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 (see Sweden at Wikipedia for Schools). 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:

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


— Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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


This really needs to be looked at, because that Zuckerman statement is just ridiciolus, most swedes doesn't even think much about religion (or non-religion for that matter) in their daily life, and just as has been previously stated, an article in an american newspaper about how someone (Zuckerman) supposedly talked with "hundreds" of danes and swedes (which seems to imply a combined total of "hundreds"), the number being very vauge, can't be enough for a claim like the one in the actual article, can it? To me this feels like someone is deliberately trying to push a POV. AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reverted your unexplained removal of a large chunk of text since you need support from other editors here first, before removing it. You not liking it is not a valid reason for removing it. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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. (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)
Sad to see this irritating false information saying Swedes denounce the word "atheism" and are becoming more (sic!) "Christianized". Apparently, the person saying no to an edit didn't read what I wrote in the section above this, so I quote myself:
"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"
Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Please remove this nonsence and stop going errands for people who wants to portray Sweden as a country of Christian believers. It is not. /15-04-30 (aka 14-12-20 above :) )
Addition: By the end of 2014, the percent of the Swedish population who were members of the Church of Sweden had dropped to 64.6 % (65.9 % in 2013)[1]. Around 48 000 persons chose to leave, while 8 000 entered.[2] As I said above, facts don't lie. But perhaps Wikipedia wants to wait 10 more years until the number is below 50 %? /15-04-30— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
We go by what the reliable sources say, and you're welcome to request a change that's supported by sources. I agree that the decrease in membership of the Church of Sweden is a data point that supports the idea that religiosity is on the decrease. However this report from the SOM Institute says that there has been no large decrease in religiosity during the last two decades. 05:56, 30 April 2015 (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 (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)
No modern historian would backdate the founding of the modern state of Sweden to the 10th century. And as far as I know, the idea that Sweden's medieval history was all "lost" in the fire of 1697 is an exaggeration.
Peter Isotalo 07:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Experts on the fire and its ramifications (as cited as reliable sources under the articles on the fire) would not agree with your attempt to proclaim them insignificant in this context.
Furthermore, the Swedish Government, as well as all other reliable sources that I know of, officially recognize the first King of Sweden as having died around 995. The question was not about the "modern state" here, as far as I can see, so I don't know how your very personal POV could be relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any sources to support my comment on the effects of the 1697 fire, but neither do you. It might be perfectly true, but I recommend not taking it for granted since I've heard otherwise.
The main issue here was the date of establishment of the modern state of Sweden. That's the topic of this article. The Swedish government is not an authority on history and has no power to "officially recognize" any king but the current one. History writing isn't done by decree nor do we write articles that way. The issue of how far back the entity today known as "Sweden" goes back does not a definitive answer. Especially not without explicit referencing.
Peter Isotalo 18:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Establishment date(s)[edit]

I don't see any reason to have several different dates for the establishment of Sweden. The current nation state as we know it goes back to 1523 according to most interpretations. There is a pre-history, but since this article is about the modern state, it's unclear why anything but 1523 should be in the infobox.

Motivations are needed and, more importantly, they need to be in sync with article content. The infobox has to be a summary of the article and should focus on the most official or widely recognized facts. Anyone who wants to describe nuances like prehistory or other major political changes can do so in the article, where proper context can be provided.

