Talk:Swedes

Suggestions for the last picture

Some of us want August Strindberg if we don't have Ingvar Kamprad. And some of you want Tove Jansson (who is Finnish). As is even mentioned in this article the opinion of whether or not finlandssvenskar are Swedes is a very controversial subject and something most finlandssvenskar themselves will deny. Most see themselves not as ethnic Finns but as their own ethnicity. Either way - due to the controversial nature of this subject I amongst others disagree with having a finlandssvensk in the picture box. And since the opposition does not like the suggestions of August Strindberg or Ingvar Kamprad we'll have to find an alternative. And since the opposition's main dislike is not having an ethnic Swede residing outside of Sweden in the box this is what we'll find suggestions of.

Possible candidates: Carl Sandburg (writer), Charles Lindbergh (aviator), Harry Nyquist (engineer), Robert Englund (actor)

Any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyserbia (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think Tove Jansson is the best person to represent Swedes living outside of present Swedish borders. And besides that, all you suggestions are males and they also are people with Swedish ancestry. Närking (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to have anyone not based in Sweden in that box at all. This would otherwise be akin to claiming one needed to invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction. Show some respect: this article is about Swedes and its contents should be to their liking. And most will scratch their heads about the asinine move to put Carl Sandburg in that box - he wasn't even born in Sweden! So get a clue fast.

Agreed, with Narking. It's rather ridiculous to claim that a Swedish descent and unilingually Swedish person cannot be Swede, and worst, not to even provide a source for such controversial claim. Finland-Swedes are not "from Sweden" in the modern national-state meaning of the word, nor do they represent the political interest of the state of the Sweden (although, usually, if not always these interest are mutual), they neither hail Carl Gustav as their king, but so what? This article is not about people who express their political loyality exclusively to Swedish state, nor about people with tax records in Sweden. This is about historical and contemporary Swedish ethnicities, which can be found within the borders of Finland, Sweden & USA (and in the past in Estonia). Moreover, Finland-Swedes as population trace their language/culture/folklore directly to proto-Swedish (fornsvenska). It's not some seperate, fourth Northern-Germanic/Scandinavian nationality as some scholars assumed in the 19th century.Podomi (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Tove Jansson is not ethnically Swedish. It doesn't matter whether her dad is an ethnic Swede since living in finlandssvensk culture she assimilated into that ethnic group. Those men I mentioned are not Swedish nationals, were not raised in Sweden, but ARE ethnic Swedes since they retain a Swedish culture identity (which comes from being raised in a multicultural society). Tove was raised in a finlandssvenskt environment as a finlandssvensk. If you don't agree with one I'll pick one and add it later (and we can go back to the game of changing pictures constantly). The fact that you have something against there being more men than women in the box suggests you are inherently sexist. None of that in this article please. --Lilyserbia (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your view on ethnicity is rather one sided, I know that in Finland it is very common to assume that geography is the highest form of ethnicity (a legacy of Henrik Porthan in the 18th century) but everywhere else the Finnish way of perceiving ethnicity is quite alien.

Anyway, Tove Jansson mother was Mainland-Swede, father Finland-Swede. Besides, even if the article was about affinity to state of Sweden, which it is not, nevertheless, we'd still have sound reasons to add Finland-Swedes. The above citat is by a Finland-Swedish scholar, Charlotta Hedberg (2005) who studies Finland-Swedes (So much for the "very controversial", something which the Finns are so keen to propagate everytime the question is about Finland-Swedes Sweden-contacts.

”It is concluded that Finland-Swedes are over-represented in the total migrationprocess from Finland to Sweden. As such, the process is culturally embedded in the group´s ethnic identity, which causes migration both through the practical minority situation in Finland and through ethnic affinity with Sweden” .(Hedberg, 2005 "Finland-Swedish wheel of migration")

This article, although only a journalist piece, illustrates also the issue from Finland-Swedish perspective, "Finlandssvenskar är svenskar". Finland-Swedes often ciritize the state of Sweden for the (alleged) nonchalance of Swedish state towards Finland-Swedes,http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/finlandssvenskar-ar-svenskar_223187.svdPodomi (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously impossible to discus this in a normal way with Lilyserbia who prefer to attack people and call them racists and sexists as long as they don't share her/his view.

Podomi has already answered but here are some more notes. I recently read a comment in Hufvudstadsbladet (a Finland-Swedish newspaper for those who don't know) from a Finland-Swede who said that he is a finländare, Finlands-svensk and svensk. Never thought of that? Just as much as I am a närking I'm also a Swede. I have relatives who are Finland-Swedes and they are as much Swedes as I am. Närking (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You can quote as many people's opinions as you like - it won't change the fact that this is a controversial subject. I'm making the new picture now. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to pay attention to the academic, scholar article, I introduced, by Hedberg (2005).Podomi (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have "ethnic affinity" with Norway and could easily move there - that doesn't make me Norwegian. No one is denying finlandssvenskar are Scandinavians, just that they're not Swedes. I could give you various examples of culture clashes faced by Swedes who move to finlandsvenska areas in Finland along with different social anthropological studies claiming finlandssvenskar are not Swedes. But that's not the point. The point is that I disagree with Tove Jansson being Swedish - and therefore I will keep on removing her from the box. If anything what studies in social anthropology tells us is that there is no right answer to this question. In short a Swede is nothing more than a person who sees themselves as Swedish and who others see as Swedish. This is the definition used by SD as well. The only people who disagree are the far right who go on about racial pseudo-science. I am someone who does not see Tove as Swedish and am therefore exercising my rights in editing this article. And that's what it will always come down to.

I added Zlatan to the box now at someone else's request. He's very well-known and deserves to be there but I figured it would open up a can of worms. But the narrow-mindedness revealed in this thread tells me just what kind of people you are and frankly I don't care if it offends you. Even though he is of recent foreign descent he is assimilated. He considers himself 100% Swedish (as stated in interviews) and he is culturally Swedish given how he celebrates Swedish traditions. I gave you a chance to include an ethnic Swede raised outside of Sweden but now I think I'll focus more on showing someone who became an ethnic Swede through a process of assimilation - a forgotten group as well. There is more info about this in the Swedish wikipedia which I plan to translate into the English wikipedia when I have the time. --Lilyserbia (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lilyserbia I think you are going over the line with this article. With the Finland Swedes issue as well as People with Swedish ancestry. Many of your arguments are conflicted, as exemplified by your views on the two above topics, and you weren't able to back it up with any source or reference other than your thoughts and opinions. According to Wikipedia's dispute page, it states that When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. I strongly advice you from deleting all the people's hard work just because you see it as unfit. Try to present the other side of the argument in the same article. People who read this page will then make their own judgment, if the topic in question is even an issue for them at all. Nagbg (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's all clear that a discussion with Lilyserbia is impossible. Throwing accusations about other editors being racists and sexists won't help. And frankly it just tells more about the one who is labeling others. Närking (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that calling people racists and sexists is out of line and that's just me being annoyed at this never-ending argument. Racialists tend to be racists more often than not though. Genetic markers are more common in certain ethnic populations but ethnicity as a racial biology is a pseudo-science. When it comes to the discussion about finlandssvenskar I simply can't be bothered trying to "prove" they're not Swedes. Because that is irrelevant. The controversiality of this issue is already dealt with in the article and it's up to the readers to read on if interested. What we're discussing now is pictures in a box and who we think deserve to be there for whatever reason. I'll give you this though - the fact that finlandssvenska immigrants to Sweden have their own Immigrant Institute (Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund i Sverige) sends the message that this is a separate ethnic group from Swedes rather than ethnic "Swedes moving to the motherland" as it were. Finlandssvenskar who move to Sweden are not referred to as Swedes - but as Sverigefinlandssvenskar (Sweden-Finland-Swedes). They are only referred to as Swedes (sometimes) in Finland. Ethnic Finns who move to Sweden are referred to as Sverigefinnar (Sweden-Finns).

@Nagbg: What have I deleted (recently)? What about all the picture montages I've spent time making that have quickly been replaced? You want my argument as relevant to the topic at hand? I don't believe Tove Jansson has a big legacy at all. Does anyone outside of Finland even know who she is? Ingvar Kamprad and Zlatan are internationally known figures that put Swedes on the map. Carl Sandburg not as much and Charles Lindbergh would probably be a better option to have as an example of a foreign-born Swede. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have shown it's just your own personal view you are fighting for. It's not more strange that the Finland-Swedes have their clubs in Sweden than people from Dalarna have their clubs in Stockholm or Göteborg. If you think that is proving your point you are surely mistaken yourself.

And secondly, when it comes to Tove Jansson you surely are showing your lack of knowledge. Why do you think one of the most popular Russian rock bands have chosen the name Mumiy Troll? Because of some obscure Finland-Swedish writer? Närking (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether Finland-Swedes are an ethnic group of their own is irrelevant. This article is about all Swedish ethnicities, not just those within the borders of current national state of Sweden. The culture/language/folklore of Finland-Swedes hails directly from proto-Swedish. How could we exclude such a group from an article about Swedish ethnicity?Podomi (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Narking: It's not a "club" - it's a cultural institute and like all other immigrant institutes its aim is to spread knowledge of the immigrant culture and to defend the rights of the ethnic minority within Swedish society. And also, Mumins are popular - not Tove Jansson.

@Podomi: There is no such thing as sub-ethnicities. Swedes and Norwegians are both of Germanic descent but they are separate ethnicities. A bit like how monkeys and humans share the same ancestor but are different species. Swedish and Finlandsvensk culture have a common ancestor but they have evolved separately. Or are you saying Swedes defy natural laws of cultural evolution? . --Lilyserbia (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund i Sverige is not an institute but a normal non-profit organization for the Swedes from Finland living in Sweden. Good you have found out that Mumin Trolls are known around the world. Next step for you could be to learn something about the author also. But that you again are threatening with an edit war doesn't make you a more serious editor. [1]. Närking (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@LillySerbia, Norse and Danes speak a different language than do the Swedes, Finland-Swedes and Swedes share the same language which hails from proto-Swedish. Finland-Swedes can be considered as a seperate ethnicity or either as "Eastern Swedes". Both are ok. However, this difference of interpretation is not for us to decide. The article is about Swedish ethnicity and includes both (Mainland)-Swedish and (Finland)-Swedish ethnicties, if we want to see them as seperate, that is. Besides, Tove Janssons mother was a Mainland-Swede.Podomi (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Narking: In other words - an institute. And you'll see how serious I am at editing since I'll never give up on this. I gave you options but you've only been narrow-minded and considered only finlandssvenskar as appropriate for the box. You reap what you sow.

