Talk:Sweden

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Removal of the NPOV dispute banner from the category "World Wars"

I am proposing a removal of the message mentioned in the headline. It was me that once added it, and as the article now has been edited in a appropriate way I suggest that it is now time for it's removal. So speak up now if any of you disagree, or I will remove it within the nearest time. For more information see the archived discussion.

--Qszet (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Public Policy" and "Economy" sections blatantly infiltrated by politics.

This is a selection of the many politicized quotes: "After World War II a succession of governments increased the welfare state and the tax burden, and Sweden's GDP per capita ranking fell from the 4th to 14th place in a few decades.[80]" This sentence heavily implies a cause and effect which is not accepted by most economists. The citation is to Bergstrom and Gidehag, who have been widely discredited.

"Deregulation-induced competition helped Sweden to halt the economic decline and restore strong growth rates in the 2000s." Sweden's economic growth is more often attributed to other factors. The Swedish economy more closely followed global trends, and is suffering in 2009, just as the rest of the world is, because of the global economic crisis enabled by deregulation.

Also, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is not a respected source of information in the United States, and is inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia, much less for an entry on Sweden. For information on the Swedish economy and Swedish public policy, the consensus among Swedish economists and policy analysts should be used. This is the section: "A September 29, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal quoted Jan Björklund, leader of Sweden's Liberal Party, as saying, "The corporate tax is one of the taxes which large companies really study when they plan to set up business somewhere." The editorial goes on to say, "The corporate tax reduction will bring the Swedish rate down to 26.3% from 28%, continuing its fall from a high of 57% in 1987... entrepreneurship had become such an alien concept that more than half of Sweden's 50 largest companies were founded before World War I and only two after 1970—the period when taxes and social welfare programs proliferated... Three years ago Sweden eliminated its inheritance tax.""

The sections in question read more like crude policy papers from the American Enterprise Institute than like good encyclopedia sections. The article is in desperate need of a clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluiiuli (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the consensus among Swedish economists is that the rapid expansion of the welfare-state and the rise of taxes and extensive regulation (mostly in the 70's-80's) was the main cause of the slowdown of Swedish growth during these years. It's not a controversial opinion among researchers in the field. I don't know if your're Swedish or American, but if you know Swedish you could look up "Marknad och Politik" by Lars Hultzkrantz, Hans Tson Söderström, or "Makroekonomi" by Klas Fregert, Lars Jonung. Both standard books used in the introductory course in economics, they explain all this in more detail.--Winterus (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Winterus, isn't what you are saying above, the identical argument used in the United States for the same reduction in tax rates and regulation, that led to the debacle on Wall Street in 2008? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges... you have to understand that from the late 60's to the 80's, Sweden rapidly became one of the most heavily taxed and regulated countries in the world (not counting flat-out communist countries such as the soviet union, north korea etc). A certain degree of regulation is obviously necessary (the recent subprime crisis proves that), but you can have too much of it as well. America had too little, Sweden had too much, the world isn't just black and white. The deregulations and tax cuts during the 90's and 00's have honestly been more of a normalization and adaptation to the realities than a push for an aggressive neoliberal policy, if that's what you're implying.--Winterus (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

Hi, sorry to butt in. I seem to be noticing a pattern on pretty much every sweden-related talk page. Person A claims that a part of the article is biased against Sweden. Person B says that the article is right, and (often) accuses Sweden of something. Person A says that Person B is allowing bias to seep into the article, and Person B says that Person A is denying the facts. Person A then (often poorly) cites his/her source(s). Person B says that everyone agrees with him/her, and sites no sources. Please don't let that happen again! Remember, this is Wikipedia. If you make a claim, site at least two sources. As an example, I'll site my sources: [[4]], [[5]], and[[6]] all show signs of disagreement. I somehow suspect that Sweden's politics have something to due with this. So please, if you can't back up your claims, don't make them.--Old King^ColeSlaw 23:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice description, Old King, you're only too right about this. The quarrels about politics and bias you've picked up are a feature of corresponding parts of the Swedish Wikipedia too. Economists as a group have a high reputation in Sweden and know it, so they have a habit of making sweeping, imposing statements that pretend to be non-partisan and objective but really incorporate political convictions, even when those convictions aren't spelled out too openly. And neo-classical & monetarist economics (Hayek, Friedman and so on) has pretty much been the sacred order within faculties of Economics, leading research institutes etc in Sweden since the 1980s - so you get a "science" that couches views that are strongly politicized in a pretend objective language of market research - and, on the other hand, a sometimes not too articulate oppposition to those perspectives. People like Lars Jonung, Bo Södersten or Klas Eklund (all of whom have influenced generatiosn of economists in Sweden, and all of whom have had close ties with governments and the political elite) are certainly no apolitical gurus; they sll sometimes show powerful ideological agendas. Unfortunately this brand of politicized science spills over into the swedish wiki community.Strausszek (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight error under the military section

