Talk:Sweden

Ethnic Groups

The article states that 6.2% of the population is of another ethnic group than Swedish, though in the source referred to, (http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____26041.aspx) it states that in reality, 14.7 are foreign born, and a total of 19.1% is either born out of Sweden or has both parents born out of Sweden. The 6.2% to in the article represents the number of people living in Sweden who has not yet retained citizenship, but not the number of people of non-Swedish ethincity. According to Wikipedias own article about Swedes as an ethnic group, 7.712.376 people in the world are of Swedish ethnicity, which accounts for 81.9% of the total population of Sweden. Hence, the number 6.2% referred to for non-ethnic Swede's is by all means proven incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.178.243 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

          I agree, the ethnic group section is plainly wrong. SCB clearly states that 20 % of the population is made up by other ethnicities, yet it is stated on the wiki that Swedes make up 90 % of the population. This should be changed asap. --94.255.146.60 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

- Swedes do not make up 90% of the population, that information is clearly wrong. Hurry up and change it... Mno001 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rike/rike

"The Swedish name Sverige (a conjunction of the words Svea and Rike – the latter is still spelt with the letter g, "rige", in modern Danish)" I dont see why it says how it spelled in danish, the important part it how it spelled in Swedish (rike). Otherwise you could wright up all translation of the word "rike". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxmannen (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The name comes from the time when danish was the official written language i Scandinavia. Thats why its spelled "-rige" and thats why its referred to danish in the article. I agree though... it should be explained why its referring to danish or skip it totally. - Fniss (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on this. Being paraguayan (not knowledgeable about this subject) the reference to danish left me confused. The question that came inmediately to mind was "Why is the country's name in a foreign language!?", and there was no answer for it in the (very good and interesting) article. Of course it's very clear after reading Fniss's comment. But this explanation would've been interesting to read next to the text, as it would've clarified it. JuanParaguay (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion of Danish having been the official written language of Scandinavia. The nordic languages have always been similar, but Swedish has evolved in to having a different spelling on most words, as in the case of rige/rike. If you are aware of Swedish and Danish history you must know that Swedes never would have accepted Danish as the written form of their language. Mno001 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a question of the evolution of the written language in Norden, not who would accept what or which nationality is more important. For hundreds of years up until the 1520s, Denmark was much more organized and developed than Sweden in just about every way and clearly dominated the Scandinavian scene. Facts are facts, no need to get huffy or defensive about them. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and somehow the evolution of the Danish written language crossed the border and completly superimposed the then evolving Swedish written language. THe fact remains that -rige was how it was spelt in Swedish AS WELL AS Danish, which means that it should the changed the way the poster above suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mno001 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article only says that one should "compare 'rige' in modern Danish", and has for some time.

Andejons (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: found the missing citation, 25 July 2011

I found the citation that is missing under the education section, 3rd paragraph, in the part that talks about tertiary education:

https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/artikkelit/2006/art_2006-07-06_001.html

I found this citation source in the article about Finland, which discussed a similar set of statistics about its own tertiary education system.

Thanks!