@Podomi: I can tell you've never studied linguistics or else you would know about the never-ending discussion about what makes a dialect as opposed to a language. Many people believe Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish are all dialects of the same language. In Sweden Meänkieli is an official minority language whilst in Finland it is considered a dialect of Finnish. Some people are fighting for the right to recognise Scanian as a language instead of a dialect of Swedish (and there is of course the more common discussion of whether Scanian is a dialect of Swedish or a dialect of Danish). This is some out of many examples. But apparently this is "not up for us to decide" so we may as well add some Norwegians in the box for good measure. --Lilyserbia (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund i Sverige is not an institute. You can read more about them here [2]. And I guess your next claim will be that Västgötar are their own ethnic group since they also have their own "institute"[3] or why not throw in the people from Dalarna also [4]. Närking (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an institute. Check the dictionary. And the latter is up for discussion. Like I've said a Swede is someone who considers themselves Swedish and who other see as Swedish. Some Scanians do not see themselves as Swedish - there is even a party who wants to make Scania an independent country. These things are not clear cut and the only people who should be allowed in the box are people who are without a doubt Swedes. --Lilyserbia (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the dictionary who says Riksförbund can be translated as institute? Don't think you can fool anyone here since I'm pretty sure most people here understand Swedish.

So according to your logic there are no Swedes at all. Just västgötar, sörmlänningar, värmlänningar etc. First the Finland-Swedes were Finns, then they were only their own ethnic group, then there are no Swedes at all! Will be interesting to see what the next step will be.

And lastly it's not more strange that there are Swedes living in Finland than there are Russians living in Ukraine (and vice versa). Borders have changed due to wars etc but the people haven't. Närking (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Most people here may understand Swedish but you most certainly don't understand English. I was partly raised in Australia - I know what an institute is. I'm not sure you do though. An institute is an organisation with a stated purpose. Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund is an organisation whose goals are listed here:[5]. That they don't have "institute" in the title doesn't mean they're not an institute.

If you choose to see it that way. "It's up for discussion" is what I said. Some groups so-called "Swedishness" is more controversial than others.

Borders change, cultures evolve and ethnic groups both appear and disappear. Ålänningar are Swedes and Finland-Swedes are not. If you know any famous Ålanders you are free to add them in there. Otherwise we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've stopped adding the Zlatan picture for now but will continue to change the montage to include Carl Sandburg - unless someone else comes up with another idea that we can all agree on. --Lilyserbia (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please show me a dictionary that says Riksförbund is the same as "Immigrant Institute" as you have claimed. Maybe it's an Australian dialect?

Interesting to see that Swedes exist again and that ålänningar can be included! How about österbottningar?[6]. Närking (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A riksförbund is not an immigrant institute - Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund is an immigrant institute. See the difference? A dictionary? Just check wikipedia for a start or any online dictionary you can find if you must.

Åland is a part of Sweden in every way but legally - it is a Swedish community. Ostrobothnia is up for discussion. Tove Jansson and Linus Torvalds, however, are both from Helsinki. They are in no way Swedish - they are ethnic finlandssvenskar. There was a similar discussion going on in northern Sweden about whether "Finnish"-speakers in Tornedalen were Finns or their own ethnic group. Now it is widely accepted that they are their own ethnic group (Tornedalians) and their "dialect of Finnish" has been declared an official minority language in Sweden. Read more here. --Lilyserbia (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It surely has nothing to do with this but you still haven't showed how Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund is an immigrant institute. It's an organisation for the Finland-Swedish clubs that exist in Sweden just like any other riksförbund.

So now österbottningar can be Swedes! But not åbolänningar [7]? If ålänningar are Swedes, how come they are members of Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund? Wasn't that an "immigrant institute" for Finns? Närking (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's exactly what an institute is. I don't see what the problem is here? The reason I mentioned it is because the finlandssvenska riksförbund is organised as an immigrant institute (aka, has goals) as opposed to the more general "association" riksförbund. I think what your problem is is that you're assuming all institutes revolve around research. And most institutes do - but not all. Like I said, an institute simply refers to an organisation with clear goals. Some Riksförbunds are simply associate organisations whose members meet and socialize. The so-called "immigrant institutes" refers to the riksförbunds with goals geared at defending the rights of and spreading cultural knowledge about an ethnic minority. I hope that's clarified enough for you.

Did you read their page? Den kultur vi fört med oss har också till stor del helt svenska förtecken.

Compared to: Förbundet är centralorganisationen för i Sverige verksamma finlandssvenska ideella föreningar som vill främja finlandssvensk kultur och finlandssvenskarnas intressen i Sverige och Finland.

You need to realise there is a difference between Swedes living in Finland and Finland-Swedes, just like there is a difference between Finns living in Sweden and Tornedal-Finns. --Lilyserbia (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You surely read in too much on that website. Of course all riksförbund have goals. Sveriges Hembygdsförbund are doing the same but I doubt anyone would call it an institute.

And yes, there are differences between Swedes living in Sweden and Finland. Just like there are big differences between those living in Ystad and those living in Kiruna. But we all are Swedes anyway.

And by the way Tornedal-Finns are considered as Finns by Finns in Finland. And the few Ingrians in Russia see themselves as Finns. Närking (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And congratulations! Your 3rd revert in one day managed to get the article locked. Närking (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And you're reading too much into the use of the term institute. Whether it's an institute or not is at the end of the day irrelevant. Their goals, however, are relevant.

Sure, and the Scanians are considered Danes by the people of Denmark. All this who is considered what by who mumbo-jumbo really highlights the fact that this is a controversial issue - which was my whole argument in the first place against having a Finland-Swede in the box.

Can't say I can complain about the lock since it was a bother trying to change the montages back. Why are you being so stubborn? I originally wanted a Swedish-raised person in the box but since you wanted an ethnic Swede raised outside of Sweden I COMPROMISED. Yet my wishes are still ignored. :( You forget there are no "right" or "wrong" answers when it comes to this - only people's opinions of who should be featured in the box. You cannot win when it comes to this so why try? I for one am open to further suggestions. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term "immigrant institute" was obviously made to fool those who don't know Swedish. But it won't work.

As far as I know the Danes don't consider the Scanians as Danes. And secondly Tove Jansson was a compromise instead of Linus Torvalds. And thirdly, so far you are alone with your view. We only have another anonymous IP that might as well be you too. Närking (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want - the admins know the truth. And yes, you switched one Finland-Swede from Helsinki for another Finland-Swede from Helsinki when my argument against Linus was that he was a Finland-Swede - not that he was a man. I also believe you changed it because Finnish people demanded it - Linus being far more recognisable to the average Finnish person than Tove. I believe what it comes down to that whilst I'm open-minded about who should be in the box you have an agenda. There is nothing personal about me not wanting a Finland-Swede in the box but I'm guessing it is for you in wanting it. And we are again at a standstill... --Lilyserbia (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that it wasn´t I who suggested the change to Tove Jansson. She was up for discussion way back in time but a Finland-Swedish editor suggested Linus Torvalds instead so I then went on with him. Don't try to rewrite history here as so many others try. Närking (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, (Finland)-Swedes, are an ethnicity of their own, great! Let's add them to article of Swedish ethnicity along with Mainland-Swedes. I swicth the picture back to Jansson, a Finland-Swede born to a Mainland-Swedish mother, there ain't no better representant for an All-Swedish ethnicityPodomi (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@LillySerbia, I don't like the way you try to politize the article, that's by itself pretty against the whole concept of ethnicity. The concept of ethnicity can be seen to cover, language/culture, biology, religion and self-identification (must be reciprocatory from the behalf of the community). Religion is not part of ethnicity in Nordic countries, since pretty much everyone from Danes to Inuits are Lutheren. Let's try exclusion method.

Was Tove Jansson unlingually Swedish:yes

Was Tove Jansson biologically Swedish:yes

How did Tove Jansson and others perceived her ethnicity: (finlands)svensk

So, all in all we are left with citizenship, do not say it's an issue while determining ethnicity of an individual. An article about Swedish ethnicity must cover a Swedish-speaking group whose folklore and culture hails directlty from fornsvenska, irrespective of whether we today seem them as seperate ethnicity or not. To exclude members from the article just because of~the existance of Finlandssvenskarnas Riksförbund in Sverige would be pure arbitrary.Podomi (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm back. Like I've said countless times before - Finland-Swedes are not a subgroup of Swedes. There are no sub-branches when it comes to ethnicity. Only when it comes to racial biology (do you study it?) or linguistics. Swedes and Finland-Swedes are different ethnic groups with a common ancestor. A bit like how humans having a common ancestor with apes doesn't make us apes. All ethnic groups in the world derive from somewhere else. Cultural evolution is a fact and it has existed forever. Self-identification has EVERYTHING to do with ethnicity. And sure, we can go into the philosophical argument of "What's in a name?" What's the difference really between Turks and Azeri Turks? Does it matter when both identify as different ethnicities? The politically correct term for Azeri Turks today is Azerbaijanis whilst the politically correct term for Finland-Swedes is Swedish-speaking Finns. For a very good reason - so people like you don't get confused.

Still no suggestions for pictures? This discussion really is going nowhere. --Lilyserbia (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I still support Tove Jansson as the best compromise solution. But so the trolls won't freighten you I suggest Johan Ludvig Runeberg. Soon all Swedes (both in Finland and Sweden) will sing "Sköna maj, välkommen till vår bygd igen!..." Närking (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds

I noticed that Linus Torvalds is pictured and listed as a Swede. Torvalds, however, is not Swedish but Finnish and should thus not be listed. 91.156.149.187 (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I changed it. People can argue all they want that Linus is Swedish but I don't buy it. Some disagree of course but I don't think it's right naming him as one of the "famous Swedes" because of the fact that it's such a controversial subject. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An easy way to avoid all tussles regarding citizenship is to have a seperate plate about Finland-Swedes, who are also part of Swedish nation, in the ethno-linguistic sense, and thus should be somehow recognized in the article, also visual wise. The plate could have for example Tove Jansson, Linus Torvalds, and perhaps the reknown voyager Adolf Nordenskiöld who later even switched his Russian citizenship to Swedish.Podomi (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Finland-Swedes should be visible here also. For example Johan Ludvig Runeberg and Tove Jansson are surely both important contributors to the Swedish culture. Who isn't longing for "Sköna maj, välkommen" right now!