Peter Isotalo 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a very odd idea, Sweden clearly was an independent nation long before 1523. I doubt very much that you can find any history book that states that Sweden achieved "independence" in 1523.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict, so I'm first posting what I wrote, then answering
Tried to bring the infobox text in line with infoboxes for other European states. Not sure where to begin. I used Eric Victorious as a starting point, but just because it was in the article from before. Peter Isotalo recommends another date, and I'm sure there is merit in that argument. Who is the first definite king of Sweden and when did he rule?
As for why we should have several dates, well, because it's common practice. Look at Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands, Norway etc. If you think Sweden should be an exception from the common practice, please explain why. Furthermore, you seem to have a serious problem with WP:OWN, reverting anyone who edits this article without conforming to your view. It's not helpful. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems that three users are in favour of an earlier date than the Kalmar Union and that Peter Isotalo is the only one who keeps reverting it against the consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't those countries, though. Why should there be more than one date for the establishment of a modern nation state? There is a very lax attitude to basic policy when it comes to infobxes and this is an issue that is clearly at odds with both WP:NPOV and WP:V.
We do not vote on these issues, so please come up with a motivation isn't simply "this is the way we've always done it".
Peter Isotalo 19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No, we do not "vote" but we operate by consensus. This article used to say the Middle ages, several different users have been in favour or going back to the 10th century (I count at least three, possible more) while you appear to be the only one opposed, yet you keep reverting. As I said, it's a quite serious case of WP:OWN and you really need to stop.Jeppiz (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is dependent on verifiability. We discuss these matters based on what reliable sources have to say on the matter. So accordingo to which sources was the modern state of Sweden established in the 10th century?
Peter Isotalo 19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)It depends on how you define "Sweden". Up until the middle of the 13th century the main part of present day Sweden was divided into two countries, Svealand (the land of the Swedes), and Götaland (the land of the Geats), and the merger of those two is usually counted as the foundation of Sweden as we know it. Thomas.W talk 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo, it's only your interpretation it has to be the "modern state of Sweden". That is not the practice for any country, and didn't use to be the interpretation here either. Like Thomas.W says, the merger of Svealand and Götaland represent the foundation of Sweden.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the modern state of Sweden, though. Why should it be the establishment of anything else? And why should we include dates that are not actually about establishment?
WP:NPOV applies here, no matter what the "practice" is regarding to other countries. Like Thomas points out, what definition of Sweden is being referred to? And where do these perspective come from? How do modern historians define any of this? This can't be treated as something that individual users agree upon based on whatever they feel is right.
Peter Isotalo 20:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is your view and you're apparently pretty alone in having it, while most others agree that Sweden beging with merger of Svealand and Götaland. For all your talk about WP:NPOV, you have not presented a shred of evidence for why your preferred version is more WP:NPOV. For the record, this article goes all the way back to Swedish prehistory, it is not exclusive to modern Sweden.Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) "The "modern state of Sweden" is just a myth, Sweden has a continous history as one single independent country going back to the merger of Götaland and Svealand in the middle of the 13th century. The Kalmar Union was a a union of separate and independent countries that voluntarily formed a union, and had only one thing in common, the ruler (and much of the time not even that, with Sweden being ruled by a "rikshövitsman"). The reason 1523 is mentioned so often is a) it was a symbolic entry into Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, and b) when Sweden wanted a "national day" 6 June was picked, because that was when Gustav Vasa made his symbolic entry into Stockholm in 1523 when Gustav Vasa became king of Sweden (and noone knew the exact date, or even exact year, that Stockholm was founded...). And since then all focus has erroneously been on 1523. If we need a more exact "founding date" than "mid 13th century" I suggest we write ~1250, because that was when Stockholm was founded (by a Geat ruler BTW, Birger Jarl of the House of Bjelbo). Thomas.W talk 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thomas.W, though a quick look at different sources suggest the rule of Olof Skötkonung represents the beginning of Sweden. The unification of Geats and Svear seems to represent the beginning of Sweden in most sources.Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, let me know when you're willing to discuss something other than you own views on history (or "myth"). Currently you're simply touting your own take on historical facts and theories on state development. And note that 6 June was when Gustav I was elected king of Sweden at Strängnäs, so the date has far more than a symbolic meaning.
