Talk:Sweden/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sweden at the Olympics - Adding Olympic Medals of the EU?

Could this be of interest to members of this forum? I created a table for all the Olympic medal count winners including Sweden. It also includes a total medal count for the entire European Union (among many other things). The original article is here: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this article for deletion. If you want to comment on whether it really should be deleted, go to this article's entry. Thanks! Medalstats 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

user:Anders Törlind wrote in an edit summary: Not a colony, so no independence.

Would Sweden's leaving the Kalmar Union not be an appropriate thing to put in that box? --Brion VIBBER

user:Henrik Clausen While the Danish kings were trying to extend their rule to unite the three Scandinavian countries, they never succeeded, and the various governmental institutions (Rigsråd etc.) remained separate during the Kalmar union. Thus Sweden was still a separate nation that happened to have the same monarch as Denmark and Norway. Eventually several of the Danish monarchs messed up so much they were rejected and an independent Swedish king came to power.

Anders, thanks for helping to edit this page. A few notes on your edits:

  • the English name for the Swedish currency (and the Norwegian and Danish) is krone, not krona
  • Sweden may never have been a colony, but the history tells that Sweden separated from Denmark in 1523 under Vasa. Wouldn't that be the independence date?

regards, Jeronimo

Aha! Well, I was certainly now aware that it was krone...Thought I'd read otherwise somewhere, but I will take your word for it :-)
Hmmm, atlapedia lists it as Krona. Have a look: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/sweden.htm --Ato
Regarding independence, this is an interesting point. Also, I don't know the bitish/american standpoint on this, but in the Swedish educational system, it is counted as liberation from foregin occupation more than independence...Splitting hairs maby...

cheers, Ato

RE Swedish currency: I would check the website of the Swedish National bank and see if it has an English translation, then use the name for the currency that is mentioned there - they print it and managed it so they should know what it's called... WojPob
Well, checking out the English version of http://www.riksbanken.se/ yields "Swedish krona", so I guess that's what it'll be then :-) --Ato
You appear to be right - a google search gives the same outcome. I should throw my dictionary out of the window... Well, I liked the Swedish name better anyway :-) Jeronimo
You could also see the old Encyclopedia Britannica: http://1911encyclopedia.org/S/SW/SWEDEN.htm --Ruhrjung

Something to satisfy you statistics freaks out there, from the Swedish central bureau of statistics: http://www.scb.se/allmanmanadsstatistik/tabellereng.asp --Ato

The english version of the website of the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics is;http://www.scb.se/default____2154.asp. --User:84.217.8.122

Yeah, but that url doesn't look very impervious. :-)
http://www.scb.se/ is better. There one can most definitely expect a link to the English language section.
/Tuomas 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is still lacking a decent government and culture section. Shall I move it to main or wait for a good editor to arrive? Jeronimo

It looks good to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with one or two empty headings but anything more than that really starts to look unprofessional and unfinished. --mav

I'd say go for transferring it as well. Culture is something that should ideally be added by a Swede anyway. -Scipius
Second that, transfer away! --Ato

"In the 13th century, the three countries of Norway, Denmark and Sweden were united under a single king, who founded Sweden." It is unclear what this refers to, and it is difficult to reconcile it with the List of Swedish monarchs for that century.
S.

This is something I never heard of, I doubt that it ever happened. Does anyone know? -XeoX

[edit] Official language

On official language. Even though Swedish may not hold status as official language it is far more than just most common. Laws are given, and official documents are published, only in Swedish. It is the language of the dominant culture and few countries may have been so exclusively comitted to a single language culture, as Sweden (after 1809). The terminology de facto standard language may be replaced by a better one, albeit accurate. -Mic

On Swedish (language) I'm about to write: Swedish is the national (but not official) language of Sweden, mother tongue for the Sweden-born inhabitants (7,881,000) and aquired by nearly all immigrants (1,028,000) (figures according to official statistics for end of 2001).