By the way, today someone suddenly has added pictures of several Finland-Swedes to the article about Finns. Närking (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Narking. Indeed, Stockholm has even a street named after Runeberg whose epic-work ,Kung Fjalar, is regarded as one of the most important pieces of Swedish/Scandinavian literature. In addition to Tove Jansson there's the whole gang of Finland-Swedish decadent modernists (Södergran, Diktonius, Björling, Enckell etc), who had very crucial role in shaping Swedish literature.

It appears that all of the articles which have a (Finland)-Swedish connotation are subjected to very unconventional practises. For example, the article about "Swedish-speaking Finns" is already by its name very controversial. I tried to change it earlier back to the original "Finland-Swedes", which is direct translation from "finlandssvenskar", but these attempts were succesfully opposed by Finnish posters who generally seem to oppose the connection the Swedish connection. According to Canadian bi-lingual scholar, Kenneth McRae (1999) the Finnish intellectual have not accepted the multiculturalist creed, unlike states like Canada and Switzerland, and have been historically opposed the fact that Finland-Swedes refer themselves as "finlandssvenskar". According to the Finnish logic, all residents of Finland are "Finns". I find this as somewhat archaich, nationalistic view and even somewhat scary. Ironically we do not have this problem with the Sami's and Gypsies, who are referred as "Sami's" and "Gypsies" respectively without the "speaking"-wording in the end of the word indicating ethnicity.

The title of the "Swedish-speaking Finns", article should be put in its neutral form "Swedish-speaking population of Finland". In fact this version is also used in Finnish constitution (Svenskspråkig befolkning). I accept support for the change of title with great enthusiasm.

And I think that we should have Tove Jansson, instead of Linus, to highlight the Swedish cultural extension outside the state of Sweden. Tove is the third most transalated Swedish-writing author and was born to Mainland-Swedish mother (a father was finlandssvensk) thus it's lot more easier to defend the legitimacy of her presence in the visual gallery.Podomi (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tove Jansson was on the original list I had but was voted out here on the talkpage because we already had Astrid Lindgren. But I don't mind changing to Tove instead of Linus. That would also mean more women in the picture.

And yes, the situation in Finland with the denial of a common history with Sweden is strange. And sadly it's also very visible in historical articles here. It's almost a joke that in the article about Turku it's not even mentioned that the city was known as Åbo for several hundred of years and that it was one of the most important cities in Sweden. Närking (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Finland is still plagued very much by Ultra-nationalism, the collective inferiority complex of the Finnish-speaking nation adds its extra tinge to the whole movement.

It's common for Finnish-speakers to interprete the Finnish constitution, in regards to its language acts, that Swedish and Finnish are both languages of the state, instead of the languages of the respective nationalities, nationalitet (not to be confused with the concept of citizenship). That's why Finland-Swedes are referred as "Finns".

I am not sure whether the article of Helsinki/Helsingfors even bother to mention that the town established by Gustav Vasa, at the heart of Svenskfinland, was 99% Swedish-speaking in 1808 when the first population census was carried. The town coat of arms still has its viking ship after its initial settlers from Hälsingland.Podomi (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the picture to Tove Jansson now. And hopefully it will stay there for a while now. Närking (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have Tove or Linus in the picture box. I don't understand why it keeps changing back and forth. Even though it has not been a part of Sweden for 200 years now but Swedish-Finns are closely related to Sweden historically, physically and culturally. Isn't that what ethnicity is all about? Simply identifying them as a part of the Swedish ethnicity does not mean that Sweden "claims" them as their own. This page is getting silly. It seems to me that we can only identity one's "Ethnic Swedishness" by the Tax Agency's records. Why are people making this such a difficult subject? The Swedish page is already one of the least informative pages from the ethnicity category, and the recent debates are not helping either.

Er... it has everything to be with claiming. If finlandssvenskar are Swedish then Swedes may as well be Danes. An ethnic group is a group of people who IDENTIFY WITH EACH OTHER - who are you to judge how similar or unsimilar people are to each other? Go by tradition and language and azeris and turks might as well be the same people. But they're not because they don't IDENTIFY as being one group. Swedes DO NOT identify with Finland-Swedes. Finland-Swedes are their OWN ethnic group. I am very much against Tove Jansson being listed as a Swede since she is an important part of Finnish literature history. I'm not the only one who sees this way as we just had someone from Finland try to change it back as well.

The bottomline is that whether or not I'm right or you're right is irrelevant. The topic is too CONTROVERSIAL for us to have a picture of a Finland-Swede in the most famous Swedish people section. And you WILL get people changing it again and again because they disagree with you. Why not just let Finland-Swedes have their own section in the article and let people decide from there how they want to categorise them? --Lilyserbia (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again this is not an article about Swedish citizens. And your replacement with a half-German who has has lived half his life in Switzerland can be discussed as much. And about Tove Jansson you perhaps can start to read from page 227 in "Den svenska litteraturen VI" from 1990. Närking (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Finland-Swedish professor Tore Modeen, who also functioned as a eager minority right and identity scholar, the Swedish nation is comprised of Mainland-Swedes, Finland-Swedes and Åland islanders, (Europa Ethnica, "The cultural rights of the Swedish ethnic group in Finland", 1999). Comparison of between Danes and Swedes is flawed in this context. Unlike with Finland-Swedish coastal population, the language of Danes does not hail from proto-Swedish, (neither does the dialect of Scanians). Besides, even without having to have engage in ethnic identity debate over (Finland-)Swedishness, we can argue from sheer objective and neutral standpoint that Tove Jansson's mother was a Mainland-Swede. Jansson has had a big impact to the Swedish literature, at the both sides of the gulf. It would be bizarre if we could not add uni-lingually Swedish-speaking person, born to a Mainland-Swedish mother, to a gallery of famous Swedes. What is stopping us, Finnish(-speaking) national self-esteem?

Even if we tended to see Finland-Swedes as a seperate ethnicity or nation from the Mainland-Swedes, it's all irrelevant, since after all this article is about Swedish ethnicity and thus it ought to cater all forms of Swedish ethnicities existing, without giving a monopoly for Mainland-Swedes, something which is highlighted in the beginning of the article.

It's very important that we Tove Jansson in the gallery, it highlights that Swedish culture is not restricted to borders of contemporary national-state, Sweden, a construct of the 19th centuryPodomi (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it as it is now since I can't be bothered to change it. But I am still offended by the fact that out of all famous Swedes there are that you could have chosen to represent us you choose what most Swedes would regard as a foreigner. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

          This article is not about your personal feelings. Believe it or not, but ethnicity is not limited to the borders of a country.  --83.219.194.201 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity is all about personal feelings. It's a sociological term based on identification within a group and is not something that can be counted in statistics. And it's a given that those born and raised in Sweden are more Swedish than those who have never lived in Sweden. And it is insulting to claim a foreigner is more famous than all other famous Swedes. --Lilyserbia (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Why not replace her with August Strindberg? A rather uncontroversial solution, and we can't deny the fact that Strindberg should be in the infobox. Nymf _hideliho! 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! I'll make an image with him when I have the time. --Lilyserbia (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Strindberg, but that would be one more male and there is also a point in showing a Finland-Swede among the pictured Swedes since it will correspond better with the rest of the article. Närking (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the point is to spread forth your right-wing semi-racist agenda. That's the fact of the matter, plain and simple. The only person who would insist on putting a finlandssvensk in the Swedish section is someone who racially classifies people into different groups - a pseudo-science not supported by the mainstream. Someone who cared about true claims of ETHNIC IDENTITY would know a finlandssvensk does not belong in that box. --Lilyserbia (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. And your personal attacks won't help you. What you just wrote is way over WP:CIVIL and would render a block. The same goes with your "how many different IP addresses we have access to". Närking (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it very sad that we have people here who do not qualify uni-lingual Swedish-speaker, born to a Mainland-Swedish mother, in a category of famous Swedes. I find this infatuation with citizenship little outdated in modern Europe? However, as already stated this article does not render a monopoly over Mainland-Swedes, it covers all forms of Swedish ethnicities, at both sides of the gulfPodomi (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why were the Finland Swedes which speak Swedish and have Swedish ancestry moved to form their own section? I thought the article on Swedish citizens was a different one. Is the reason that we have one Swede who personally does not identify with them? That Finland Swedes and Swedes don't root for the same team in ice-hockey does not mean that they don't share historical herritage and central aspects of their culture (language, snapsvisor, Lucia, midsommarstång etc.). 123.16.242.95 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tove Jansson

She was born in Finland, Helsinki. She is not Swedish, she was Swedish-speaking Finn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.175.207 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about Swedish citizens but about Swedes. Tove Jansson was a well-known Finland-Swede. Närking (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it should mention that she was a Finnish-Swede. She was Finnish-Swede, but this article is about Swedes, so she doesn't belong in this article. Just same issue was with Linus Torvalds. Please, change that. It is same, if I say that Folke Bernadotte is Finnish, because her mother's father was Finnish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.238.232 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

