above text is also badly written, non-NPOV and in places incorrect and misleading. For instance, the J-mark in passports was also requested by Switzerland. The knowledge of the Holocaust before anyone else was not 'spread' in Sweden, but was information from a single source restricted to a few diplomats, who regrettably chose to disbelieve it. (I.e. it was not even notably spread within the State Department) I've never heard of any laws in the 1930s or 40s banning the travel of Jews through Sweden and I'd like to see some kind of reference for that. (Perhaps he's thinking of Gränsrekommendationssystemet - under which people who could be suspected of not returning to their country would not be admitted to Sweden. A rule which did not target Jews specifically, although they were often the victim of it) Antisemitism certainly existed in Sweden, but there was never a general perception of Jews "stealing jobs" - there were anti-jewish-immigration demonstrations, but they were not particularily large (a few hundred people) or many (two, if memory serves, both at Östermalmstorg in Stockholm, a Nazi one in 1937 and a medical student protest in 1939 against 10 Jewish doctors reciving asylum). You can't generalize the actions of these small, relatively extreme groups to the society as a whole. --BluePlatypus 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Branting the first democratically elected Prime Minister??

"Hjalmar Branting, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Sweden", claims the caption under his portrait - and the article about him, as well. Well, that's news to me - and I think most Swedes. What about Nils Edén, Carl Swartz, Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, Karl Staaff, Arvid Lindman and all the others? Hjalmar Branting was the first Social Democratic Prime Minister, but definitely not the first Prime Minister to be democratically elected. Sweden became a constitutional monarchy in 1809. Anyone care to argue about this before I change it? Thomas Blomberg 09:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That depends a lot on one's definition of "democratically elected". Branting is certainly one candidate, as his second cabinet was created after the first election to the second chamber including women (1921). But parliamentary principles had of course been laid down in practice for several decades then (even though a truly "democratically elected" PM, in a strictly formal sense, didn't exist until the 1970s), so if male-only democracy counts, we could just as well get a very early name, e.g. Arvid Posse. But this phrase is by no means clear-cut, and so should not be used lightly, such as here or in the introduction of the Hjalmar Branting article. -- Jao 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the only valid statement would be that he was the first Social Democratic Prime Minister. Measuring democracy by the rules for suffrage is very difficult, as there has always been rules limiting who can vote. Right now, all Swedes who are 18 or older can vote, so one could argue that there was no democracy when only those who were 21 or older could vote - and if the voting age is lowered to 16, then suddenly there was no democracy until that happened. Also, formally no Swedish Prime Ministers have ever been elected, as Swedes vote for parties, not individuals, and the leader of the party with the most votes normally becomes the Prime Minister, so the sentence is misleading in that aspect as well. Thomas Blomberg 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the image caption since I agree with that it is hard to say who was the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Sweden. A claim this uncertain doesn't belong in an image caption. Jeltz talk 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And I have changed the Hjalmar Branting article the same way. Thomas Blomberg 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality or non-alignment?

IMO, the term "neutrality" is used in the wrong way in this article. Sweden maintains a policy of non-alignment, meaning that the country doesn't belong to any military alliances or unions, despite any sympathies or allegiances towards other countries. That is not the same as being neutral, which basicly means that the country is totally impartial toward any other country. Maybe this article would benefit from an explanation of the differences between those two? /Magore 14:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice picture, but not here

There is a very good picture from the city Linköping in the Sweden article, but it hasn´t got anything to do with the context of the article - the motive is a local government office in Linköping and doesn´t say anything about the landscape, culture or topography of Sweden. I have removed it - but anyone who would like to see it can look at the Linköping article. user:Erik031

I agree. It is a very nice image, but it is not clear why it should be among the relatively few pictures on this page. (But Erik, when you edit, you should log in with your username and leave an edit comment to explain what you are doing - otherwise it will just make people think it is some random vandalism.) I also think we should remove the Thor painting by Winge from the history section. It is an interesting example of 19th century national romanticism, but has nothing to do with Swedish pre-history. I think a picture of the mounds at Gamla Uppsala or a Vendel period helmet would be better. up◦land 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Be more careful when editing, please