The prior statement there (Swedish being spoken by nearly all inhabitants of Sweden) wasn't really to my liking. At the same time, I propose the term "national language", but please change it back if it looks awkward.

On official language (continued) I was taught (in my Swedish class) that Swedish was declared the sole language of the government in the late 17th century. I'm puzzled by not being able to find any references to this. (I mean: I don't find it in the Real World, on the library.) -- Ruhrjung 11:02 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think the term national language works. It is potentially confusing but to some extent it is an improvement over previous terminology in making it less officious. There is currently a government bill proposing to give Swedish status of official language. The bill is meant to be analogous with introduction of the minority languages, but the general sentiment is that the it will fail to become law due to lack of support in parliament. -- Mic 11:51 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Hmm I have wondered hwt shall we do about the coat of arms, as the "lesser arms" were shown but now have been replace by the "greater arms", the are both coat of arms but what one should be shown? or should they btoh be some how fited in? -fonzy

As you know there are two official "Riksvapen", or coats of arms of the realm. The larger one represents the Monarchy and Sweden as a state. The lesser arms is a part of the larger and primarily used to represent the authority of the elected government within Sweden. There is Coats of Arms article in the works as well as more on official heraldry in Sweden. -- Mic 12:07 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I remove the following paragraph from the page:

Sweden is one of the world's most secularised societies, and the church has so many members only because, until recently, Swedes automatically became members of the State Church at birth.

Seems rather POV to me, and maybe hard data of attendance to mass, daily prayer, communion, or feeling of closeness to God would be better? -- Ruhrjung 11:31 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Swedes do become members of the church at birth, though - it takes some considerable legal effort to revoke one's membership, too - David Stewart 12:03 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Apparently that was before 1995. If one of a childs parents was a member then the child would automatically become a member too. And leaving the church just requires filling out a form.. at least according to [1]. Here are some statistics on how many people have joined/left the church in the last years [2]. -- Jniemenmaa 13:59 May 16, 2003 (UTC)
The Church of Sweden was the official registrar of Swedish citizenship and domicile until 1990, when these tasks were transferred to the tax authorities. The separation of church and state was effectuated on January 1, 2000. It has been possible to transfer membership to another church since 1850s and leaving the church altogether since 1950s. Leaving the church requires a filling out a form, which has to be completed and returned by November 1 if the member wishes to leave the following year. Many chose to leave the church over membership fees, amounting to roughly 1% of the income, and still beeing collected by the tax authorities. -- Mic 16:36 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Being a Scanian, I might agree that Scania is one of the worlds most secularized countries :-))), but you don't have to go further than to Småland (i.e. to Sweden) to find lots of churches of different denominations in also the smallest villages. Well, seriously, I think the removed sentence was rather unneccessary. In an American Criminal Court drama, the Defence would have shouted "Objection, speculations" or something similar. -- Johan Magnus 01:21 19 May 2003 (UTC)


Users have been latinizing all manner of place names in Swedish location names on the English pages. This has to stop. I swear, this is an over the top offensive slight to the pages and to Scandinavians. When a page is written in English, that does not mean pseudo-latin. I, for one, am severely disgusted. Somebody with some enforceable authority change and protect those pages, please. Latino-maniac arrogance has no place in non-latin location names.
68.0.150.158

Well, if you couldn't find a more important fight to pick, start editing and be bold in updating pages. With regards to pre-20th century concepts, you ought to consider that also for English speakers Latin was the lingua franca.--Ruhrjung 17:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swedish provinces -- Mic 15:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I asked this on Image talk:Sw-map.png, but (not surprisingly) it appears that no one reads that: Why does the map of Sweden show a bridge? —Bkell 08:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably since someone thinks the Øresund bridge is very important - and maybe it is.
--Ruhrjung 10:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(I modified title, you can undo if necessary) --Ciro07 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages (Was: Official language (2))