She was a Finland-Swede that are mentioned in the article. Not that it has anything to do with this, but Folke Bernadotte's mother was Swedish, born in Jönköping, in a Swedish family. Närking (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And it is even mentioned in the article that the topic is controversial. Which is why there should be no Swedish-speaking Finns in the picture box. Only those that the vast majority identify as Swedes should be allowed in there. --Lilyserbia (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see your view is constantly changing. First you claimed that Finland-Swedes were ethnic Finns and when you noticed that the Finnish editors didn't think so you changed to say they were their own ethnic group. What's next? They are aliens? Just not Swedes. Seems like you have something against Swedes overall.[8] Närking (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland Swedes ARE Finns which is why I refer to them as Swedish-speaking Finns. Finns and Finland-Swedes have more in common than Swedes and Finland-Swedes. Only a racialist would deny it but I know you guys work along racial lines. When it comes to ethnicity I lean to them being classified as their own ethnic group because of the linguistic difference. Malin Åkerman is Canadian by nationality. This isn't a anthropology forum - this is a factual site. She was raised in Canada and she is a dual citizen. Check wikipedia's rules. Since she hasn't represented Sweden internationally she should be referred to as Canadian. I changed it to Swedish-Canadian to clarify. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't belong directltly to the article, but anyway. This Finnish bunch have been a active in wikipedia for quite a long time, and I think it's fair to say that the bunch is after for spreading their Fenno-chauvinism. They already managed to change the title of the article about Finland-Swedes as "Swedish-speaking Finns". I think we have to be more alert with this kind of acts in the future. Folke Bernadotte's mother's father was a Finland-Swedish noble by the name of Munck af Fulkila, a Swede born with a Russian citizenship.Podomi (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lilyserbia once again I find your views very contradicting, on the matter of Finland-Swedes and ethnic Swedes outside of Sweden. At one point you are using Swedish born population in the info box, yet here you are say Malin Åkerman, who is born in Sweden no less, should be considered as Swedish-Canadian and Canadian only. How do you know she doesn't identify herself as a Swedes as well as a Canadian? Canada, like US and Australia, is an immigrant country.A lot of people identify themselves as Canadian as well as their ancestry. Yes, there is a term for that, Swedish Canadians in this case, but it is hardly mutual exclusive. In your theory you are saying that Malin can only identify herself as Swedish Canadian. But the fact is she is Canadian, Swedish Canadian and a Swede. Putting that aside I am curious as to how does an actor or a musician "represent" a country internationally? It's not sports. And besides there is no denying that we in Sweden still embrace her as a Swede, just like our many relatives in North America and abroad. Have you seen her ads and magazine covers here in Sweden lately?Nagbg (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And there are many more similarities between the Finland-Swedes and Swedes than just the language. By including them here in this article does not mean that the Swedish government is claiming them as their citizens.Nagbg (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Last picture, again

I'm still alive and frankly annoyed that the picture was changed yet again even after we reached a compromise. I do not see Carl Sandburg as Swedish. Simple as that, really. But since he was raised in a Swedish family in non-assimilationist USA he in all likelyhood did. And that's why I made a compromise to include him. Too bad certain people chose not to respect that.

So we're back to square one. Tove Jansson and Linus Torvalds cannot be included because you cannot prove they identified as ethnic Swedes. And unlike Americans of Swedish ancestry the evidence is against you. According to this text the majority of Swedish speakers in Finland see themselves as a subgroup of Finns, not of Swedes:

In a 2005 survey, 82% of the Swedish-speaking respondents felt the following best described their identity among the different choices provided: "Both belonging to a separate culture and being a Finn like others." (Swedish: Både att höra till en egen kultur, men också att vara en finländare bland alla andra. Finnish: Kuulumista omaan kulttuuriin, mutta myös suomalaisena olemista muiden joukossa.) See (Swedish)(Finnish)"Folktingets undersökning om finlandssvenskarnas identitet – Identitet och framtid", Folktinget, 2005.

I'm keeping their numbers in there simply because this is a controversial issue but for this same reason a Swedish-speaking Finn should not be allowed in the box. So you are free to start naming alternatives (again) if Carl Sandburg isn't to your satisfaction. You can pick a Swedish speaker from Finland if you wish as long as you can prove they belong to what would be the minority who identifies as Swedes.

I would be able to compromise with Anders Chydenius since he was undoubtably seen as Swedish at the time he was alive. Will he be a suitable alternative for all you Finland-fanatics? --Lilyserbia (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see that you suggest Anders Chydenius as a compromise. He of course could fit there together with the others but that you have doubts he really wouldn't fit as a Swede shows the lack of knowledge in history. Chydenius was born in, lived in and died in Sweden. But as for now I think there are enough men in the picture. Närking (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So according to you Finns never existed until 1809? Interesting. Given geographic isolation it's not unlikely people in what is today coastal Finland identified primarily with one another. And what is ethnicity if not mutual identification? Like I said - if you want someone from Finland pick Chydenius (who by the way is far more of an icon than Tove Jansson is). If you want a woman you're going to have to find someone else for aforementioned reasons. Personally I would like to see Birgit Nilsson on there if you want a woman. Both because no singers are listed and because she's a Scanian. Give it a thought. --Lilyserbia (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course there were ethnic Finns before 1809. You just didn't mention one. Närking (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Swedish Population figure

I noticed that the Swedish population figure was changed. Can someone please change them back to the original figures. An ethnic Swede is someone who is of Swedish ancestry. This page is about Swedish People as an ethnic group, and not Swedish expatiates and recent emigrants as the current figures may suggest. By using the number of Swedish speakers and the number of Swedish born persons may be misleading since Swedish speakers and neutralized Swedish citizens of other ethnic origin are included. The figures also exclude the people of Swedish origin that were born outside of the country, as well as the decedents of earlier Swedish immigrants, as they are very much an important part of Swedish history (please see http://www.utvandrarnashus.se/). This is also to be consistent with the other ethnic group pages on Wikipedia.

I have reverted it to the original figures. Some citation are needed especially for the Latin American countries. Nevertheless the figure should be more accurate in reflecting the number of people with Swedish ethnic origin worldwide. It is also more consistet with the other ethnic pages on Wikipedia.

No matter how many times you change it I will keep on changing it back. An ethnic Swede is someone who is culturally Swedish. Only 7,500,000 people out of the ~9 million strong Swedish population is added due to ethnicity factors. Since Sweden keeps no records of ethnicity those born outside the country were excluded. As is clarified in the Swedish wikipedia this of course means that the people born in Sweden who identify with their parents ethnicity are wrongly included whilst those born outside of Sweden who have assimilated into the Swedish ethnic group are not. But it's as close as we can get.

The figures do not simply show recent expatriates and first-generation immigrants. It shows the people who are culturally Swedish. And the best way to measure this is to find those who speak the language. And I found these figures for the US. There are not 4 million Swedes in the US. There are 4 million Americans with partial Swedish ancestry. These people assimilated into the majority culture a long time ago. They are culturally Anglo-Americans. As I half-Swede I take offense in your belittling of our cultural heritage in applying it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry when there's clearly nothing Swedish about them.

Being an ethnic Swede means more than just sharing a common tongue or cultural practice. As a Swede yourself I am sure you know that there are many cultural and even linguistic differences between the different parts of Sweden, so how can you define a whole ethnic group by just that? Swedes that are culturally assimilate still share the same ancestors, heritage and history with the Swedes living in Sweden, which is what makes them ethnically Swedes. Just because they are born elsewhere and don't speak the language anymore doesn't make the Tom, Dick or Harry less of a Swede than you and me. Sweden has a rich emigration history, and it is very well documented, both in Sweden and abroad. We get people from all the United States and Canada visiting their ancestral land every year. How can you make your own judgment in dismissing their Swedish heritage? How can you proof that there are nothing "Swedish" about them? When it comes to culture and heritage there are much more than just language and birthplace. In addition, how can you take offense in sharing our heritage with others who have the same ancestors as we do?

And your figures can be fairly inaccurate. They are either based on the number of Swedish speakers and the country of birth. Even with your definition of ethnic Swede they can be misleading. You can be a ethnic Norwegian that has the knowledge of the Swedish Language. You can be born in Sweden to Chilean parents who briefly stayed in Stockholm in the 70s before moving to Australia. By your logic these two people are ethnic Swedes. At the same time you are excluding almost all the people with partial or full Swedish ancestry just because they don't speak the language or were born in another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.48.95 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency with other wikipedia entries. The only thing that distorts the numbers is the fact that Anglo countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia keep records of ancestry which some mistakenly use for ethnicity calculations. But that's their problem, not mine. Cheers. --Lilyserbia (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to similar Wikipedia pages such as British People, Germans, Norwegians, Finns and other pages on ethnic groups. There is a big discrepancy on how the general define an ethnic group and how you are defining it. The Swedish version of this page was consistent with the above definition until someone changed it by inputting the current figures based on their own definition.

All of them include people of such ancestry. You are confusing ethnic Swedes with people who are culturally Swedes. A person with Swedish ancestry means that he or she is an ethnic Swede. By changing the population figure to the ones that are based on your sources presents some inaccurate information on this topic. It is an irresponsible action. Instead of being persistent in changing the figures back please create a new section or page specifically devoted to People who are culturally Swedes.

That took a long time to change back people. I am not saying there is NOTHING Swedish about those of Swedish descent if they don't speak the language. But we have a word for these people in Sweden - svenskättlingar. It's not up to me to make a page about "cultural Swedes" since ethnicity is ABOUT culture. Everyone has ancestors from somewhere else. A lot of evidence points to all of us coming from Africa. So what divides us into groups? Ethnicity, which is a CULTURAL term. It's because Americans have hijacked Wikipedia that many of these ethnicity articles are being distorted since Americans and other Anglo breakoffs have a different view of ethnicity than Europeans/Asians/Africans. I'm asking you to respect the Swedish definition here since we actually have different terms for etniska svenskar (ethnic Swedes) and svenskättlingar (Swedish descendants). --Lilyserbia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to have a definite source of how you define an ethnic Swede (in English term, since this is an English Wikipedia page) before making major changes to this page, other than "American hijack". Your view of Swedish ethnicity = Swedish speaking OR Swedish citizen is ignoring some of the defining meaning of the word ethnicity, which is ancestry, culture and traditions. I am not the first one to say this but if you look at any other English Wikipedia page on ethnicity (this is the English version of Wikipedia, as you may know, if you are a native Swedish speaker, there are many Swedish words that translate differently in English and vice versa), people of certain ancestry are included. Saying how Americans and Anglo "breaoffs" hijacking and distorting the view of ethnicity is borderline racist. This is an English Wikipedia page. I am quite sure a native English speaker do have a better understanding of their language then we do. Yes, please do respect the Swedish language, but also the English language and not to make up your own definition. Yes Swedish we have terms like svenskättlingar, but it is not exlusive to the term etniska svenskar and svenskar.

And second of all please do not delete others legitimate input on the page without a legitimate reason. Have you been to American places with a high percentage of Swedish immigrants? If not I highly recommend you to do some research before you declare that they don't have share any Swedish cultural values as we do. Please discuss with other users before deleting 15% of the pages contents, which looking from the previous version did not delete any of the contents that you've written. As you can see this Wikipedia page does not contain as much information when compared to other ethnic pages.

Do you have a good understanding on how people in countries like USA, Canada and Australia identify themselves? Do you speak for the whole nation of Sweden when you say they don't consider Swedish descents ethnically Swedes? If not, please do not impose your own view on this page. People who edited this page have been considerate enough to be inclusive of all materials so that readers can extract the information they see fit.

