Talk:Sweden
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sweden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 65 days  |
 | Sweden Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |
|---|---|
 | Sweden was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: January 23, 2007. |
| Sweden B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 To-do: Updated 2021-11-25
Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL Template loop detected: Template:Todo Nagatively Biased description of Sweden during WWIIThe article claims Sweden was under "German influence" during WWII, which is not really true, although the country was to some extent cut off. The article then goes on and claims Sweden "collaborated with Hitler" which sounds weasel-worded to me. Then, the article talks about Swedish soldiers in the Wehrmacht, surely to paint the picture as dark as possible. I think it is all very biased, partly off topic, and should be re-written altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugfindersolas (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I actually would agree on that. Even though it's commonly known that the critisism that have been aimed towards Sweden, for example because of some of the things mentioned here in the article, are quite true, the text presented here seems a bit odd to me too. As said of course Sweden was partly influenced by Germany, but not to the extent that this article makes it seem to be. And some of the facts are also kind of irrelevant, for example the part about the Swedish citizens that joined the Waffen-SS. The number of people that did this was probably somewhere between 130-300, and if I remember right, travelled to Norway to do so and totally against the neutral policy of Sweden. Though this text makes it seem as though a vast number of eager Swedish men stormed into Soviet Russia all of a sudden, when, for example the number of Norwegians that did this was approx 10 000. And now I'm not trying to make it sound like Sweden played no part, though, I would also prefer a more balanced article that presented more relevant facts in a more correct way. It should definitely be rewritten, or, that is my opinion. --Qszet (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Largest city in Scandinavia?The opening paragraph states that "(Stockholm) is by far the largest and most populous city ... in Scandinavia". According to their respective Wikipedia pages, the urban area of Stockholm is about 8.5% more populous than that of Copenhagen, while the metro area population is even larger for Copenhagen than for Stockholm. The difference in size between these cities is hardly enough to motivate the "by far" phrase... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.33.54 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Most visited country in Northern Europe?The opening section states that "Sweden is the most visited country in Northern Europe with 5,2 million visitors in 2007". The page for Northern Europe (linked to in the opening section) includes the UK as part of Northern Europe, and the source for this line is a page that sates the UK received 30 million visitors in 2007, far more than Sweden. I am going to change the sentence to "Sweden is the most visited country in Scandinavia with 5,2 million visitors in 2007" WhizzBang (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC) The military section has a rather significant typo, it says Ireland is a member of the Nordic Batle Group, it must be Iceland. I cant change it because its locked 137.222.215.9 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC) No, Ireland is a member of the Nordic Battle Group, Iceland doesn't have an army. McGnome (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) The cause of this error is probably the fact that most Scandinavians don't regard the British (and the Irish) islands as a part of Northern Europe. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Swedish Empire and the WolvesThere is some rather dubious editing going on at Swedish Empire - this edit [1] is verging on bizarre ("Wolves, not seen in settled areas since the Middle Ages, stalked the deserted streets of once-bustling villages."). Help correcting this would be welcome, as the author is taking my corrections of his original research/unencyclopaedic tone rather personally. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unhappy with the term "ethnic Swedes"Hi, I'm all not that happy with the term "ethnic Swedes". It feels a bit like saying "ethnic American", "ethnic Canadian" or "ethnic British". Neither do the sources use the term "ethnic Swede" but rather refer to persons born outside Sweden, with a parent born outside Sweden or who are not Swedish citizens. I would prefer to use these more precise and correct terms. Any comments before I change?Osli73 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It might feel awkward to use such terms from a swede's point of view as this is quite taboo in Sweden, but I'm quite sure there is generally more tolerance to such things in the rest of the world. Though I am suspicious about the source of this information regarding ethnicity and numbers, as it is a diffuse subject. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Emil R
About swedes in operation barbarossasuppsodly there was only one swede participating in operation barbarossa, Ingemar Somberg who served at first in SS Panzer Division Wiking. the article suggest that there were more swedes participating in operation barbarossa, to support this claim it should present a valid source. there were only about 200-300 swedish volunteers in the SS, and almost all of them joined after 1941. "Swedish volunteers in Nazi SS units were among the first to invade the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa" please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conda (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Priority 1 (top)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nagatively Biased description of Sweden during WWII
The article claims Sweden was under "German influence" during WWII, which is not really true, although the country was to some extent cut off. The article then goes on and claims Sweden "collaborated with Hitler" which sounds weasel-worded to me. Then, the article talks about Swedish soldiers in the Wehrmacht, surely to paint the picture as dark as possible. I think it is all very biased, partly off topic, and should be re-written altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugfindersolas (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually would agree on that. Even though it's commonly known that the critisism that have been aimed towards Sweden, for example because of some of the things mentioned here in the article, are quite true, the text presented here seems a bit odd to me too. As said of course Sweden was partly influenced by Germany, but not to the extent that this article makes it seem to be. And some of the facts are also kind of irrelevant, for example the part about the Swedish citizens that joined the Waffen-SS. The number of people that did this was probably somewhere between 130-300, and if I remember right, travelled to Norway to do so and totally against the neutral policy of Sweden. Though this text makes it seem as though a vast number of eager Swedish men stormed into Soviet Russia all of a sudden, when, for example the number of Norwegians that did this was approx 10 000. And now I'm not trying to make it sound like Sweden played no part, though, I would also prefer a more balanced article that presented more relevant facts in a more correct way. It should definitely be rewritten, or, that is my opinion. --Qszet (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. The proper term would reasonably be that the Swedish government "made concessions" to Nazi Germany, as the "collaboration" is so much tied to activites during an occupation, usually of a kind which gets the collaborator prosecuted or executed after the war. The concessions have definitely led to criticism, but if you factor out the hindsight of Hitler losing WWII, the Swedish government's WWII politics looks very much like cautious realpolitik - enough concessions to the side that had the upper hand to be able to stay out of the war, but also to be able to keep up enough foreign trade to keep the domestic armaments industry and food production running. Tomas e (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Largest city in Scandinavia?