Sweden Democrats

The Sweden Democrats are not a far-right party. That term is a political tool used by their political and ideological opponents to discredit them. On an economic scale, their position is centrist or right of center at most because they are in support of the Swedish welfare state and describe themselves as "social democratic." On a social scale, they are more in support of the Swedish model of ethnic tolerance (as they argue it) for pragmatic reasons of social cohesion making them national conservatives, which could be described as traditionalist in one sense, as well as for reasons of cultural preference, which shows that they are civic nationalist as well due to their beliefs that "anyone can be Swedish" through assimilation; this is a far cry from the ideology of ethnic nationalism that groups popularly and more traditionally described as "far-right" exhibit, which seems to be a threshold marker to be accurately defined as such. Just because a source is sited describing the Sweden Democrats as "far-right" does of course not make it so especially if these are journalistic sources who write stories without a necessity for academic integrity and whom are often openly tied to specific political parties or ideologies as is the case in much of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.196.58 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the left-right scale is not as accurate and relevant as it once was, but the placement of the Sweden Democrats as a far-right party is correct on that scale. Read i.e. Left-right politics. /111126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion about how to describe the Sweden Democrats belongs on Talk:Sweden Democrats and this article should mirror that one. As of today the lede there says "SD describes itself as a nationalist movement although others use the term far-right" which I believe is accurate, so nationalist far-right party seems to a good description.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the word "others" there. Lots of traditionally "leftist" voters voted for SD and many of their Riksdag seats represent the wishes of those voters. I think extreme caution must be used when dealing neutrally with any matters political on WP, and I'm not sure that is the case here. An extra effort to be perfectly neutral would be a great idea. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of former Social Democrats voted on SD. However, many of S' voters have not laid their vote out of conviction but rather out of old habit, so when they swap party it does not make the new recipients of their votes a left-wing party. Many of the Moderate Party's votes come from Social Democrats; it does not make the Moderate Party less liberal-conservative. Now, the characterization of SD as far-right party is supported by a string of reliable sources. To me these "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" on the subject (according to neutral point of view). That is, if everyone but SD, their supporters and a few others call them far-right, Wikipedia should call them far-right. The minority (SD's) view should be stated in its own article. Steinberger (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No matter how you put it, using newspapers to describe Sverigedemokraterna, is never going to be neutral or accurate. There is an on-going media campaign against SD in Sweden, with newspapers calling them nazis, facists, racists, right-wing extremists, xenophobic, among other things. Foreign press then picks up on this, and will only have one side (media's side) of the story. Nymf _hideliho! 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SD's media conspiracy theories can be discussed in the article on SD. Steinberger (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is where the wording and sources are being questioned, so this is where it will be discussed. We even have media calling them a sect, so by your definition that should go in the article. DN, LO-Tidningen. Also, I'd like to know what makes you say that it is a conspiracy theory.Nymf _hideliho! 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read Steinberger's edits carefully before you answer them. We discuss if the description "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", a couple of uses of "sect" doesn't even come close to being due weight. And SD media conspiracy theories should not be discussed here.Sjö (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the neutrality and reliability of the sources in question, and it all ties together with the media campaign ("Vi gillar olika", anyone?). Sjö, I believe there may be a conflict of interest in you participating in this discussion and/or issue. Nymf _hideliho! 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

LO-Tidningen and DN does not themselves characterize SD as a sect, they cite and attribute that characterization to a former SD-member and an opinion poll respectively. Newspapers use to distinguish, or at least purports to distinguish between editorials and news articles. So pointing to a campaign for tolerance at Aftonbladets editorial section, is in it self no proof that they misrepresent SD at the news section. There is also a problem of WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia editors should not analyze sources. That is, you can't use these sources to say anything but what they say. If you want to make the point that SD are mistreated by the media, you need secondary sources that say just that. However, any such discussions are undue in the Sweden article as Sjö has pointed out. Steinberger (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How convenient. You push your point of view, and any discussions regarding it is undue. ;) Why not describe them as social conservative, as that is what they self-identify as? Why is "controversial" not enough? Or to take it even further, why categorize them at all in this article? Nymf _hideliho! 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting other editors' positions. This discussion is undue here.Sjö (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion as to what they should be referred to in this article, is certainly not undue here. That is just two politically active (on and off Wikipedia) people trying to kill the discussion. This question: "Why not describe them as social conservative, as that is what they self-identify as? Why is "controversial" not enough? Or to take it even further, why categorize them at all in this article?" still stands. Nymf _hideliho! 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A dependent clause of the type "although the party rejects the characterization and call themselves..." would be to give equal validity to a fringe (their) view. A discussion presenting the disparate views on what to best call the party can be done where space not is an issue, as in the Sweden Democrats article. More, to call them "social conservative" in the context of the 2010 election would be a inaccurate and anachronistic as they took on that self-description in November 2011. At the time of the election they self-identified as a "democratic and nationalistic party". And why characterize the party at all? Well, have you noticed that the other parties are categorized according to the left-right scale in that very paragraph? Steinberger (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think extreme caution must be used when dealing neutrally with any matters political on WP, and I'm not sure that is the case here. An extra effort to be perfectly neutral would be a great idea. Some of you are obviously pushing your personal political views and dismissing the POV of your opposites, using clichés and catch phrases. That's not appropriate in an article about any country or any political movement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that isn’t true. To present research findings, generally accepted ideas or perceptions, or adequately referenced political statements is hardly to be considered POV. However, to censor or rewrite material in an embellishing way would be viewed as rather problematic. Dnm (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of some of the efforts of some of the editors here is unchanged. I hope what you find "untrue" isn't the most important part of what I wrote - the part in the bold type? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, we should "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" by using the common characterization of SD as a far-right nationalist party. That is, use the terms commonly used by journalists, scientists and so forth. However, as we should avoid to state "seriously contested assertions as facts" you could easily force us to reconsider, pointing to WP:NPOV, simply by finding reliable sources that question the use of "far-right" or "nationalist". However, until then I view the present wording as sufficiently neutral. Steinberger (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fair, given the amount of cites supporting your view. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, that's not fair. Simply because a number of sources say the same thing does not make it so. Especially, if they report from the same Weltanschauung. The question is, how un-biased are the sources? In this case, the New York Times, the BBC, Sveriges Radio and Time magazine are hardly un-biased politically. The first entry above, from 71.251.196.58, thusfar expresses the situation most accurately.--Hackercraft (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support any efforts, yours or anyone else's, to take care and make the political descriptions in this article as neutral as possible. Let's hope this doesn't end up being another case of WP's ball and chain, where consensus leads us away from unbiased neutrality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed both "nationalist" and "far-right" from this article and hope that will be an acceptable compromise.Sjö (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