Jeppiz, please stop hammering the point that I'm "alone". This isn't Swedish Wikipedia. Article content here isn't decided by simple consensus decisions without consideration to sources. We all seem to agree that 6 June 1523 is a generally accepted date as the establishment of the Swedish state and it's supported by sources in the article. The other dates, including the EU accession and the union with Norway, have no concrete motivation.
Peter Isotalo 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
All of that is purely your own WP:POV. And contrary to what you argue, there is indeed an effort to keep infoboxes similar and comparable. And yes, we do operate by consensus. A consensus cannot overturn established facts, but all you've offered this far is your own WP:POV (and a lot of edit warring) and that is most definitely overturned by a consensus to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, we do NOT agree on 1523. Don't you read what others write here? 1523 has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of Sweden (in the modern sense) as a country. The correct year/time period would depend on what definition of "Sweden" we use, Sweden as "the land of the Swedes" (which would bring as at least as far back as ~1000AD) or Sweden as a unified country (Swedes + Geats, which would put us in the middle of the 13th century). Gustav Vasa has nothing to do with it. Thomas.W talk 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo: I suggest you read the article about the Kalmar Union, especially the parts where it says that the union was a personal union, and that the three kingdoms legally were separate and independent states, with an elected "Union King" (i.e. it was not a hereditary job, and the natonality of the king/queen varied over the years, so it was not a matter of one of the three countries dominating the other two). And since Sweden was an independent country already well before the Kalmar Union it can't possibly have become independent in 1523... Thomas.W talk 21:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 1523 date is referenced in the article and is widely recognized as a founding date of the modern state. What references do you have that actually refer to any other historical events as establishment dates?
Peter Isotalo 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't about "the modern state", it's about the country of Sweden. And there's a big difference between the two. "The modern state" refers to the post-Kalmar Union period of the history of the country of Sweden, a history that goes much further back in time than 1523. Like we talk about "before noon" and "after noon", it's a convenient divider between the well documented history after the Kalmar Union and the less well documented history of the times of the Union and before that. Thomas.W talk 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Or to emphasise it even more: the term "the modern state of Sweden" clearly implies that there was also an "older/less modern state of Sweden", because there would be no need to emphasise that we're talking about the modern history of the state of Sweden if the state of Sweden didn't exist before that. Simple logic. Try it, you might like it. Thomas.W talk 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As Thomas.W has pointed out already, nobody excepts Peter Isotalo agrees on 1523 as the starting date. The article used to say the Middle ages for years, until Peter Isotalo changed it in February, and has kept reverting anyone who opposes.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The 1523 date is the only date that is actually verifiable, though. There is no editorial grandfather clause for article content so it doesn't matter how many years it was stable.
Peter Isotalo 22:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody except you has even proposed we need an exact date, so it's a strawman argument. The year is fully enough. As for sources, where are are your sources Sweden did not exist before 1523?Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is the concept of "establishment dates", not the existence of cultural or political entities at certain points of time. I'm not an consistent supporter of precise founding dates, but 6 June 1523 happens to be a verifiable establishment date for the state of Sweden. And the article is clearly about the state of Sweden, not an abstract Swedish cultural region, or history of Sweden or Kalmar Union specifically.
Unreferenced statements can be removed per WP:V. I don't see why any of this should be controversial.
Peter Isotalo 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you have presented your WP:POV already, and nobody else has agreed, but I asked for your sources.Jeppiz (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