I think there is a slight error under the military section but since I have never changed anything on wikipedia I won't touch anything myselft.

it says "The head of the armed forces is the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces (Överbefälhavaren, ÖB), after the sovereign the most senior officer in the country."

Actually, the sovereign and the supreme commander has the same rank of general ( both four star generals). So unless someone knows som swedish law that says that the king stands above the supreme commander even though they have the same rank it should be changed.

It wouldn't be wrong to also point out that the sovereign only has a symbolic rank of general and in fact does not have any controll over the armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.175.48 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been clearly understood since the late 19th century that the King doesn't interfere with the Armed Forces, he takes no active role apart from what the governemnt finds useful. I'm not sure when the King was formally relieved of the duty of Commander, or if there was any particular law, but I'm sure the current constitution does not make the monarch Commander-in-Chief. And the "Torekov contract" of 1970 had laid down that the monarch was effectively deprived of all political or directive powers. I made a rewrite of this section, outlined how the ÖB office came into being and how the King had lost his active role. Already when the union with Norway broke up in 1905, a point when there was some real risk of war, the King made no attempt to seize the reins and force his way, even though he hated that the Norwegians went their separate path.Strausszek (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tesla was not Croatian

{{editsemiprotected}}In the text under the subsection "inventions" it is mentioned that Tesla was Croatian. This is incorrect. He was Serbian.

 Done, his article agrees--Jac16888^Talk 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Statehood dates in factbox

Giving a clear date of the "origin of Sweden" is impossible of course, unlike many other countries there is no plain first date of unification (however you define that concept) or even first mention of the Swedes (svear or svioner do not equal the later Swedish nation). To the factbox, though, I've added the dates for the establishment, de facto end and de jure end of the Kalmar Union. The de facto end date is, of course, still celebrated as the National Day (Election of Gustav Vasa as King at Strängnäs, 1523). Also added the year of the current constitution.Strausszek (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For those not knowing that it is impossible to give a date of origin of Sweden, the 1397 date is more likely to be misleading than clarifying. (And yes, it is a well known problem, see the difference in what's mentioned here, at List of countries by statehood and List of sovereign states by formation date, all offering different answers.) If I were to choose a date I'd probably lean toward a "unification" of Sweden in 995, as mentioned in the "sovereign states by formation date" link, but that would be misleading as well, as Sweden certainly existed before that too. (Maybe not in the definition we mean today, but certainly the definition used then.) I personally prefer the "prehistoric" option I think I've seen listed here before, but I don't see any ideal solutions. The change of government in 1809 could be interesting too.Lejman (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

State and church

The article says there was a separation of state and church from the reformation and on. This is incorrect; it was rather the starting point of when the church became something like a national governmental agency which is also reflected with mentions of the law about mandatory membership which was changed in 1860. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.189.106 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Locator map

Hello. Recently, an editor added a locator map to this article (with orange highlights and a horrid Mercator projection) which is of a style that is not only inconsistent with the locator maps in most country articles but has done so without any discussion or consensus. Consequently, I have restored the prior long-standing map. I believe a renewed consensus needs to be demonstrated before the map is changed again. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Halsö Island is wrong, see Hälsö —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.196.237 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, also fixed link. StephenHudson (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology

I think it might be worth mentioning the extreme usage of, and reliance upon, computers in Sweden. I have been unable to find the actual statistics, but I am pretty confident that I read in a newspaper a few years back that Sweden has the most Internet users, as well as computers, per capita in all the world. Having travelled throughout most of europe and parts of the USA, I think this is probably true. If anyone could find the statistics and/or add a few lines concerning swedish computer-usage it would be most appreciated. Djingis Khan (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)