And finally by your definition of an ethnic Swede Linus Torvalds should be considered a Swede. Swedish speaking and close cultural ties to Swede. Wouldn't it be contradicting to exclude him from the page? The term ethnic Swede (both Swedish and English) is defined by many things. The way of how you define it is limiting. I really appreciate your effort of creating a good page for this topic but you seems to have a strong opinion on who to exclude, as some biased comments were made in your discussion posts. It is important to take others into consideration as well. Similar statistics and figures (people of certain ancestry being included on the page) are not only relevant on other ethnicity pages, they are used on this page for years before you have edited them away. The same with the Swedish version of the page. No consensuses were made before the changes either on this subject matter. If you insist on putting a definite meaning on the word ethnicity based on where you got your information from (I am curios to know, or is that from that one person who made the changes on the Swedish version of this page), I suggest to include all the previous information as well. --Nagbg (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds is finlandssvensk. THIS is his ethnicity. He is neither a Finn nor a Swede. He's a finlandssvensk. I don't care if it borders on racism - I could care less about how various British and American dictionaries define ethnicity. I go by the views of social scientists. And the one in the highest regard when it comes to this is of course Max Weber. According to him an ethnic groups are: Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists. Read: "memories of migration" - "group formation" - "does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." You can argue all you want about how some Americans are Swedes. In fact at best they are Swedish-Americans. Not Swedish, not Anglo-American but culturally Swedish-American. THAT is their ethnic group, just like finlandssvenskar are an ethnic group. These Americans are not ethnic Swedes since there is no group formation or feeling of togetherness between these two groups. I'm changing it back again. I'll leave in the random pieces of historical information even though they really should be in the Germanic tribes or Swedish Descendants page. --Lilyserbia (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the link from this page to the diaspora takes us tothis page amongst others. There they give the true numbers of the Swedish diaspora in the UK. And as stated in the article, tens of millions of Britons are of partial Swedish ancestry. Should we put down that there are 20 million ethnic Swedes living in the UK? I think not. Should we put down that there are 4 million ethnic Swedes living in the USA. I think not. Do you get it yet? --Lilyserbia (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misundertood Max Weber's defination. I think you have mistakenly skipped the phraseCommon decent of similarities of physical type or of customs or both. By that definition alone Swedish Americans, Swedish Canadians ...etc fits the description perfectly. Not only are they decedents of Swedish immigrants from the 18th and 19th century (more than 1 million Swedes emigrated during that period, which is a significant number by any means), many have maintained the customs and traditions. There are hundreds of Swedish organizations in North America, as well as newspaper and magazines that have been around for generations. This is an important subject for us, an integral part of our history. Many of us, especially from the south of Sweden, still have ties to the US and the other countries mentioned. We learned about it in school and we have records, monuments and museums dedicated to this subject. It is premature to dismiss that group of people (which is a significant number) as not being ethnic Swedes. When we look beyond of definition of Swedish citizens, Swedish Americans are ethnic Swedes. The case in the UK, similar to the one you have about our African origin, is different than the case of Swedish Americans. It has to do with self identification, customs, traditions, language and religion. Sweden wasn't one nation back then either. But this is a whole another topic on its own.

And I'm telling you that without "group formation" "common descent" (whatever that means) is pointless. An important part of group formation in an ethnic group such as the Swedish one that values conformity - is CUSTOMS - of which LANGUAGE is the most important aspect. For the US figures I used the amount of SWEDISH SPEAKERS living in the US, not the number of Swedish citizens. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose to end this argument by a compromise. To present information from both perspective with a clear heading and title, and not to delete any information that you don't agree with. I respect your opinion, but you tend to use a fixated and narrow definition of the word ethnicity. At times you are mutually excluding a significant number of ethnic Swedes that may otherwise fit into your definition of the term by presenting the data you are using (The embassy figures focus on Swedish citizens). And once again, when you look at any other ethnicity pages, including the ones that are related to this page, they all would include information that you are, for whatever reasons, stubbornly excluding. So perhaps rather than deleting the figures (like you did in previous edits) I believe it is best to leave the subject neutral and present both information to the readers. Nagbg (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As if I'm the only one who has deleted information. I already added a note in the population box to point out the number of people of Swedish descent. You can either make a new page of Swedish descendants (svenskättlingar) or make their half of the page bigger (and add figures there too). But the main population box should be for people who speak Swedish and/or are Swedish citizens living abroad (if no other information is found). This is the best estimate to the number of Swedes out there. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the way the population box is now I'm fine with (I didn't notice the change before.) So I guess this issue has been fixed then. --Lilyserbia (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why were the Finland Swedes which speak Swedish and have Swedish ancestry moved to form their own section? I thought the article on Swedish citizens was a different one. Is the reason that we have one Swede who personally does not identify with them? That Finland Swedes and Swedes don't root for the same team in ice-hockey does not mean that they don't share historical herritage and central aspects of their culture (language, snapsvisor, Lucia, midsommarstång etc.). 123.16.242.95 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) PS! Sorry for posting above under Linus by mistake. 123.16.242.95 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you might as well put Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians together and call us "Scandinavians." There are clear variations between all these ethnic groups that only locals would recognise. These differences exist between Swedes and Finland-Swedes too. They are ethnically Scandinavians but they should be differentiated from Swedes. This is hardly my opinion alone. It's however my opinion that they should have their own page which should merely be linked to this one. I'm being lenient in allowing them to be mentioned under Swedish population statistics. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lilyserbia, please take a look at the information presented in the info box from these pages: Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Finns, Icelandic, Irish People, Scottish People, English People, British People, Germans, French People, Italian People, Spanish People, Portuguese People, Thai, Japanese People, Koreans and etc... None of the above mentioned pages separate the population statistics like we currently do. This situation is not unique to Sweden (of having a large population of Swedish decedents abroad). People of Swedish ancestry elsewhere should have their own page, but their population should also be included in the section and not separately like we do now. Nagbg (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article to stop the edit war that's rolling along. If you can't agree on which version to put in, why not just use a 9 person version? Anyway, resume the debates you've started above, and reach consensus. GedUK  17:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnnicity

I am a bit astonished to see all this jingoistic fervour about finlandssvenskar. For me, it is completely clear that ancestry or language do not make anyone Swedish. It is a matter of self-identification, and nothing else. The notion of "biologically Swedish" individuals is nothing but sickening Neo-nazi jargon and total garbage. Podomi's ideological views emerge quite clearly from his racist comments regarding Finns. I suggest that you find out a remarkable finlandssvensk person who clearly identified him/herself as an ethnic Swede in the modern sense. His or her picture is fine in the gallery. Such individuals must exist. Axel Freudenthal was a seminal case. Tove Jansson or Linus Torvalds just will not do until you present clear evidence that they actually consider(ed) themselves as ethnic Swedes. If that kind of evidence exists, then OK! That should be self-evidently clear for anyone with a slightest idea of history or social sciences. Do you guys read anything else than nationalist pamphlets?

The identity discourse of finlandssvenskar is a complicated issue and includes a lot of varying view-points. This is unavoidable when you are dealing with subject matter which is highly subjective and always politicized in a way or another. Wikipedia cannot simplify or hide the basic facts just because some Swedish or Swedish-speaking nationalists happen to insist so.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's amusing to see that you call every editor except yourself a nationalist. That's humour. Närking (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@130.234.68.223, your view of ethnicity is rather one-folded, the concept is obviously multi-faceted, and obviously includes also biological ancestry, although it's far from being the only factor of ethnicity.

"Finland has a Swedish-speaking minority that meets the four major criteria of ethnicity, i.e. self-identification of ethnicity, language, social structure and ancestry" (Allardt and Starck, 1981)

It would be ridiculous to assert that self-identification alone would make up the ethnicity, it must always be reciprocatory from the behalf of the community. Anyway, your view of Finland-Swedes is obviously very, very bizarre, but it doesn't matter. Finland-Swedes are a Swedish ethnic group. That's why they re called svenskar, finlandssvenskar in other words, and that's why they are to be included in the article. As so many times concluded, this article does not render a monopoly for Mainland-Swedes, but ought to cover Swedes where-ever they are. It would be ridiculous to not add a very famous uni-lingually Swedish person, born to Mainland-Swedish mother in a culture which hails directly from fornsvenska in the gallery of Swedes just because couple complexed fenno-nationalist thinks that the issue is controversial. It's not. And even if this article was more Sweden oriented, we'd still have very sound reasons to add a Finland-Swede along, after all, the Swedish ethnic minority in Finland also shows ethnic affinity with the state of Sweden, not really a rocket science, "that should be self-evidently clear for anyone with a slightest idea of history or social sciences".

”It is concluded that Finland-Swedes are over-represented in the total migrationprocess from Finland to Sweden. As such, the process is culturally embedded in the group´s ethnic identity, which causes migration both through the practical minority situation in Finland and through ethnic affinity with Sweden” .(Hedberg, 2005 "Finland-Swedish wheel of migration")Podomi (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said anon! And Podomi - we've already discussed this. I have "ethnic affinity" for all Nordics - this doesn't mean we are all one ethnicity. And the first source, apart from being an opinion, is also ooold. The only "Finland-Swedes" I would accept having in the box are those who have lived in Sweden for a while and have assimilated into the Swedish culture. Such as Mark Levengood for example, although I really don't think he deserves to be there. But just as an example.

Swedish speaking Finns already have their own article at wikipedia. Let's keep this page for the Swedes, thankyou. --Lilyserbia (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun to see you have friends among Finnish nationalists. Must feel good. Närking (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've indeed discussed about this. You've made your point of (Finland)-Swedes being a seperate ethnic group. Ok! The Scanians might just be an ethnic group of their own as well, not to forget Bornholm Danes. Actually the Scanians might even be a better candidate for a seperate ethnic group, after all, their dialect hails from proto-Danish, as opposed to dialect of Finland-Swedes which is nothing but a derivative of arhaich proto-Swedish. The point is that in the article of Swedes, we naturally cover svenskar, both riksvenskar and finlandssvenskar, without giving a monopoly to certain group. That is, all forms of Swedish ethnicity should be covered. We could ofcourse put up a seperate picture gallery for the Swedish ethnic group in Finland.Podomi (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Total Population Statistics

It seems that this figure, 9.4 million is based on the number 9,354,462 provided in the Sweden article. If that is the case then the number supplied for the ethnic group of Swedes are considered to be composed of the whole population of Swedish citizens. Even taking the number of ethnic Swedes in Sweden, here stated to be 7,700,000, and adding it to "Swedish citizens/Swedish speakers", it still does not come together as 9.4 million. Adding those two groups together with "Swedish-speaking Finns/Finland-Swedes", still only constitutes about 8.3 million if put together.