We disagree on some historical interpretations, but I'm not the one insisting on including unreferenced statements. The 1523 date is referenced (Scott, 1977, p. 121) in the article. It's "officially" sanctioned through the National Day and is widely seen as a key date in forming the modern state.
The other dates are there simply because individual users have decided they should be there. The 970 date isn't even backed up by any references in the article itself, and it refers to "The First Swedish Kingdom" by piping the term directly to Eric the Victorious.
Peter Isotalo 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Peter Isotalo: Another misrepresentation/misunderstanding. The year 1523 as foundation date for Sweden is not in any way "officially sanctioned" by the National Day. "Nationaldagen", previously "Svenska Flaggans Dag", is a modern invention, first celebrated in 1893 as a private initiative at Skansen in Stockholm, intended to draw visitors to Skansen. And with the date chosen by Arthur Hazelius of Skansen. So it was more or less by chance that it was on 6 June. It wasn't until later that it was decided that it should be celebrated in memory of both Gustav Vasa's election as king in 1523 and the acceptance of the instrument of government of 1809 (1809 års regeringsform), which both happened on 6 June. So it is NOT celebrated in memory of the establishment of Sweden as a state, whether modern or not, and never has been. Thomas.W talk 07:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Some further info: Utrikespolitiska Institutet state that a unified Sweden, comprising both Svealand and Götaland has existed since the 12th century, and the Florence Provinciale, or List of Florence, a manuscript that in its earliest copy is dated to 1120, lists the dioceses/provinces of Sweden (sv:Florenslistan; I downloaded "Mission und Kirchenorganisation Zur Zeit der Christianisierung Schwedens" by sv:Kjell Kumlien, published in Konstanz, 1968, which includes information about the List of Florence, as a pdf in German from the library of the University of Heidelberg, but the Google reference link is blacklisted, so I can't add it here; if you do a Google search on "Nomina insularum de regno sueuorum" on Google you'll get a download link there), including both Svealand and Götaland, showing that a unified Sweden has existed since before 1120. So the article should say "Established as a unified country not later than the early 12th century". Thomas.W talk 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And we have one more reference concerning the List of Florence: Fornvännen, 1952 pp 178-187, author Adolf Schück (downloadable as a pdf in Swedish). So we now have multiple references supporting that a unified Sweden existed in the early 12th century. If we continue searching we'll no doubt find many more, but that ought to be enough. Thomas.W talk 10:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, you are citing a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research (UI) or that don't even discuss the issue of state formation. History is an established academic field with plenty of published resaerch. When in doubt, you look up the latest research. You can't just present your own theories and explanations based on selective readings.
I'm heading to to the library after work today to have a closer look at what established historians have written on the subject. I suggest you do something similar, because simple Google searches aren't going to get you anywhere, especially when it comes to Swedish history. The relevant sources simply aren't there to find. Not all topics are researchable online.
Peter Isotalo 11:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Both Kjell Kumlien and Adolf Schück are historians, discussing a historical document and concluding that it lists provinces of a unified Sweden. That's how it works, historians analyse historical documents, so your objections to it, claiming that it is "a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research" is just a desperate attempt to protect your version of the article (with the totally ridiculous claim that Sweden as a country was established in 1523...). So I'm beginning to agree with Jeppiz that we have a serious ownership problem here... Thomas.W talk 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with the others that I don't see any reason not to have multiple establishment dates if these are adequately supported by RS. I'm not sure whether EU accession is one to include, but as mentioned below since this is one which affects most EU countries in a similar way, it's likely that most should be treated the same way and therefore it would be best to have a centralised discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne above and Sjö below that a centralised discussion would be better, and repeat what I said yesterday that I think there is some good in infoboxes for similar countries being similar, and Peter Isotalo has not yet answered my question why Sweden should be an exception. I also note that Peter has deleted every source I added yesterday, so the apparent WP:OWN behavior continues regardless of the discussion here. Peter himself has done a large number of edits since the discussion started, none of which I have reverted, but any edit by someone else is reverted by him, even with it's the addition of good sources. This just cannot go on.Jeppiz (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What should we source?[edit]

