Talk:Sweden in Union with Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Best name and focus?[edit]

Is the timeframe 1814-1905 and "Sweden in Union with Norway" really the best way to divide and focus the main article on Sweden's 19th century history? This sort of seems like a Norway-centric way of describing Sweden's history. Svwiki has instead the two articles sv:Sveriges historia 1809–1866 and sv:Sveriges historia 1866–1905, which provides a focus on the more dramatic loss of Finland in 1809, and Sweden's own constitutional and political changes. Actually, both language versions could use a lot more material on economical, industrial, scientific, educational and cultural changes and advances in this era, but that is another story. Tomas e (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. Thanks for your comments, Tomas e. I agree with you that the article is probably too Norway-centric, and that both the headline and the periodisation are matters for discussion. You may not yet have discovered my grounds for creating this article, which are to be found on the talk page of Union between Sweden and Norway. That article sorely needed to be revised, and I stated the reasons already on 22 May 2007, under the headline: "Dissolution of article needed". I concluded it with a warning: "I may soon start work on a ruthless revision of the Union between Sweden and Norway article, but I'll leave it to others to write the article that is missing in the History of Sweden series.
I made good my threat when I discovered user john k's call for help to interpret the nature of the Union on 27 May 2009. Please see my answer to him of 17 December. My article "Sweden in Union with Norway" is really a by-product of the revised article on the Union. I removed the most Sweden-centred parts of that article and added new information to make it more balanced. Since I used mostly Norwegian sources, the end result was inevitably slanted in the opposite direction. For that reason, i invited other contributors to set it straight. Having made the revision, and the article more in agreement with the contents, I extracted it from the "History of Sweden" series. But then I had to fill the void left in that series, and I did so by putting the deleted bits into the new article. I considered another headline, e.g. "Sweden during the 19th Century", but settled on the present title, since the Union was the main focus of the original article. It was created in 2003 under its present headline, and was included in the Swedish history series in 2004, under a different title: Union with Norway (1814–1905). The only other article dealing with Swedish 19th century history was "Oscarian era".
After your intervention, I am convinced that another headline would be better, and that the article should go more deeply into internal Swedish history during the period. A better starting point could be 1807, when the events that led to to the loss of Finland and the Union with Norway began. A lot of the contents from the two Svwiki articles could be translated and included, and of course improved. But it ought to contain more information on the Union with Norway than the Swedish articles, which seem to avoid the subject.
I wrote last week on the "Union" talk page that my Sweden in Union with Norway was meant to be included in the "History of Sweden" series and might be too slanted, "but I trust my Swedish friends to improve it. As I wrote two years ago, my intention was to leave the writing of that article to others. But I found that I had to start it, to avoid a gap in the series." Are you possibly the one to improve and maybe move the article?

Roede (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)