So is the figure really composed of the number of people currently registered to be living in Sweden, or are there shadow numbers not written in the section of "Regions with significant populations"? Wigert (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As problem as been amended, discussion has reached its conclusion on the subject. Wigert (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

finlandssvenskar

I find it very bizarre that an article about "ethnic"-Swedes (not the residents of the national state of Sweden) does not have a word about the Ethnic-Swedes expansion across the gulf to the present day Finland. What should we do?Podomi (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that there are ethnic Swedes living in Finland is not more strange than there are ethnic Hungarians living in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia for example. Most ethnic Swedes that lived in Estonia live in Sweden now though. Feel free to add more about this in the article. Närking (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have to work on it. There must be some kind of an illustration of the Swedish-speaking ethnic groups across the Baltics.Podomi (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of Swedes in Sweden

As the Swedish government does not keep any statistics on ethnicity, there are no exact numbers on the total number of people of immigrant background in Sweden. Stating that the number of Swedes in Sweden is equal to the number of citizens in Sweden with Swedish nationality is false and misleading since there are many Swedish citizens who are of immigrant background.

The introductory paragraph of this article states that the article is about the Swedish ethnic group, the definition of ethnic group is ambiguous but it usually is up to the individual to identify with an ethnic group. Also the Swedish government doesn't define ethnic Swede and it doesn't say that ethnic Swede means the same as Swedish citizen. No one has asked every citizen of Sweden which ethnic group they identify with. So the figures can't be correct. I will therefore state that the numbers of Swedes in Sweden is Unknown as well as the total number of Swedes.

If this article is about the Swedish nationality and not the ethnic group, anyone reading this is welcome to amend the introductory paragraph to state this and make it clear that the article is about Swedes regardless of ancestry.--Grondolf (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is an estimation, which is the case with many other articles about peoples. Although it's a rather good one since there are indeed statistics telling how many are born abroad and how many have parents born abroad. A sourced estimation is far better than just writing unknown. Närking (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

From the source "excluding 1,661,003 persons, or 17.9% of the population, living in Sweden with immigrant background". Where does it say that they are excluding the nationalized citizens living in Sweden with immigrant background, which by the way are quite a lot? The figure is for citizens with nationality, how is that a good estimate considering Sweden's naturalization laws?--Grondolf (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Statistics Sweden gives the figure 1.733.913 for people with foreign bakground in 2009 which is about 18,56% of the population (which includes citizens and non-citizens of Sweden). And I don't see what Swedish legislation has to do with this. Närking (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Germanic

I am removing Alphasinus unsourced changes introducing the notion that Swedes are a "Germanic ethnic group". This classification is is unsourced and arbitrary, Germanic is a linguistic category not an ethnic one and we could equally well write "indo-European ethnic group", but that also contributes no relevant information. Swedes are an ethno-national group that speak a germanic language. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's strange that Germans are considered a "related ethnic group" while Finns are not! Don't Swedes and Finns have a lot in common? Aaker (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source yourself that states otherwise ? no, you do not so i suggest you to stop your disruptive editing before you get blocked for vandalism , and why does then Germans are a germanic group (not sourced) russians are east slavic (not sourced) or turkmen are turkic (neither sourced) you seem to stalk many people and revert improvements, am not the olny one who has problems with youre editsKids4Fun/TALK 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are gettiung the burden of evidence backwards - inclusion requires sources - exclusion doesn't. You should read our policies such as WP:V which states that any uncited information can be removed without discussion and cannot be reinserted without a reliable source. I also sucggest you look at WP:VANDAL since you seem to be confused about what vandalism is - a confusion which in fcat puts you in danger of being blocked yourself unless you stop making unfounded accusations of vandalism. Also please quite the other personal attacks or you will be reported to the relevant notice board.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

oh if it is about the culture then good please contribute to swedish culture related articles and avoid reverting edits on this article, and you dont have to be a nazi just to know that one of the main things about ethnicity is actually about ancestry ,and yes ethnicity is also about culture but that doesent change peoples ethnicity , so you mean you could choose to be russian one year just because you do russian traditions and speaking russian and the next year say "oh am a german i can speak german celebrate german traditions" and so on, so your arguemtens doesent actually work here eitherFREESAVELIY^talk 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a cultural category. Perhaps you should stop contributing to topics you know nothing about yourself. Also please read our policies on sources before trying to supoport baseless claims with more useless sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchs

I just noticed that there are no Swedish monarchs in the article's portrays in the upper right corner. To me this seems odd as there are several monarchs in Sweden's history that have had a profound effect on Europe and the world as we know it today (Gustav Adolf II for example). --94.255.146.95 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How many of them were/are ethnic Swedes? What about Silvia Sommerlath or Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte? Aaker (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All of them were at least half-Swedish, except maybe the first kings of the Bernadotte line, but those are of lesser importance. After some quick research I know that Gustav II Adolf, grandson of Gustav Vasa, was fully Swedish. --94.255.146.95 (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Finns as a related ethnic group

I've added Finnish people to the list of related ethnic groups. I have brought up this issue before and I think it's about time to do it again. "Sweden and Finland have a 700 years common history, there has always been significant migration between these two countries, and as a consequence Swedish and Finnish culture are very similar (and also the genealogy if it should be considered). Swedish is an official language in Finland and Finnish is the largest minority language in Sweden (hence it's even hard to define who is a Swede and who is Finn). Both countries/peoples also share a strong Nordic identity." Also, if you read the article about Finns, Swedish is listed as one of their languages. Aaker (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It matters very little that they have a 700 year common history. That's only because they share a border. Fact is genetically, the Finns are unrelated as an ethnic group to the Swedes. The Swedes are a Germanic peoples, while the Finns are not. They have no genetic relation. That is fact. The Finns are a Uralic peoples, while the Swedes are a Germanic peoples. Totally unrelated ethnically. Now, Swedish-Finns are ethnically related to the Swedes - those are Swedes who have lived in Finland, but the Finns as an ethnic group are unrelated to them. One is Uralic, the other is Germanic. Swedes are related to the Norwegians, Danes, Germans/Austrians, Dutch, Icelanders, and other Germanic peoples. Finns are not Germanic. TheGoodSon 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Being swedish is not a matter of genes it is a matter of ethnicity, nationality and identity - cultural concepts. Ethnic groups can be related in many ways - having populations belonging to the same genetic groups or speaking related languages are not the most important ways. Finnish should be included.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Maunus, but the Swedes are Germanic peoples and share closer ties to other Germanic peoples (Danes, Norwegians, Germans, etc) culturally, linguistically, and genetically. Just because Sweden and Finland share a border it does not make them ethnically related. Yes, they share a long history (usually an antagonistic history between them with many wars fought between the 2 countries) and many Finns live in Sweden and many Swedes live in Finland - but how does that make them ethnically related? It just means they share a long history together and have political ties. So what? France and Germany have political ties, share a border, and a long history of Germans living in France and vice-versa, but does that make them ethnically related? No it does not. It's the same thing with Austria and Croatia, for example. Totally ethnically unrelated, but they have a long history. Croatian is even an official language in some parts of Austria. That doesn't mean they are ethnically related. TheGoodSon 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not doing a good job at showing that you understand what "ethnic" means - you are basically just making unfounded statements about bwhich groups you consider to be related and which not. Of course the Fench and Germans are ethnically related, they both speak indo-european languages, the French are historically Germanic Franks who started speaking a romance language. The main problem is that the infobox even has that field - since there is no good definition of what it means for to ethnic groups to be related. Meanwhile, enforcing a criteria of genetics as the exclusive criterion of relatedness is not a good idea.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But we would not consider the French and the Germans as "ethnically related" today. Look, all of Europe share a history together and all are related to each other in one way or another (all Europeans are Caucasians, or "white people"). But, there are still differences aswell. Most of Europeans speak Indo-European languages, besides the Finns, Hungarians, Estonians, Russians, and other Eastern and Southern Europeans (ie. Greeks). The Germanic peoples (ie. Swedes, Germans, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Icelandic, etc) have cultural, linguistic, and genetic ties to each other that make them ethnically closer to each other than to other Europeans. Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and the French also share similar linguistic, cultural, and genetic ties to each other. Romanians share linguistic ties to the French, Italians, Spaniards, etc but they aren't genetically related to them. The Finns are a Uralic peoples that have their own Finno-Uralic language, culture, and genetics. TheGoodSon 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes and Finns