Is Peter Isotalo now seriously requiring a source that Sweden joined the EU 1st January 1995 ([3]), or is the use of tags just to make a WP:POINT?Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's listed under "Establishment". What sources describe the EU accession as an establishment date of the state of Sweden?
Peter Isotalo 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's not important enough for the infobox, but it really should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox country. There was a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_9#EU_accession_date which I read as a consensus that the accession to EU isn't a "formation" event. Sjö (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes are layout templates, though. They need to conform to standard article content policies, not the other way around.
Peter Isotalo 07:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sjö that Template talk:Infobox country is the proper venue in one wants to change the format of infoboxes. Having looked at a number of infoboxes for other EU countries, I have not found a single one that mentions just one event, except the version of Sweden that Peter Isotalo pushes. The argument about conforming to article content is null and void as all the events in the consensus version that Peter keeps deleting are discussed in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "Established as a unified country not later than the early 12th century"[edit]

Supported by the "List of Florence" (references:"Mission und Kirchenorganisation Zur Zeit der Christianisierung Schwedens" by sv:Kjell Kumlien, published in Konstanz, 1968, which includes information about the List of Florence, including describing the list as being a guide for travellers, with the names of Swedish provinces, rather than an ecclesiastical list of names of dioceses (it is available as a pdf in German from the library of the University of Heidelberg, but the Google reference link is blacklisted, so I can't add it here; if you do a Google search on "Nomina insularum de regno sueuorum" on Google you'll get a download link there) and Fornvännen (one of the most highly regarded scientific publications about Northern European history, if not the most highly regarded), 1952 pp 178-187, author Adolf Schück (downloadable as a pdf in Swedish), plus Utrikespolitiska Institutet stating in their country guide that a unified Sweden, comprising both Svealand and Götaland has existed since the 12th century. Thomas.W talk 11:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, no, since this is really just synthesis (see reply above). Thomas is clearly trying to expose "myths" and "misunderstandings" by evaluating primary sources, not by checking up what historians are saying.
Peter Isotalo 11:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And here's my reply to those comments (let's keep the discussion here from now on): Both Kjell Kumlien and Adolf Schück were noted well regarded historians, discussing a historical document and concluding that it lists provinces of a unified Sweden. That's how it works, historians analyse historical documents, so your objections to it, claiming that it is "a combination of primary sources and secondary sources that are not authorities on historical research" is just a desperate attempt to protect your version of the article (with the totally ridiculous claim that Sweden as a country was established in 1523...). So I'm beginning to agree with Jeppiz that we have a serious ownership problem here... Thomas.W talk 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's very much an ownership issue. I also have doubts about all the tags Peter Isotalo have placed since this discussion started. As an admin explains in this discussion [4] it appears that when a consensus went again Peter Isotalo on another article, he started adding templates and removing content with a vengeance, just as we've seen here in the last day. So I thank Thomas.W and suggest we proceed as proposed, and just delete and report further disruptions from Peter.Jeppiz (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, neither Kumlien nor Schück make any such claims (if I'm mistaken, please cite where they do). As far as I can tell, you're referring to the actual content of the primary source called the "Florence List" and drawing conclusions from that. There's bound to be some debate among historians about establishment of the Swedish state and how it relates to the modern nation state. It would be very useful in a discussion like this, but I'm not seeing any of that here.'
You're also basing this on your definitions of the terms "state" and "country", even though they are entirely synonymous in this context. This looks like pure original research.
Peter Isotalo 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That is, quite frankly, a load of cr*p, Peter. And you know it. I have pointed out your errors, your flawed reasoning/logic and your obvious lack of knowledge about Swedish history, but you just keep on defending your preferred version, a version that noone else agrees with. Thomas.W talk 13:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
When it boils down to "YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP AND NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU ANYWAY", you know it's about something other than keeping article content accurate and balanced.
Peter Isotalo 13:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is wearing people out by posting nonsense your new tactic to "win" this? Thomas.W talk 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems to be, at several articles. That is why Peter is discussed at ANI, and comment about his behavior are better taken there. This user has a serious attitude problem, obvious across several articles. Can I suggest we move the discussion forward to discuss how to improve the article, and just ignore this purely disruptive user. As I already said, Thomas, I think your suggestion is good and suggest you go ahead and implement it.Jeppiz (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, I looked up the sources you referred to and couldn't find any comments by Kumlien and Schück on this matter. If I'm missing something, why not just prove me wrong? Just point out where they comment on the issue of Swedish state formation.
Peter Isotalo 13:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue playing silly games with you, Peter. You've tagged everyone else's edits with {{cn}}, except your own unsourced addition of 1523, which you didn't provide any sources for even when you added it in February of this year, and there are still no sources for it, other than your claim here on the talk page that it is "widely recognised as being the foundation date". Widely recognised by whom? Your word for it isn't good enough. I'm not an en-WP newbie, BTW, and I can assure you that you're not going to be able to bulldozer me, so you better provide some sources for it if you revert me. Thomas.W talk 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for your edits and for your diligence, Thomas. It's unfortunate that Peter tries to wear down anyone disagreeing, but as you point out, he has never provided a single source himself, and his random tagging, removal of sources and continued edit warring against consensus is purely disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The proposition by Thomas.W, which appears well sourced, and also suggest keeping other significant date, such as the dissolution of the Kalmar Union, as well as the Swedish-Norwegian Union. As for EU accession, I recommend we follow the procedure for infoboxes for EU countries.Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Thomas W's proposal. I consider Peter to be a good editor, and have a good relation to him in general, but here he seems to be wrong. I think for an infobox the proposed text may be too long and would suggest putting simply "before 12th Century"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus' Rules of Thumb[edit]