I have reverted this article back to version 55579635, since it was vandalized by user 68.96.129.77, who replaced the entire section about the history of Sweden with some nonsense. Unfortunately, a few constructive edits were removed as well, and this is what happens when we edit vandalized versions of the articles on wikipedia. If your edits were lost, please add them again. And be more careful the next time you make edits to an article on Wikipedia, and check that the version is good before proceeding. If not (ie it has been vandalized), revert back to the last good version. Thank you. /Magore 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the two edits removed was changing the number of muslims to soemthign different to what the source used in this article says without removing the refernce. The other was adding some information about some kind of Swedish dumplings. They might deserve to be mentioned in the main article since they are kinda well-known in Sweden, but I think of many other well-known local dishes. Jeltz talk 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Swedish politics

Hello, I've taken the liberty of making what I feel are some improvement to the politics section. The previous text was not that bad, I just felt it focused a bit too much on history of Swedish politics. I belive this is best explored in a separate more detailed article. Likewise for the foreign policy of Sweden section, which was more about Swedish politics during WWII and the Cold War than about the politics today. The Catalina affair isn't exactly defining of Swedish foreign policy today.

I didn't mean to upset anyone, so, if anyone disapproves, please feel free to revert (though I hope you will not) or give me suggestions for which bits to keep/change/improve.

Cheers, Osli73 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

It looks perfectly fine to me. Although the passage could incorporate some of the facts of the former passage... I think I'll try to find a synthesis of the two, feel free to change it as much as possible.

Thanks Impact_red 0:35, 5 June 2006 (PST)

Language - dialects

The Language section consists of two paragraphs - one about Swedish and the other about the knowledge of English in Sweden. Nothing technically wrong with this, though I think it gives the section a slightly wrong focus. I would suggest adding something about the different dialects in Sweden (which are quite varied for a country with such a small population) and, perhaps, something about the languages of recent imigrants to Sweden (Finnish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, etc.). Osli73 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific comments on the introduction and general comments on the article

While the introduction isn't technically wrong I feel that it's not as good as it could be. A couple of thigs bug me (though just a bit):

1. How can Sweden be a "Nordic country in Scandinavia"? At the very least, the wording is a bit strange.

2. "Mountainous wildreness" sounds a bit harsh. Better to say something about mountains on the border to Norway or similar.

3. "Natural resources of water, timber, and iron ore have made Sweden highly prosperous." It's one thing to state what the main natural resources are. It might even be correct to state that these contributed to Sweden's early industrialization (though other factors, such as early economic liberalization, contributed perhaps even more). However, to say that these natural resources "have made Sweden highly prosperous" is not correct. These natural resources continue to play an important role in the economy, but they are by far superceeded by other sectors and factors. I would suggest something else (perhaps saying something about the telecommunications, IT, automotive and pharmaceutical industries).

4. "Its citizens enjoy an extremely high standard of living in a country that is universally perceived as clean, modern, and liberal." Saying that Swedens standard of living is "extreme" is pushing it a bit and quite subjective. "Universally" feels a bit too broad, better to take it out.

In general, I find the article very good. However, I have three general criticisms:

  • It has quite a lot of focus on history, also outside of the history section. I've already made some changes of this in the Politics section.
  • The article feels a bit antiquated. As if it had come from some 1970s school book if you will (no offense intended to any editors here). It talks about iron ore and hydropower, the welfare state, etc. It also includes a slightly smug tone (the "excellent" this and the "modern" that).
  • Related to the second point above (the 1970s feel) the text feels a bit like it was written by a member of the Social Democrat party. Sentences like "The standard of living has become markedly high under Sweden's social democratic system" don't feel NPOV. Add comments about how "In addition, the ceiling on health care costs makes it easier, relative to other nations, for Swedish workers to take time off for medical reasons."

What do you think about my comments? I would be willing to work through some changes and either make them directly in the article (and let you revert them if you dislike them) or publish them here on the Talk page and let you discuss them. Osli73 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Music - Cleanup

I've decided to be bold, and thus removed some of the information from the section about music. We already have an article about the music of Sweden, and I don't see any reason for adding the name of every swedish group or artist that someone has heard about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information added to the main article should be notable and of general interest. /Magore 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed images in geography section

I removed all the images. I'd like to have a discussion on what images should be best suited for the section. Currently the images were:

Ideally the images should give a selection of typical Swedish stuff. However, of these images, three are from stockholm, two are from Skåne, one from Norrland, one from Gothenburg, and one from Dalarna (but it could be taken anywhere?).

