Talk:Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Sweden:
  • Suggestions can be found in the section "GA Review Results" below
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


Edit request: found the missing citation, 25 July 2011[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.212.142 (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011‎ (UTC)

Obvious bias towards depicting Sweden as a religious country[edit]

Citing a nytimes article and a obscure book to say that swedes resent the word atheist and the church wedding are increasing is false and should be taken care of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.217.245 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a Swede, I have to agree on this. To say that Swedes in general call themselves "Christians" are just rubbish. But a few people do this, especially in the younger generations. Those who do are often strong believers. Also, the article states as a fact supposed to support that Sweden is in fact religious, that people remain members of the Church of Sweden although there is a tax for that. First of all, until 1996 all Swedish children were automatically made members of the Church of Sweden. After that year, people _entering_ the church has declined dramatically. Second, yhe tax is so low most people don't care and many pay it, ie stay a member, because they endorse the social work made by the Church of Sweden. To say Swedes denounce the term "atheism" is just pure nonsense. /14-12-20
According to The Church of Sweden 71 700 persons (1,1 percent of members) chose to leave in 2013. 8 377 persons entered.[1] /14-12-20
Fixed re: "resent" - the source had been falsified there. Also, someone should counter all that pro-religious bias by finding a good source that explains how Swedes remain "in the curch" only because the Church of Sweden still conrtrols almost every cemetery in the country and burial becomes complicated and much more expensive if you leave the church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be hard since the premise is incorrect. Everybody pays a burial fee, begravningsavgift, and has the right to a burial plot and use of a burial chapel among other things.[1] The costs are similar [2]. Sjö (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Where, more specifically, did you get your opinion that buying a new grave is priced similarly for non-members and members? I believe the difference is substantial, as it also is in most cemeteries for locals and non-locals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Kammarkollegiet source: "When a person dies he or she has the right to recieve without any cost to the estate … a grave in a public cemetery for a period of 25 years." I.e. you don't buy a grave, it's paid for by the burial fee, which is paid by members and non-members of the church alike. In addition the Fonus source explicitly says that the cost doesn't have to differ between a religious and a non-religious funeral. Sjö (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
As already been established above, there's a mandatory tax (begravningsavgift) all Swedes pay no matter if they're a member of the Church of Sweden or not. Upon reflecting on this since my last post, I have to conclude the statement that Swedes are staying as members are completely false. Hard facts doesn't lie in this case: The amount of the Swedish population being members of the Church of Sweden has dropped from 95.2 % in 1972 to 65.9 % in 2013.[2] I'd say that fact totally contradicts Phil Zuckerman's alleged notion. Alleged? Looking at a summary of his book about his findings in Sweden and Denmark says nothing about "denouncing" the word atheist.[3] Also, the study is qualitative, although he interviewed 150 persons in Denmark and Sweden. This is by no means statistically significant. I'm unable to make the changes that obviously should be done to the article, but hope someone who can will. /14-12-20 again

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014[edit]

The following part from the religion section:

"Sociology professor Phil Zuckerman claims that Swedes, despite a lack of belief in God, commonly resent the term atheist, preferring to call themselves Christians while being content with remaining in the Church of Sweden.[168] Other research has shown that religion in Sweden continues to play a role in cultural identity.[169] This is evidenced by the fact that around 70 per cent of adults continue to remain members of the Lutheran Church[170] despite having to pay a church tax; moreover, rates of baptism remain high and church weddings are increasing in Sweden"

seems to be from highly speculative research. I would also argue that this research is not well-recognized for this area and constitutes a very thin opinion. Therefore, I think this section should be removed since it gives the reader a speculative (and with a non negligible high probability incorrect) insight on religion in Sweden.

For instance "This is evidenced by the fact that around 70 per cent of adults continue to remain members of the Lutheran Church" is misguiding since this number is steadily declining every year. The sentence makes the user believe that this number is steady around 70 percent. This is evidently not the case since the percentage (this information is taken from table in the wiki article) is down to 67.5% in 2012. If one checks the history of the wiki article one can see that the sentence has been around for a while but the numbers have changed. It was changed sometime after june 2013 from 80 to 70 percent. I would therefore strongly advice that this specific sentence should be removed since it's not scientific. The removal of whole part would also increase the quality of the article.

213.115.10.98 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: all the sources they use seem to be reliable at first glance. if you have doubts, bring it to the reliable source noticeboard or start a request for comment. either way, this is not a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree in full with the IP's complaint - the whole section is alarmingly one-sided, lacks balance and damages the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem in the Science Section.[edit]

I'm pretty sure Tycho Brahe was Danish, even though being born in a now swedish city. At the site for Tycho Brahe, it says he was danish, so putting it in the section for swedish science would be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.69.99 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Tycho Brahe was most definitely Danish not Swedish, and died long before Scania was ceded to Sweden. So he should not be listed as a Swedish scientist... Thomas.W talk 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014[edit]

In the first paragraph it states that Southern Sweden is predominantly agricultural and northern Sweden mainly forest. This isn't true. (I am Swedish and I live in Sweden all my life). Only the southernmost tip (Skåne) is mainly agricultural. Forestry is the main industry (and covers most of the land) in the rest of Southern Sweden too. See for example the article on Småland. (Which is clearly southern Sweden). See how the land is there? It is also mainly forest and lake. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done There are large agricultural areas in Halland, Blekinge, Västergötland, Östergötland and Uppland too, which, from a geographical standpoint, are also part of "Southern Sweden". Thomas.W talk 10:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The current phrase is problematic. Here, "predominantely" by definition means that more than 50 % is agricultural. However, there is no source to support this claim! Moreover, "Southern Sweden" is vague. Does this refer to the geographic southern half of the country? In this case, then surely much less than 50 % of the land is agricultural, which means that the statement at present is directly errenous. I would propose two options to deal with this problem:
1. Find a reliable source that gives figures for the percentage of land occupied by agriculture and forest in the different regions. Adapt the text accordingly.
2. Moderate the current phrase. Instead of "predominantly", the phrase could read, for instance, "While the land in Sweden is predominantly covered by forests, significant parts of Southern Sweden are agricultural."
Let's be a bit creative and find a better solution to this! Jonas Henriksson (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.. You've stated a change, but then you said "find a better solution", implying that that change was only an example of what could be done, and not what you want to do. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Year for Sweden have been a country since[edit]

Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in "<any year>"" for Sweden?

I do not know how long Sweden have been a country for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.71 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The first King of Sweden is recognized to have died in 995 or 996. The exact founding of the kingdom cannot be determined, due to poor sourcing, partly because of the disastrous fire of 1697. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Was he badly burned to death?

Who? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How did the first King of Sweden died from?

Then 7 centuries later, what had cause to have a disastrous fire?

The National Archives burned then (as I wrote above) and most of medieval history was lost, except for documents which had been copied elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)