  1. When in doubt, don't fill in the infobox parameter, or at least don't waste too much time arguing about it. Infoboxes är djävulens verk.
  2. Dont put information that is likely to confuse, surprise or antagonize readers into an infobox.

·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, without any appropriate sources covering any of the establishment dates, I'm definitely in favor of simply leaving the establishment parameter blank. Infoboxes are very good for summarizing hard, easily agreed-upon statistics, but they are usually hopeless when it comes to less precise stuff like history.
Peter Isotalo 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, unless there is a fixed date that is widely agreed upon then it is better to leave it out. In this case I think it is safe to put something aloing the lines of " no later than 12th century" or something like that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some sources[edit]

  • "Denmark was founded by Gorm the Old, and Norway by Harald Norway and Fairhair, about A. D. 875; while Sweden was founded by the royal race Swedem of the Ynglingar about A. D. 900."[5] I would call this the "traditional view", which readers will expect to be reflected in the article.
  • "When and where Sweden originated have long been matters of debate... It appears that Swedish provinces where first united in the 12th century. The earliest document in which Sweden is mentioned as an independent and united kingdom is a papal decree by which Sweden in 1164 became a diocese with its own archbishop in Uppsala"[6] This is a more balanced and nuance view, which seems to reflect the current state of scholarship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks ·maunus. I'd be happy for us to use those sources. If 1164 is the first time Sweden is mentioned, then that may be a good year to use.Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think something like "prior to 1164" would be better. Since 1164 is only the diocese which necessarily postdates the country.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "no later than the early 12th century", as I suggested above, would be as close to the truth as it can get. Thomas.W talk 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure it is the same for most non-post-colonial states, that their emergence is gradual and does not lend itself to a specific date.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Looking at other countries, some mention a specific event that was crucial in the formation of the state, some rather refer to the the first period of emergence.Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
So what is the EU accession date doing in the infobox? How is it relevant to state formation?
Peter Isotalo 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Do other EU countries have those in the infobox? Strikes me as rather irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many other EU countries have it in the infobox which is the reason I put it there for reasons of conformity across infoboxes.Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Checked a random sample and UK, Spain, Poland, Germany and Italy mention it, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Greece and France do not - so doesnt seem to be a good numerical basis for uniformizing, since either is about equally common. What is anpther argument for including it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are we discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, though? That one or several users added facts into infoboxes doesn't make it relevant. Either it has something to do with state formation or it doesn't.
Peter Isotalo 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you've made that point already and it seems every user who has commented on the topic has disagreed with you and seen some merit in looking at infoboxes for other countries. As always and on every article, you just don't WP:HEAR any counterargument and keep repeating the same question ten times even when it's been answered over and over. It's very disruptive and not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFF is a relevant argument in so far as it says something about what other editors consider relevant in similar contexts, and in determining questions of cross-article systematicity. The articles that do have mention of EU accession do not mention it as a fact about state formaiton, but in a field of the infobox called "history", simply considering EU accession to be a significant event in the countrys political history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can stick to the argument now, instead of meta-arguing. [meta-metaargument/]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to argue the issue here. Jeppiz' personal commentary is starting to get out of hand, though.
Peter Isotalo 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If there is a consensus to leave out the EU accession, I won't object. As I said, I just put it in as I followed the praxis of other EU country infoboxes but it's not something I have strong feelings about one way or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's find out what consensus is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for your information, I think the EU entry in the box was once added to all EU state articles by a single user about a year ago [7], without any discussion; this certainly doesn't constitute any kind of valid precedent or consensus for such inclusion. We had a discussion about it at Greece a few months ago (here). Fut.Perf. 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes the situation clearer. ·maunus already edit to implement the consensus version, and quite rightly left out the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey: Should we add EU accession to the infobox?[edit]

  • Undecided I don't see a compelling reason to add this to the infobox. It seems to require first changing the header of the infobox section from "establishment" to "history" - which I think would probably be a good idea. But on the other hand I think overcrowding infoboxes make them even more useless, and it will be difficult to determine which historical events should go in such a mini-history section. So maybe leaving it out altogether is best.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer exclusion of all events besides establishment sometime in the 12th century.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm for leaving it out altogether. It has no significance to the formation of Sweden and is no more important than a whole bunch of other events (independence from Denmark, Thirty Years War, losing the Baltic possessions, losing Finland, the 1809 constitution, first democratic elections, WW II, etc.) Peter Isotalo 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a good argument, it will be very difficult to argue that EU accession is more important than any of those, and including it is likely to lead to infobox clutter, protracted discussions and general unhappiness.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Undecided I'll look at all the other EU states. If there's a clear majority one way or the other, I think there's something to be said for conformity. If not, I don't care one way or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Still undecided If I calculated right, 20 states mention the EU, 8 states do not. So a very clear majority of over 70%, but not all other states.Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not going to oppose if there's a consensus in favour of it, but IMHO having a mention in the infobox about being established as a unified country in the 12th century is enough, there's no need to include information about the Kalmar Union, the union between Sweden and Norway or entering the EU. People who want to know more can read the article. Thomas.W talk 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, this is historical events that are better explained in article prose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I won't oppose it if that's the final consensus decision, but that would be rather unique. As I said, 20 out of 28 EU countries I checked mentioned several important events and included accession to the EU, but even among the 8 that did not mention EU accession, most infoboxes still mentioned more than one event.Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they have more to mention, such as foreign occupations, and more recent things to mention? Thomas.W talk 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is being very reasonable here, which is nice. Let's leave it out untill we have a clear idea of what else (if anything) might be the most notable events in Swedish history that ought to be included. If we just include it without deciding what to exclude then we open up for long discussions about including different events.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, I agree it can be hard to compare with very different countries, but a quick look at Norway shows that the infobox mentions things, apart from consolidation, like entering the Kalmar Union, its dissolution, Sweden-Norway union, its dissolution and the German occupation. The German occupation is moot here, of course, but I'd say the Kalmar Union and the Sweden-Norway Union are equally relevant for Sweden and Norway. That is not to say we have to do the same, but I tend to believe that some conformity across infoboxes is a good thing.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I just need to point out that I have never before encountered the idea that OTHERSTUFF arguments can or should decided content so decidedly. The only exception is when there's obvious uniformity across the board (90-95% follow a distinct pattern). In these cases there is usually some offshoot of WP:MOS or a WikiProject guideline to refer to. When there are no codified guidelines or recommendations, the normal course of action is to start a centralized discussion rather than try to figure out patterns by oneself.
Peter Isotalo 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I dont see anyone arguing that OTHERSTUFF determines the outcome, but clearly some degree of cross article standardization is useful and also practiced. Considering it is certainly valid, but it does of course not force the outcome of a discussion. But no-one seems to have been arguing that it does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And just as I was writing this, Fut. Perf. pointed out the most obvious problem with OTHERSTUFFing: the false assumption that all article content is based on sound consensus.[8]
Peter Isotalo 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good and important point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Peter says, it's no more important than a lot of other events, and in no way can it be counted as an "establishment" event anyway. Sjö (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