The opening paragraph states that "(Stockholm) is by far the largest and most populous city ... in Scandinavia". According to their respective Wikipedia pages, the urban area of Stockholm is about 8.5% more populous than that of Copenhagen, while the metro area population is even larger for Copenhagen than for Stockholm. The difference in size between these cities is hardly enough to motivate the "by far" phrase... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.33.54 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Most visited country in Northern Europe?
The opening section states that "Sweden is the most visited country in Northern Europe with 5,2 million visitors in 2007". The page for Northern Europe (linked to in the opening section) includes the UK as part of Northern Europe, and the source for this line is a page that sates the UK received 30 million visitors in 2007, far more than Sweden. I am going to change the sentence to "Sweden is the most visited country in Scandinavia with 5,2 million visitors in 2007" WhizzBang (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The military section has a rather significant typo, it says Ireland is a member of the Nordic Batle Group, it must be Iceland. I cant change it because its locked 137.222.215.9 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Ireland is a member of the Nordic Battle Group, Iceland doesn't have an army. McGnome (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The cause of this error is probably the fact that most Scandinavians don't regard the British (and the Irish) islands as a part of Northern Europe. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Swedish Empire and the Wolves
There is some rather dubious editing going on at Swedish Empire - this edit [2] is verging on bizarre ("Wolves, not seen in settled areas since the Middle Ages, stalked the deserted streets of once-bustling villages."). Help correcting this would be welcome, as the author is taking my corrections of his original research/unencyclopaedic tone rather personally. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unhappy with the term "ethnic Swedes"
Hi, I'm all not that happy with the term "ethnic Swedes". It feels a bit like saying "ethnic American", "ethnic Canadian" or "ethnic British". Neither do the sources use the term "ethnic Swede" but rather refer to persons born outside Sweden, with a parent born outside Sweden or who are not Swedish citizens. I would prefer to use these more precise and correct terms. Any comments before I change?Osli73 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't feel at all like "ethnic American" or "ethnic Canadian", since Sweden is a clearly defined Old World nation-state, not an ethnically mixed former colony or a union of nation-states like Britain. An ethnic American is an Amerindian, by the way. Do "ethnic Russians", "ethnic Germans", "ethnic Greeks", "ethnic Spaniards", etc. sound awkward to you as well? --Humanophage (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It might feel awkward to use such terms from a swede's point of view as this is quite taboo in Sweden, but I'm quite sure there is generally more tolerance to such things in the rest of the world. Though I am suspicious about the source of this information regarding ethnicity and numbers, as it is a diffuse subject. --94.255.146.181 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Emil R
- "Neither do the sources use the term "ethnic Swede" but rather refer to persons born outside Sweden, with a parent born outside Sweden or who are not Swedish citizens."
- That is because it is a simplification. There are no sources that present the true amount of ethnic Swedes in Sweden - mostly because of the problem in defining an "ethnic Swede". However, by looking at where the parents are born you can get an pretty good indicium, or average of the general population.
- Your example is ridicules. There are ethnic Swedes in America, whom are still Americans. There are ethnic Swedes living in Finland, and they are still Swedish. Sweden is an national state, and like someone above said; not an ethnically mixed former colony or a union of nation-states like Britain. The only reason why you would like to change the term is because you want to poisen Wikipedia with "political correct" bullsh*t. Well, obviously I want Wikipedia to continue as a neutral portal that does not give into political motives.
About swedes in operation barbarossa
suppsodly there was only one swede participating in operation barbarossa, Ingemar Somberg who served at first in SS Panzer Division Wiking. the article suggest that there were more swedes participating in operation barbarossa, to support this claim it should present a valid source. there were only about 200-300 swedish volunteers in the SS, and almost all of them joined after 1941. "Swedish volunteers in Nazi SS units were among the first to invade the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa" please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conda (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)