Please have a say on which images you like to be included! Please also make any suggestions you may have on what images you would like to see for the section. I am fairly acquainted with the Commons server and could probably dig up something.

Fred-Chess 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

other removed material

external links:

Why removing the official tourism site?

see also

(more to follow)

Fred-Chess 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Going ahead with cleanup of the article

Hello, Since noone responded to my comments on "Specific comments on the introduction and general comments on the article" above I will now go ahead and do some cleaning up of the article. Please let me know if anyone thinks these are inappropriate (make specific comments).Osli73 07:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweden, the name

The root of the name Sweden has come up in Talk:Viking. This was said.

The name of Sweden in Swedish (Sverige) is short for Svea Rike. Svear (or, in English, "Suiones") is the old and indigenous name of the (tribe of) people who lived in the core area of Sweden, ie where Stockholm lies today. The middle part of Sweden is still named Svealand, which translates into "Land of the Suiones". So, to sum it up, Sverige or Svea Rike can be translated into "Kingdom of the Suiones", or something like that.

Maybe this should be investigated and included in the article if it is true.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Sweden of today is divided into three regions - Svealand (same meaning as Svea rike, Sweden proper), Götaland and Norrland. Svealand and Götaland are former lands or countries of their own, but I'm not sure about Norrland. As far as I know, it was settled a lot more recently. Anyway, that the indigenous name for Sweden is derived from "Svea rike" is correct and should in my opinion be included in this article. /Magore 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But it is in the article. Look under section Pre-history. / Fred-Chess 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports - popularity

I thought floorball ("Innebandy" in swedish) is the most popular sport in Sweden? Popular as practitioning, not watching. I'm pretty sure it has the highest numbers of participants if you count the players not "registred" (in a league club etc), who just plays for fun/exercise with collegues/friends etc. Hallogallo 12:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have somewhere read that floorball was the second most popular sport in Sweden if you count the number of pracitioners. I don't remember where I read it though. Jeltz talk 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Murders of Palme and Lindh - political?

The article currently calls the murders of Palme and Lindh "political". Since the motive of the Palme murder is unknown and the murder of Lindh does not seem to be politically motivated at all I think it is incorrect/misleading to call the murder "political". It would be better to say that "two high-ranking politicians have been murdered", or something in along with that.

Do you agree to change? Osli73 09:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy section outdated

The Economy section presents a very outdated picture of the Swedish economy. Some examples:

  1. The "social democratic system" - what is that? Sweden very obviously has a "market economy" or, if you prefer an older term, "capitalist system".
  2. The section presents "Timber, hydropower, and iron ore" as the main drivers of the economy, when this is far from true. It may have been correct in 1950-1970, but not anymore.
  3. There is too much emphasis on the role of the trade unions. Although it is one characteristic of the Economy of Sweden, it is not the most important thing a reader needs to know about what the Economy looks like and how it functions.
  4. School vouchers is incorrectly labelled as a recession/budget motivated reform of the welfare state when in fact it was motivated by ideological reasons alone (not budgetary).
  5. The most important reform of the welfare state carried out during the early 1990s - the change in the pension system - is not mentioned at all.

Would it be ok for me to rewrite this section a little? Any other comments? Osli73 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a suggestion, how about making use of some recognized reference literature and then use them as the backbone, with appropriate and accurate citations in text, instead of just writing along with your hunches of what is important? / Fred-Chess 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Of course, a new text should be based on and should reference recognized literature. which the present article doesn't. My list was just an off the cuff list of objections to the current text based on my uni studies of Swedish economic history.

I'll get back her in a couple of days with a proposal. Any comments you would like to make before I get started? Osli73 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded arrogant. Do I have any comments? No, I don't know much about economical history -- I have some knowledge about social history that I also added to the article, but am aware that my writings are not accurate.
I don't remember if I wrote this already in some other section: plenty of material regarding economy and politics (the "boring" parts) comes from the CIA World Factbook and the United States Department of State. You should check the links at the references section.
Fred-Chess 10:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, no offence taken. I studied Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics some ten years ago so I was thinking of digging out some of my old textbooks on Swedish economic history. Also, I think the Economy (as the Politics section) should focus more on current economics (and politics) than on history, which is the case in the article today.