I tried to implement the result of our discussion as a kind of compromise version, removing EU, adding the kalmar union and the 12th century establishment of the first unified kingdom. I hope this is agreeable to all and I havent misread the consensus? Otherwise Here is a place to make further suggestions for improvements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Full support Great job, seems to be a very accurate representation of the consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For future reference[edit]

It seems to be irrelevant by now, but in case a similar dispute arises, I looked up general works on the history of Sweden and tried to identify what established historians have to say about establishment. Here's a short summary with quotes (quotes in parentheses are chapter names):

  • Alf Åberg (1978) Vår svenska historia (6th edition)
    • p. 154 ("Sverige enas"): "Sverige hade blivit ett självständigt rike [1523] och landet hade fått en härskare av Guds nåde [...]"
  • Ingvar Andersson (1969) Sveriges historia (7th edition)
    • p. 40ff ("Kapitel V: Från ätte- och hövdingasamfund till enhetligt rike, 1050-1250")
    • p. 140ff ("Kapitel XIV: Riket segrar över landskapsmenigheter och kyrka"): this relates to the events after 1523
  • Carlsson, Cornell, Grenholm & Rosén (1993) Den svenska historien. 2, Från Birger Jarl till Kalmarunionen
    • p. 5 ("Den tidiga medeltiden"): "Grunden har lagts till ett ståndssamhälle, som skulle komma att bestå till in på 1800-talet. Den författning, som skulle bli den enda fram till 1719, har börjat växa fram."
    • p. 6: "1164: Sverige får ett eget ärkebiskopsdöme i Gamla Uppsala och till dess förste innehavare [?] alvastramunken Stefan
    • p. 190 ("Sveriges politiska enande"): "En gränsläggningsuppteckning i den äldre Västgötalagen, vittnar om att Sverige var enat åtminstone vid 1000-talets mitt."
  • Carlsson, Cornell, Grenholm & Rosén (1993) Den svenska historien. 4, Gustav Vasa: riket formas
    • p. 16ff ("Sverige blir en riksenhet under Gustav Vasa")

Note that mention of the 1164 archdiocese is only mentioned in passing in Den svenska historien part two. This is why I always argue against any attempts to argue the importance of history based on personal evaluation of events.

Also note the similar terminology used about the consolidation of the medieval kingdoms and the establishment of the modern kingdom under Gustav I; the two are clearly seen as pivotal events. This the result of quick check at slightly dated popular works on history written by professional historians at the SU library. There might be very different perspectives in more recent works (which was unavailable at the time). None of this is going to show up in any Google searches, mind you.

Peter Isotalo 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great work and immensely helpful!Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And thank you for the continuous barrage of personal attacks and bad faith accusations. It sure was helpful.
Peter Isotalo 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Scania (and Gothenburg)[edit]