Okay, I have agreed to put the "related ethnic groups" back in the infobox and include the Finns. I guess you are right, the Finns may be genetically and linguistically distant from the Swedes, but they have shared a common border for ages and your arguments stand. However, I will also include the Dutch since the Dutch do share a common ancestry with the Swedes as Germanic peoples, so they are genetically closer and they both speak a Germanic language. I will revert the edit back to what it was and include the Finns also. TheGoodSon 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Finns and Swedes have not "shared a common border", They have – from the dawn of history – shared a single nationality within a single state Sweden proper – that later expanded into an empire, the Swedish Empire with other dominions of Sweden. The modern Finnish ethnicity is the invention of the Fennoman movement of the late 19th century. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You are still trying to define ethnicity on linguistic and genetic grounds - with no source for the latter. The first is questionable, and the second is simply wrong. In any case, there is no need for the infobox field at all - it is subjective, unverifiable, and adds nothing of any significance to the article. If there was a WP:RS that actually stated that 'ethnicity X is related to ethnicity Y' in some unambiguous way, it might have some validity, but including groups (actually, nationalities, which aren't necessarily the same thing as ethnic groups anyway) is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. THe field should never have been added to the infobox in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with Andy above I will accept this solution as an acceptable compromise for now, although I think that in the long run it is better to get rid of the "related groups" field since there are no well established way of determining what constitutes a "relation" between two ethnic groups, or how "close" the relation is. If you include the Dutch, then if for consistency you will have to include all west-Germanic ethnic groups: English, Frisians, Boer, Afrikaner, Norn, Scots, Plattdeutsch and Yiddish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to include ALL, but at least include the ones that are most well known or have sizeable populations (ie. Dutch, English, etc). I think including the Danes, Norwegians, Icelandics, Germans, Finns, Dutch, and English as a "related ethnic group" to the Swedes is good enough. And Andy, no I am not "trying to define ethnicity on linguistic and genetic grounds" - I have accepted Maunus' definition of an ethnic group. "Ethnic" is defined in the dictionary like this: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." The Germanic peoples all share a common ancestry and are descendents of ancient Germanic tribes, so yes they are genetically more closely related to each other than they are to the Finns, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, etc. There are studies that to back that up. For example, this study here of the Norwegians: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2002_v10_521-529.pdf It shows that Norwegians are closely related to central Europeans (Germans/Austrians) in particular. TheGoodSon 19:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, we have a compromise now, but your calculus of what kinds of relations are closer than others make no sense at all. There is considerable Germanic genetic and cultural influence in Spains and Northern italy (Longobards and Visigoths) remember. The reason that commonsense seems to dictate that Germans are more closely related than Spaniard is that historical accidents turned Spain and Italy into Nation states with Official languages of the romance family not due to any inherent natural closeness. The problem with commonsense is that it almost never corresponds to the way that the world actually looks. Dictionary definitions describe commonsense definitions and are therefore not good at defining technical terms - try to look up evolution in a dictionary and see how well it fits a biological understanding of the concept.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I understand what you are saying. I've said that ALL Europeans are related in one way or another, but there are those that are closer to each other genetically than to others. The Germanic Peoples are a historical ethno-linguistic group who originated in Northern Europe and are identified by their use of the Indo-European Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The descendants of these peoples became, and in many areas contributed to, the ethnic groups of North Western Europe: the Germans, Norwegians, Swedish, Finland-Swedes, Danish, Faroese, English, Icelanders, Austrians, Dutch and Flemish, Swiss Germans, and the inhabitants of Alsace, Lorraine (German: Lothringen) and Friesland. The ethnic groups I mentioned above are descendants of the Teutons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Geats, Goths, etc. The Finns are not descendants of these people and so are genetically more distant from the Swedes compared to the Danes, Germans, or Norwegians, for example. That's all that I am trying to say. Yes, we can include the Finns as a "related ethnic group" based on other factors besides genetic and linguistic relations. So I agree, the Finns should be included because the definition of an ethnic group is much broader than what I was suggesting yesterday. TheGoodSon 21:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. Your reasoning continues to be flawed when you claim that an historic population can be claimed to be "descendants" of populations only known in historical sources that are more than 1000 years old. You neglect the fact that contemporary populations are not homogeneous, historical populations were not homogeneous and that the argument of "genetic closeness" is a statistical argument, not one of one population descending from the other. Modern Germanic speaking populations are not genetically closer to an ancient Germanic speaking population than they are to neighboring non-germanic speaking populations between which there have been geneflows for the past millennium. There is no modern population that can be said to be a descendants of Geats, Jutes or Teutons in any meaningful sense of the word "descendant", just like there is no single individual that can trace his ancestry to any of them more than to any number of other groups. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TheGoodSon, the main problem with your reasoning is that it is yours. It is WP:OR, and as such, of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article that we couldn't download earlier is now back online [9], and it seems fairly unequivocal: "The similarity between Finns and Swedes in allele and haplotype frequencies indicates that these two populations may be descended from the same central European source population...". The article is quite detailed, and I won't claim to understand it all, but it certainly doesn't support arguments for any great genetic differences between the majority Swedish and Finnish populations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't support arguements for any great genetic differences between Finns and Swedes (as I said before, all Europeans are related in one way or another genetically). But it does support what I have been saying: that the Swedes are genetically closer to the Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Dutch, and Icelandics. Yes, the Swedes share genetic ties to the Finns and they share genetic ties to the Italians, French, Spaniards, and all other Europeans. But they are more closely tied to their Germanic brethren. TheGoodSon 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention anything about closeness to Germanic brethren, it mentions the popssibility of a single recent founding population common for Finns and Swedes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And even more interestingly Sajantila and Pääbo (1995) describe the Finnish population as genetically much closer to Indo-European speaking populations than to the Finno-Ugric speaking Saami and they propose that the population of Finnland were originally Indoeuropean speakers who switched to a finnic language... so much for "ethnically closer".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How does it support that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(it is pretty funny how those geneticists manage to get three out of three linguistic classifications wrong).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A single founding population for Swedes and Finns? I've done a lot of reading on Baltic and Finnic (i.e., including Estonian) cultures. Nowhere is there any sort of contact that makes them related, just as a millennia of contact have not made Estonians and Latvians related. Swedes are ethno-linguistically Germanic and arrived to that territory by a completely different path whereby they intersected with the Finns—an intersection which is the result of Finland having been part of the Swedish empire. Sweden today has programs which recognize that long-standing minority status of Finns. Indo-Europeans who "switched" to become Finnish? Even with that, it would still not make the Swedes and Finns ethno-linguistically or culturally related. If you wish to write that recent studies point to "Finnified Swedes", that is appropriate. Contending (ergo) the cultures or ethnic groups are related is not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to answer your arguments I need to know how you define "related".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the linked article? It appears not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus, "related" would mean originating from a common area ancestral settlement, sharing common cultural customs and ethnolinguistic background. So, Swedes settling in the north who were Finnicized (going by mention of recent genetic study), that is, taking on culture and customs of a nation/people who originated from a completely different area of ancestral settlement with different cultural customs and ethnolinguistic background does not make Swedes and Finns related. No amount of cross-cultural/ethnic assimilation makes those cultures and/or ethnic groups "related." Does that help? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It might, if it was based on evidence. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By your "lack of evidence" you imply that the Germanic tribes and Finno-Ugric tribes are ethno-linguistically and culturally related. On the contrary, there is evidence, and it is that those tribes are not related. 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish people are a germanic ethnic group

if swedes are not germanic , then how come most articles on wikipedia describe what larger group an ethnic group belongs to ? pashtuns is written as an Eastern Iranian enthnic group , croats an South Slavic ethnic group , Uyghur an turkic aso so onWolsemkosh (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Pashtun people are described as being part of the Eastern Iranian ethnic group, not just Iranian group. Croats is described as a South Slavic ethnic group and Russians as a East Slavic ethnic group and not just Slavic group. Närking (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes are a nation, not just an ethnic group like Pashtun. One can be a Swede of Pashtun ethnicity. That is the first reason we don't write "germanic". If we write that swedes are a "germanic people" we exclude a number of swedes from being the topic of the article. Secondly being Germanic is not an ethnic criterion but a linguistic one - ethnicity is a question of identity. There is no Germanic identity and there hasn't been one since the demise of pan-germanism after WWII. By writing "germanic" we suggest that swedes have a common identity with other groups that speak germanic languages, such as Afrikaaners or Frisians. There is no evidence for this. Scandinavian or Nordic is a much more useful denominator, since we know that there is some sensee of shared identity among the scandinavian and the nordic countries. It is also more useful because those descriptors are based on geographic location and not on ancestry or ethnicity which would exclude a large part of the swedish population.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Being swedish (citizenship) , swedish (nationality) or swedish (ethnic group) are 3 different things actually , and this article is about the third category of being swedish (ethnic) and also please avoid making edits in areas which you have know nothing about , the germanic people are an ethno-linguistic group , "scandinavian" is not such a thing because scandinavia is a geographical and cultural area and there is no diffrence in definition of either being germanic or slavic but both being ethno-linguistic groups Wolsemkosh (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No the article is about swedes as a nation and as an ethnic group. Please avoid making edits that comment on other editors. Also please avoid using sockpuppets.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, culture and ethnic group are directly related to ethno-linguistic background. Scandinavians refer to the larger northern Germanic ethnic groups. Is there any controversy regarding the Swedes being Germanic? Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedish is a Germanic language that is not controversial. But that does not mean that the swedish nation or the swedish people can be characterised as such. The relation between culture, ethnicity, nation and language is anything but straightforward. Speaking a Germanic language does not mean that an ethno-national group can be defined unproblematically as "a germanic ethnic group. Ethnicity just doesn't work like that. That would make forexample African-Americans classifiable as Germanic. To classify a group as Germanic it must be shown that the group identifies with that Germanic linguistic heritage to a considerable extent. Scandinavian refers to the peoples of the geographic area of scandinavia, not to a particular linguistic or ethnic heritage. You would need to show with reliable sources that being speakers of a Germanic language is a significant part of the Swedish ethnic identity. I don't think that is possible, it certainly isn't for Denmark for example where the adjctive "Germanic" in a non-linguistic sense is almost a pejorative, bringing unfond memories of times when a certain "Germanic nation" tried to "Germanize" Denmark by force.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The peoples of the Scandinavian territories and Baltics (northern Germanic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic) have been indigenous to their territories for a very long time. "Swedes" don't have to identify with today's "Germans" any more than "Germans" need to identify with today's "Swedes" for Swedes to remain northern Germanic. Have you heard Swedish? It certainly reflects its ancient Germanic heritage. The proper approach is discussion of how/where/when the Germanic tribes split off from each other and where they went and how their cultures evolved, for example, in response to the territories they inhabited. What we consider "pejorative" because someone thinks EWWWWW GERMANS! isn't scholarship, it's polemics. We should not confuse the two. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Germanic tribes are of no consequence whatsoever for todays ethnicity. You are working with a definition of ethnicity that is outdated by several decades. What you think swedish sounds like is also completely irrelevant. I understand Swedish fully. To identify as an ethnic Dane or Swede does not in anyway require one to have ancestors who have "been indigenous" the territories that are today Sweden or Denmark. It only requires being accepted as a Swede or Dane by other Swedes or Danes. You may know that the Swdedish royal house for example is the House of Bernadotte - a French lineage. That does not mean that the king of Sweden isn't a Swede. It is not scholarship to classify peoples to ethnic groups that they themselves do not see them selves as belonging to - ethnicity is about identity and ideology - not about genetic ancestry. I am afraid it is you who are confused about what those concepts mean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't confuse a linguistic category with an ethnic one either. If the Swedes self-identify as ethnically Germanic, they are: if they don't, they aren't. And regarding the 'peoples' under discussion, the genetic evidence (see elsewhere on this page) suggests that trying to divide Scandinavians into 'northern Germanic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic' is nonsensical, except perhaps in terms of statistical averages - their ancestors moved around, and screwed around, far to often to maintain any vestiges of the discreet 'tribal' identities you seem keen to present - if it ever existed in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That English royalty renamed themselves (e.g., Battenburg to Mountbatten) does not change that they are German. The last I checked, the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns all identified as themselves. Done. Your contention that "if they don't consider themselves "GERMAN"ic they're not" and that ethnic heritage is purely personal opinion is (I believe, nothing personal) a disservice to the studies of cultures and their evolution. It's a position that politicians regularly use to drive peoples apart, viz. Transnistria, Moldova and Romania. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