As for sources, I'm mainly thinking of using Schön's (2000) En modern svensk ekonomisk historia. Tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel (reviewed, in Swedish, here and here). Without having read them, I suspect some US sources (such as the CIA and the State Department) are likely to overemphasize the socialism thing.

Anyways, I'll post a suggested text here on the talk page in a couple of days (if all goes well). Cheers, Osli73 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is one comment I'd like to add... it is preferable if the references are in English, when such material is available. Of course it should still be the most widely renowned English language material (not just websites in English). We must acknowledge that most of our intended audience are English speakers.
Fred-Chess 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I'll see what I can do (as most of the lit on Swedish economic history that I have are, well, in Swedish).Cheers, Osli73 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign policy section focuses too much on history, at the expense of the present

The Foreign policy section feels too much like the History of Swedish foreign policy rather than current foreign policy. I suggest a rewrite. Is that ok by everyone?Osli73 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding a fact in the introduction.

The line "In the 17th and 18th centuries Sweden extended its territory through warfare and became a Great Power" ought to be changed to "In the 16th and 17th century" or even better "In the 17th century". Sweden did not do any territorial wins during the 18th century, and it certainly did not become a Great Power in the 18th century.--Warfvinge 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the 17th century" would be OK for me, but the mention of the 16th century should be left out. Not much happened during that century in terms of expansion, although we have the bloodbath in Stockholm as well as the rebellion led by Gustav Vasa. /M.O (u) (t) 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear phase out

The last paragraph in the Energy politics section says that: "Sweden decided to phase out nuclear fission before 2020, although it is very unlikely that this will happen." Could someone please add why it is unlikely to happen? I'd appreciate that. Samuel 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new Economy section

A while back I promised to come up with a suggestion for a new Economy section. My main problem with the current one is that it sounds lightly out of fashion, too much focus on natural resources and talk of iron ore and such (instead of telecoms, automobiles and IT, which would have been more correct). Unfortanately I was 'otherwise engaged' for a long time. However, after a long delay though, here's my suggestion:

Sweden began its industrialization during the second half of the 19th century with raw materials such as iron ore, timber and hydroelectric power playing a major role. Towards the end of the century inventions and innovations laid the foundation for successful engineering companies which, among other things, began to export ball bearings, telephone exchanges and cream separators.
Engineering and car manufacturing account for over 40 per cent of added value in Swedish industry. Wood, pulp and the paper industry account for over 20 per cent while the chemical industry's share is around 12 per cent. Information technology, IT, plays an ever greater role in the Swedish economy.
The Swedish economy is highly dependent on exports and the country has a considerable trade balance surplus with exports of goods and services equivalent to 45 percent of the GNP. Most exports go to the rest of Europe - almost 60 per cent of Swedish exports go to other EU countries. Exports to North America, East and South East Asia are also of major importance. Among other things, Sweden is a successful exporter of music and is the third largest music exporting nation in the world after the USA and the UK.
A distinctive feature of the Swedish economy is the relatively large amount of services produced in the public sector.
In the 1980s and 1990s growth in Sweden was weak compared to the rest of Europe and North America. Between 1990 and 1993, GNP fell by five percent at the same time as employment decreased by almost 10 per cent. In 1993, unemployment was more than twice as high as it had ever been in the period since World War II. The economic setbacks coincided with an international economic recession but the decline in production and employment was greater than in several other comparable countries.
During the latter part of the 1990s the decline was reversed with the Swedish economy largely performing better than that of most other European countries.

During the 1990s several structural reforms have changed economic policy in Sweden. A new Competition Act has been adopted. Deregulation has been implemented in several important sectors of the economy, for example, financial market, the electricity market, telecommunications, agriculture, air traffic and several other markets. State owned companies have been privatized and several different state monopolies have been abolished and a new government framework agreement has given the municipalities and county councils incentives to open their operations to competition and more effective working methods. The state pension system has also been overhauled.

What do you think? Maybe something more could be added on the labor market and perhaps some figures for intl. trade (this is mostly from memory). A good source is the Swedish statistical office.