It is established that the English language use Gothenburg (not "Göteborg") as well as Scania (not "Skåne") and this is English Wikipedia, not Swedish. Things like IFK Göteborg and Region Skåne are more specific and lackes English names. But when talking about in what province a city is located in, isn't among those specific matters when we use Swedish terminology here. People from provinces less known through British history shouldn't take offence just because Scania and Gothenburg exist in the English vocabulary. Please remember this is written for English readers. Boeing720 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Gothenburg" is the standard term in English, but "Skåne" is common in English-language texts, so it's an acceptable alternative.
Peter Isotalo 09:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Most English readers don't know how to pronounce "Skåne" and are not interested in learning, so in English it should be avoided. We are not here to give people Swedish lessons, whenever it isn't necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Skåne" is not common in English, which is why the name of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME, is "Scania". I've never met an English speaker who used "Skåne" instead of "Scania", the only times I've even heard a native Englishspeaker with no connection to Sweden (unlike me, since I am half British/half Swedish) use the word "Skåne" was when trying to pronounce it after I had told them that that's what Scania is called in all of the Scandinavian languages. Thomas.W talk 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been rehashed in talk:Scania on several occasions. Both "Scania" and "Skåne" are clearly used, but the former is more common (examples[9][10][11][12]
Scania is the current title per the relevant guidelines, but users are free to use "Skåne" in prose is they so wish. Both terms are clearly in use in English-language texts. All these arguments about difficult pronunciation and whatnot is based on pure personal preferences. This is the same reasoning that placed articles like Östergötland and Södermanland at "Ostrogothia"/"Sudermannia". Just stop trying to right great wrongs.
Peter Isotalo 13:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Your first two links go to sites owned and operated by Region Skåne, and the other two go to different pages on a single site, so they're hardly representative. I have no problems with using Skåne in the body of an article here on en-WP as long as it's explained to the reader when the term is first used in the text that Skåne is the Scandinavian name for Scania, and article names reflect what is commonly used in English, i.e. Scania; what I objected to was your comment that "Skåne is common in English language texts", which is clearly wrong. Thomas.W talk 13:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I object to any attempt to personalize this discussion and confront fellow editors with snide wording like this "All these arguments about difficult pronunciation and whatnot is based on pure personal preferences. [my Italics]"
Quoting Wikipedia's Manual of Style here: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do." That's my preference, which I go by, and I see nothing useful in trying to give non-Swedish readers of English WP articles (98-99%?) unwanted Swedish lessons. They do not know how to pronouce Skåne and they aren't interested in that. Why force it on them? All our texts are supposed to be able to be read aloud, without unnecessary phonetic obstacles. This is a case where such can be avoided, and should be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think that the idea of alternative terms was something controversial, but since you're insisting that "Skåne" has to be exorcized from articles generally, we'll have to settle this. I believe the relevant questions are:
  • How much more common is "Scania" than "Skåne"?
  • How "uncommon" does an alternative name need to be for it to be proscribed in article texts in general?
And please keep personal visions of "phonetic empathy" out of this. WP:JARGON is not in the least relevant for place names. The applicable policies WP:TITLE and WP:UNDUE, and a smidgen of WP:ASTONISH.
Peter Isotalo 17:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Everyone, drop the sticks and step away from the horse carcass...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What does that kind of a dictatorial order contribute here?
I object to being falsely accused and to the personalization of the discussion. An accusation like "you're insisting that "Skåne" has to be exorcized from articles generally" is an inappropriate fabrication. I've never done any such thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It means that you are engaged in a fruitless debate that has already been settled once and that you are simply wasting time, bandwidth and intellectual capacity in continuing it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I can then only deduce that your comments mean that you are trying to personalize a discussion unnecessarily and doing so now with what borders on personal insults. We're not here to be dismissed by you like that. Please stop making that kind of condescending contributions! They are worthless to Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag caption[edit]

I noted the naval flag and lesser coat of arms added to the infobox footnotes by Sekreterare and the footnote symbol added after the greater coat of arms by P. S. Burton, but there was no corresponding link to the first footnote. I have added the footnote symbol after the civil and state flag, although it was a bit fiddly and has left some awkward code to make the {{infobox country}} template work. I've mentioned this at Template talk:Infobox country § Flag captions to see if the code can be simplified, but at least it looks right on a superficial level. sroc 💬 22:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I would note that Alakzi is arguing that the footnote for the flag may be altogether unnecessary. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox country § Flag captions. sroc 💬 22:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [corrected username 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)]

Bgwhite (talk · contribs) has reverted my edit claiming: "Try again. Its broke". However, the previous version appears on the screen correctly to me:

Code Display
| flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}}<span style="display:none"><!-- elaborate code required to display footnote symbol in flag caption correctly --> Flag[a]

Although the code is imperfect, it is necessary to make the {{infobox country}} template format the caption correctly. So, what's wrong with it? sroc 💬 17:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine to me.
Bgwhite has again reverted without explaining why "its [sic] broke". Can we get the D going? sroc 💬 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
With no explanation from Bgwhite forthcoming, I have restored it again. As you can see from the image here, it looks fine to me, so I don't know what is "broke", let alone what to do about it. sroc 💬 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)