I think we should write the six official language that are stated in the laws. Swedish is not the national language either, only a country language. Compare CIA fact book over Sweden, which lists some of them, although not all of them. Why does it hurt to list them all? It's a good info! // Rogper 04:43, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

As it is stated in the article and as is discussed elsewhere on this talk page Sweden does not have an official language. Further information is also available at Swedish language. The minority languages, which recently received official standing as such, does not constitute official languages of Sweden. They are, as the term might preclude, minority languages, not official languages. -- Mic 08:05, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
The six languages have been domestic before the formation of Sweden 1550 (or similar date..) and the Sami group have an own "constitution" since end of 1980s. Instead of Official languages one would rather use "Domestic Languages" or simply Languages. I think one of the meaning of the fact box is to show what languages that have been spoken in the region during the kingdom's lifetime since mid-16ths. Swedish have taken word from these languages, e.g. tjej, pojk, härk, jo, Kiruna, etc. are non-Swedish and not to mention the usage of ä instead of æ.
I think it is good information to write these six languages in the fact box, and this is my wish. :-) // Rogper 19:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The content of the factbox follows the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. The reason why there is a template is to make it easier for the reader, and not to have separate definitions and layouts for each country. -- Mic 06:24, May 29, 2004 (UTC)
There is the point where I wanted to come. Other countries with no official languages, not many official languages, list their domestic ones. Therefore I think the article about Sweden should do so too. // Rogper 20:23, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
(cf. Australia, Eritrea, Luxembourg, Tuvalu) // Rogper 20:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, it is somewhat unclear what you are getting at. It would seem that you are implying that existance of erroneous information elsewhere ought to be an argument to enter incorrect information here. Such an argument is needless to say moot. Secondly, for me it is hard to see the point of pursuing an issue like this. It would seem more productive for someone concerned with the language questions for Sweden in general, or the position of the minority languages, to set about creating articles on these subjects instead of inappropriately fitting information where it would not belong. -- Mic 09:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, wheter right or wrong one can in that case really wonder wheter there should be any language in the fact box at all. We simply write
"Languages (no official lanugage): Swedish.
note: small Sami, Finnish, Tornevalleyfinn and Romany-speaking minorities." (cf. [3])
I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries should note this since the already existing ones treats "officially language" as the major language spoken. Don't you like to hear that there are other languages also (I'm native, too) or is it simply because you are unaware? 25% of Swedish territory don't speak Swedish daily and they haven't since stone age (when there was no inhabitans)! :-) Regards, Rogper 23:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


Official language is a good criterion and it serves its purpose well. What can be considered in the case we're discussing is whether, or how, to improve on the present information given. I would see no problem in supplying more information in an additional footnote. The information given there ought to be brief and to the point. I can see a breakdown in three instances which may considered in such a case (1) the Finnish and Sami speaking communities, (2) the recognized minority languages and (3) minority languages in general.

The reasoning on which of the cases to choose is may not be as simple however. It should be understood that the use of languages will always transcend the bounds of official or majority languages, and any country may at any given time contain sizeable minority groups each with their own languages. Merely looking at the demographics of Sweden, and just to make an example, one could inquire whether or not Balkan and Middle Eastern languages are receiving enough attention. An appropriate footnote link in this case might be to the demographics article.

Minority languages in general enjoy protection in Swedish law, but five languages have been listed and enjoy a comparatively higher degree of protection, earning them the position of recognized minority languages. It would be more essential to explain the concept rather than listing its components and the footnote should link to a new article describing the position of the recognized minority languages in Sweden.

Finnish and Sami belongs to the group of recognized minority languages, but they also have a certain status in a number of municipalities in Norrbotten, where they may be used in dealing with authorities, schools and healthcare. This is a somewhat stronger position than the other minority and recognized minority languages and here it may be proper to refer to them as the Finnish and the Sami speaking communities.