Regards Osli73 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds very well. If you have some references to it, it will probably stay longer, and be easier for others to check up. I have reconsidered somewhat about the language of references: although I still think English are better, anything is better than none.
If you want to be even more lengthy than above, I suggest you do it on article Economy of Sweden.
Fred-Chess 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find some sources (this was mostly from memory and from what I've read in recent newspaper articles. Yes, I agree that sources in English would be much better, I'll do my best.

Anyone else have any comments?

The text is saying that "of apporximately 1245 miliard Swedish Krona". It might be unimportant but isnt billion a more conventional word?

Regards Osli73 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister and Goverment

The Prime Minister of Sweden is still Göran Persson, even though he and his party lost this sundays election. New Prime Minister will probably be Fredrik Reinfeld, BUT that is not yet declared. I don't know the exact dates for when this goverment will step down and the new will take over, but as of today this has not yet been done. 213.112.157.154 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ~~

Request for semiprotection

I received a request to semiprotect this article, in advance of the change in governments. I have to say that I do not think that's necessarily warranted based on a quick review of the history. (and I don't really have the background to know whether there is more to it than that) In general, WP policy is to use protection and semiprotection very sparingly. If there is a flood of vandalism, please feel free to ask on the vandalism noticeboard or the general admin noticeboard or (best) the request for page protection board for assistance. Hope that helps and happy editing on this generally quite excellent article, all... ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the process when appointing the Prime Minster

From the Swedish constitution, Instrument of government, §1-4.

När statsminister skall utses, kallar talmannen företrädare för varje partigrupp inom riksdagen till samråd. Talmannen överlägger med vice talmännen och avgiver sedan förslag till riksdagen. Riksdagen skall senast på fjärde dagen härefter, utan beredning i utskott, pröva förslaget genom omröstning. Röstar mer än hälften av riksdagens ledamöter mot förslaget, är det förkastat. I annat fall är det godkänt.

Haven't got the time to traslate it, but it says explicitly that the speaker suggests a prime minister and that the Riksdag needs to approve him. --Warfvinge 11:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And, just to settle it ones and for all, I received this letter from the information department of the Riksdag:
Hej,
Göran Persson är statsminister i den expeditionsministär/regering som sitter nu fram till regeringsskiftet den 6 oktober. Göran Persson is the prime minister of the interim ministry that will rule until the change of government on the 6th October --Warfvinge 11:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

HDI

considering that sweden holds the 6th position in the HDI, i don´t see why this isn´t considered as the "very top". unless the very top is the top 5. i´m just wondering why, i don´t know.

If you look at the article on Human Development Index it has a category for countries with an HDI from 0.95 and above. Sweden is incredibly close but not included in this group. I think this is the reason. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Composition of the Riksdag

In the Politics section, the party composition of the Riksdag is said to be as of May 2006, though the primary figures are actually the results of the September elections. The newly elected Riksdag is not yet in place, and is to be opened on October 3. Either should the figures concerning the previous Riksdag be restored until October 3, or the text should be changed to something like "the future Riksdag, to be officially opened on October 3, will constist of ...". /The Phoenix 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia bug ?

What is with this: "foreign policy in peacetime and neutrality in wartime. Sweden is a very poor country in Southern Africa."

I see it in the main page but I can't seem to find it in the edit section.

The sentence was introduced by an anonymous user today at 08:26 UTC and removed by Gnangarra today at 09:26 UTC. It's the nature of this project that content changes, articles get vandalized, and the vandalizations get reverted. If you refresh the page, bypassing your browser's cache, you will get the most recent version. -- Jao 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Public health?

Former wording sugested the public health care system leading to unusually high suicide statistics. For my part i can not see this glancing over http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html WHO's figures. In fact Sweden is on par with most western european nations (even if you disregard differentialting countries with primarilly public health care or private). Further its suggested the statement to be a common myth, due to sweden being one of the first nations to publicise their statistics on health care. As for the statement on mental health, i would suggest someone looks into the validity of this.