that is what ethnicity is - a cultural and political concept. There are no "natural nations", only groups that consider themselves to be so, or not. In this case you need to present evidence that the Swedish people consider themselves to be best described as a "Germanic people".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me give some more examples of why ethnicity doesn't work like that. 300 years ago the people of Southern Sweden (Götaland and Scania) were Danes, the swedish state conquered the territory and Swedified the people through a heavy handed political and military process. Now they are fully Swedish. The people of Bornholm used to be Swedish but at a certain point they rebelled against Sweden and asked the Danish king to incirporate them into Denmark, now they are Danish. So if you go by the ancient criteria of "Germanic tribes" only the part of Sweden that was inhabited by the tribe called "Svear" would be swedish and only those who could trace their roots to that area and that tribe (nobody have pedigrees that far back - we're talking 10th century) would be able to say they were swedish. That is not the case because the process that created the swedish nation state out of the medieval monarchy which was non-ethnic, created a swedish identity for the inhabitants of the swedish nation state. Sweden has received and influx of migrants from Slavic and Fennic speaking countries through the past 300 years - these people are indistinguishable from all other swedes, and identify as swedes not as Finns (some do) or Polish. Sweden is home to a considerable number of Sami, they are also Swedes. It is possible to be ethnically Sámi and ethnically Swedish at the same time. Being Swedish means to share that national identity and to identify ethnically with the swedish cultural identity as it has been formed in the past 250 years - regardless of ones ancestry.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Being a Dane living in Sweden, I can only agree that the term "Swedes" is conceptual, not inherited. There is only one all-absorbant culture in Sweden (and Denmark), and this consensus-driven culture changes slowly for each generation, slowly adding the influx of immigrants to the homogenic cultural pool. There is even an official statistical prasing called "Swedes born outside Sweden". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever studied "cultures and their evolution"? I suspect not. Claims of some mythical distinct 'tribal' ancestry are used to "drive peoples apart" a damned sight more often than assertions that people can (indeed, must) define their ethnicity for themselves. In any case, can you provide evidence that anyone ever self-identified as 'Germanic' ethnically? Did your imaginary ancestral tribes? I very much doubt it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @AndyTheGrump, when you'd like to be civil instead of contemplating the level of my ignorance out loud, we can discuss the topic further.

@Maunus, I don't think we are as far apart as you expect. I completely agree on Swedification, Finnization, et al. and peoples originally of one culture being assimilated by force — or choice — into another, usually neighboring, culture. My point is simply that cultural assimilation does not make the cultures involved any more intrinsically "related" than they were before, nor does it change the roots of the dominant culture. Obviously customs bleed over, but in all my readings ethnic identity is remarkably resilient. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. On that, that does mean we do disagree on Swedes and Finns being "related," regardless of cross-cultural assimilation or amalgam (you, yes, myself, no). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultures don't have roots. They are not organisms. There are no criteria to determine whether to cultures are more or less related or not. But we are not discussing this here - that was in the section above. HEre we are discussing whether we need to describe the Swedish ethno-national group as "germanic". I am saying that we don't because there is no evidence that Swedes consider themselves to be more Germanic than (indo-)European or Scandinavian or Nordic etc. It is choosing an arbitary description based on a particular sockpuppeteering editors fetich for the adjective "germanic" and its connotations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, if you accuse me of doing "a disservice to the studies of cultures and their evolution", are you surprised that I respond in kind? And as for your comments about the resilience of 'ethnic identity', they are entirely at odds with the evidence (both historical and genetic) already presented. Nobody in contemporary Scandinavia (or indeed elsewhere in Europe) will have 'roots' that go back exclusively to some single 'tribe' from 2000 years or so ago, when the 'Germanic' peoples were first described as such - by outsiders. The simple fact is that ethnicity is a social construct, not a pre-ordained, inherited and immutable 'fact'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, hadn't thought about this one in a while until reminded. I see that we will perhaps never agree. Still, I feel compelled to make the point that by your theorem of pure social construct, the entire field of anthropology is moot except for the part about what people call themselves. Any individual "Swede" can call themselves whatever they like and divorce themselves, by application of label or denial thereof, from any past lineage. But that does not render that lineage immaterial or superfluous either for that individual or the ethno-linguistic group they are part of. Lineage does not go "poof"—either appearing or disappearing—just because an individual might will it to be so. Swedish is Germanic, the Swedes are ethno-linguistically and culturally Germanic.

@Maunus, in looking back, I have no idea what you mean by "sockpuppeteering editors fetich [sic.] for the adjective 'germanic' and its connotations." What possible "connotations" are you talking about? There are no connotations, merely ethno-linguistic cultural heritage and lineage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any changes at this point, I am attempting to establish what we mean, in the first place, by "Swede", and to have a conversation about that which does not involve insulting other editors, dismissing editors who disagree as sockpuppets, and making utterly vague implications about "germanic" which I can only infer as indicating "germanic" is something filthy. Perhaps I can have a more reasoned conversation with Philaweb, see below, feel free to continue our dialog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up so it's not buried above

@Philaweb, there are those Swedes I know (Swedes born outside Sweden) who strongly identify with their ethno-linguistic lineage, customs, and cultural background. Indeed, Sweden funds Swedish-language schooling abroad in all things Swedish for families where at least one parent is a Swedish citizen. So, if being a Swede is merely a concept, what, exactly, culturally, is being preserved and passed on in such schooling? History, literature, geography, these are all merely subjects unless they are bound together at a cultural level into something that is more than the sum of its parts. By the "merely a concept" rule, then what is being passed on cannot be any more than a concoction of pseudo-cultural artifacts directed at manufacturing one's sense of self to be a "Swede"—whatever that is. I posit it's more than some Franken-cultural amalgam.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, rather, attempting (and apparently failing) to make the point that without a specific past: heritage, language, customs,..., there is no such thing as ethno-linguistic or cultural identity, merely a self-identifying label devoid of further inherent significance.

One cannot be a member of an ethnic group while effectively disavowing the past as immaterial. Otherwise, today I can say "I am a Latvian." And tomorrow I can say "Today, I am no longer a Latvian, I am a Swede." (Even though my maternal grandfather was a Ķulle, that doesn't give such a contention any more basis in reality.) The fallacy of the self-identity argument is that it takes the case of one person, and the notion that an individual can hypothetically change/assume an ethnic identity just as someone can become a member of another religion—or create a new religion where one did not exist before (and can one, really?), and projects that to the entire group that is that ethnic identity. That ethnic identity has a historical, linguistic, cultural, migratory,... heritage which is immutable. Any one person can choose what "past" they apply to their self-identity, but no one can change or deny the past. I can choose to move to Sweden, learn Swedish language and customs, claim to connect with my (minority) Swedish heritage, but I will always be a Latvian in Swedes' clothing. Nor is there anything I can contend about the origin of the Latvian culture which makes it something which is other than what it is. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am using Swedes as an example only, this can be applied to any nationality. Swedes born outside Sweden are Swedes by choice – whether emigrants or immigrants. They choose to become or keep on being Swedes. But, Swedish emigrants who choose to stay "Swedish", and does not stay in touch with the Swedish culture, will become relicts, a Swedish culture of has been Sweden – not Swedes as those living in Sweden. The past is not immaterial, but living in the past does not equal a culture on another place on this earth. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the example only part, just as my invoking personal Swedish background was to assist (I hope) in making my argument. Putting what you said another way... let's say a Swedish couple emigrate have a child and raise it "Swedish" but are, as well, disconnected from Sweden and Swedish life—your relicts. At the time of their emigration, they were friends with another couple who remained in Sweden, had a child, etc., etc.

Regardless whether Swedes frozen in time or Swedes moving forward in time, both families are Swedes who are products of (up to that point) a common cultural past. A past which informs us as to who is, and forms, the "Swede." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, you have not calculated with the time factor. If your conclusion would have been: "A past which informs us as to who were, and formed, the Swede", I could agree. Unfortunately, time does not work in the favour of your argument. For every generation that passes, your argument becomes weaker, and after a century with disconnection from the mother-culture, I am not sure the emigree Swede has much in common with Swedes in Sweden, than whatever you may find in any ethnographic museum.

The conceptual part of being a Swede is applied to immigrants. They are supposed to integrate, to become Swedish, regardless of their gene pool. Theoretically speaking, I am not sure how well a century disconnected Swede would integrate that well to what today is, and forms Sweden. (PS. I really hope my point is clear. My English is rusty, and I am not sure whether I am making this understandable) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It arguably isn't 'A past which informs us as to who is, and forms, the "Swede",' so much as our contemporary interpretation of that past - there has been a long, and often heated debate on this subject within the humanities and social sciences, but I think it can safely be said that nobody now sees 'a common cultural past' as an unproblematic 'object', from which later cultures can be said to have been descended - and in this particular case, was there ever a 'Swedish culture' which was both unique, and indivisible? I doubt it very much. If past Swedes didn't have as many conflicting and contradictory ideas about who they were as the rest of humanity routinely seems to, they may well be unique - but somehow, I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedes in Sweden are unique in at least one way (together with the Swiss). There has not been war on Swedish soil for 200 years, which means few to no conflicting and contradictory ideas about their national identity. It is typical for Nordic nations to have a very homogenic population with relatively little immigration up and until about a century ago. WWI and the Russian revolution actually broke the prevalence of Germannic culture in Sweden, and WWII burried it in all of the Nordic countries. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Scandinavian ?!

what does that have to do with the modern swedish nation and ethnic group other than a "historical cultural-linguistic region" as you quoted it yourself , i neither understand why it was included in the first place , there are no sources and if we use "scandinavian" doesen't that mean that we should call them indo european like this : the swedes are a indo-european scandinavian nation and ethnic group and that neither makes any sense Ricekrosalkl (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)