Being a Swede, I can't understand the point in having the royal anthem (literally "The King's Song" in Swedish) posted in the article. The royal anthem is not considered official in any way and is not sung by other than strong royalist. Although Sweden strangely is a monarchy, keeping it does not correlate to the powerless position the monarchy has in Sweden. The article in Swedish does not have it. /111111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

"Sweden has 162,707 km (101,101 mi) of paved road and 1,428 km (887 mi) of expressways. Motorways run through Sweden, Denmark and over the Öresund Bridge to Stockholm, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Uddevalla. The system of motorways is still under construction and a new motorway from Uppsala to Gävle was finished on 17 October 2007."

This is incomplete information. the Swedes call the oresund Bridge the Orebro. The line should be changed to 'Sweden has 162,707 km (101,101 mi) of paved road and 1,428 km (887 mi) of expressways. Motorways run through Sweden, Denmark and over the Öresund Bridge, or Örebro, to Stockholm, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Uddevalla. The system of motorways is still under construction and a new motorway from Uppsala to Gävle was finished on 17 October 2007.

Badgerknox (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Örebro is a city, nothing else.

Andejons (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily nonsense but a misspelling/misunderstanding in good faith. You meant Öresundsbron, or the Öresundsbro Bridge, not Orebro, Oerebro or Örebro, which as duly noted is a city nowhere near the bridge. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in image

It says in the picture (section Economny), that "Nordstan, the largest shopping mall in northern Europe" which is false information. Please correct this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.253.170 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

i am not saying change anything i am requesting an addition to Swedish music. Where it Talks about Yngwie Malmsteen you should also add skwisgaar skwigelf from the band Dethklok since he is a notable musician from Sweden.

my reliable source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skwisgaar_Skwigelf#Skwisgaar_Skwigelf

i hope you make the right choice and make the addition to the page.

Zombieinc (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid he's not notable enough for a general overview article such as Sweden. Thank you for your suggestion though. henrik•talk 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

War lie

The statement in the intro paragraph that Sweden has not been directly involved in any war since 1812 seems contradicted by over 500 Swedish troops fighting "directly" against the Taliban in the Afghanistan War. Six Swedish soldiers have been killed in action "directly" by enemy fire. I'd say this bogus claim that Sweden has not participated in war since 1812 needs to be deleted. 72.198.76.97 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweden is not at war against the state of Afghanistan. Your definition of war is wrong. --94.255.146.60 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The troops sent to Afghanistan are UN troops... -_- Ever hered o thoes? (I know... bad spelling) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.165.233 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)