It is a rumour in the U.S. that Swedes are prone to suicides. I've heard it on several sit-coms. I don't where it comes from. / Fred-Chess 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Though a negative aspect of public health is a high rate of people with mental illnesses, such as depression." Calling it a negative aspect isn't that very subjective, I mean, the people of sweden seem to think of this as something good, or we would have probably totaly taken out the mental care from our public health... without quoting any source, and just from memory I think with the downsizing of the mental clinics where mental patients lived the number of homeless people in increased, and there has been some acts of voilence by people who are trying to get back into a mental institutes. So my subjective oppinion is that helping as many people with mental problems as possible is a possitive, not negative thing. so without quoting some nice study about public health's negative inpact on peoples mental helth I'd suggest this sentance to be if not removed atleast objectified. - salle

Fredrik Reinfeldt elected prime minister of Sweden

Fredrik Reinfeldt is as of today, October the 5th, 2006, the new prime minister of Sweden, after officially being elected by the swedish Riksdag. Do NOT change back to Göran Persson as the PM of Sweden, please. /M.O (u) (t) 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Göran Persson will resign tomorrow noon, until then Sweden will have two prime ministers. See http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=673993&lid=puff_673992&lpos=rubrik or Swedish Wikipeida. Vints 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonsence, Göran Persson resigned today (Oct 5) at 14.08. See e.g. press release of the Riksdag --- Camptown 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. The Riksdag chose Reinfeldt Oct 5 14.08. But he will take office Oct 6 noon. Persson signed his resignation September 18. Vints 06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC) File:Avsked.jpg
Persson heads the caretaker government until PM Reinfeldt presents his cabinet. Persson's application for resignation was "approved" by the Riksdag on October 5, when Mr. Reinfeldt took office. Big deal? ---Camptown 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Swedish Wikipedia says October 6. See also [8] Vints 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually heard at swedish TV4 Nyhetsmorgon that its unclear if we had two PMs between the 5 -6 th october or not, the swedish constituition doesn't say anything about it.

It is no longer October 5 or October 6, and I think everybody can agree that the only current prime minister of Sweden is Fredrik Reinfeldt, so perhaps the page could be unprotected again? --Maggu 10:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Kusma (討論) 10:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 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)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian in Swedish teaching?

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).
I qoute from Skolverket.se

"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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

KarlXII 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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).

KarlXII 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
It has now been reverted to it's original state due to two reasons: 1) lack of community consensus on changing, and 2) emerging community consensus on NOT changing. As thus, refrain from changing the map. See Talk:Sweden#Which map should we use? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries for more information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:43, 27 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. — SomeHuman 25 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)

Good Article Review

I've put the article up for GA reviewing. / Fred-Chess 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Results

Here are the results of the GA Review:

Sweden

result: delist 4-1

As much as I have contributed to this article (I am the main contributor [9]), 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)

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.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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") [10] Valentinian T / 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. Valentinian T / 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.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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. Valentinian T / C 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a newer article about the same issue [11]. 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. Valentinian T / 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.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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. [12] 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. Valentinian T / 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".-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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. Valentinian T / 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.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn and Valentian,

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

RegardsOsli73 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

is sweden doomed?

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.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 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 [13]. 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? Valentinian T / 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]. — SomeHuman 25 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.) — SomeHuman 25 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. — SomeHuman 25 Feb2007 19:40 (UTC)

Sources on Swedish history

The following is a reply to a question[14] 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 [15]
  • US Department of State's site on Sweden [16]
  • Columbia Encyclopedia's article on Sweden [17]
  • EuroDocs also has a quite good link library (in English) to sources on Swedish history (in English) [18]

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.

81.225.116.186 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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.
Ypps 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Introductory text

>> 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)

It is likely that the author was thinking about Exclusive Economic Zones. Valentinian T / C 23:04, 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. Valentinian T / 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? ~AFA Imagine 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 [19] and one for Kattegatt,[20] 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)
Okay. --Ezeu 19:00, 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. Valentinian T / 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. Valentinian T / 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. Valentinian T / C 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that quote is hilarious, at best! Is there an agenda lurking about?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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.)
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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.pdf Nillson 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.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard in a long time. :bloodofox: 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: User:Nillson has been indefinitely blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned tendentious user. MastCell Talk 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That is too bad. Irrer 09:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Im swedish! And im proud! XD

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Add Arts Section

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.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IKEA

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.
Bertil E 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm "de facto" capital

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. Valentinian T / C 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this phrase from the infobox accordingly. Valentinian T / 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?
Fred-J 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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.[21] This I can believe. But still no actual source... / Fred-J 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans. Badagnani 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kungariket Sverige

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. Valentinian T / 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. Valentinian T / 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.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweden/Archive_1&oldid=1276770329"