So, what ought to be singled out? The Finnish and Sami languages that enjoy a special position? The middle group of recognized minority languages? Or, finally the entire group of minority languages? Despite the clear-cut definition and sanction existing in the second case, I would say that either the first or the third cases seemingly provides more relevant information.

On a more personal note; am I to understand by your comment and your recent focus on Sami topics that you yourself belong to this lineage? If this is the case, I think it is very positive to have someone with direct knowledge of the Sami culture contributing articles, and when I'm able I'll be glad to assist in this field. Have you given any thought of starting a WikiProject Sami? -- Mic 12:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I guess groups descenting with foreign languages are larger than the groups with minority languages (although I don't know if they use it daily.) I think these six languages are brief enough and suited in the fact box. Information in the fact box makes the reader more intrested -- I didn't know what mäkiäli was although I've mäkiäli friends (I never learn how to spell it ... it has a completely different name in Swedish !) :-)
The crown statement (=konungatiteln) was from the beginning (with Gustav Vasa) an abbrevation over the peoples and not the territory. This have laterwards only included Göter, Svear and Vender, but from the beginning also Samis, Finns, Estonians and Livonians was included. The latter ones fall of because territories was lost and perhaps some miss-honor to be associated with Sami, Finns, Estonians, Livonians. But the old sources views Sweden as rather a "Nordic union" (cf. European union) than "United kingdom" in the beginning.
I originally had ideas to start with project about Native Americans (cv. Etymological list of U.S. states) but turned later to Sami. But I have thoughs of WikiProjects (I'm not native Sami.) Regards, Rogper 20:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] National motto

För Sverige i tiden - but that is the motto of our current king. Does that make it a national motto? Habj 19:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It certainly does not. The cowardly way out would be to change 'national' into 'royal'. The straightforward way out would be to remove it altogether. Sweden has no national motto. -- Jao 09:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good observation. I won't subscribe to the idea of whether one action or the other may have a particular moral value, but there certainly is a distinction. The motto adopted by Carl XVI Gustaf is his personal motto in the role as Swedish monarch, and even though Sweden is a monarchy this does not make it a national motto. In fact in can be argued whether it is a royal motto (in the same way as in the United Kingdom, ie a motto for the monarchy), or merely the personal motto of a reigning monarch. I can see two possible solutions where it is either displayed like in the United Kingdom article, or making it into a footnote. -- Mic 14:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the motto given is not a motto of Sweden. I am not aware of a motto of Sweden. I would have changed it myself, but couldn't understand the format. The article on Norway gives the corresponding information correctly. Please change this someone.
I did so, although the result is rather lengthy footnotes, that maybe can be improved by someone else. Johan Magnus 20:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whichever you decide on, would somebody please change the currently incorrect motto ("For Sweden; in time") to the correct translation "For Sweden - With the times" (source eg. royalcourt.se). I don't get how to fix the box. Of course, feel free to remove this entry when that has been corrected.

[edit] Holidays

Under Holidays, it is said that: "The Swedish holiday calendar consists mainly of Christian holidays. Many of these are however a continuation of pre-christian customs, such as Midsummer and Walpurgis Night." This gives the impression that Midsummer and Walpurgis Night are, in fact, today considered a Christian holiday. To the best of my knowledge, it is not. Does anyone have an explanation of the reasons behind the chosen wording? Alarm 13:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, both are or were, according to my understanding. ...although I don't have energy right now to go and check it up, I am told that "Midommardagen" and "Valborgsmäss" (-mäss meaning the sacral mass) were taken up by the Nordic churches as holidays. In Danish, this is more obvious, where Midsummer is celebrated to S:t Hans.
--Ruhrjung 15:30, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

In the case of Walpurgis this is true, but no-one can say that the traditional midsummer has anything to do with the church, other than that is used to coincide with the birthday of John the baptist. BrorMartin March 2006

[edit] The Swedish Economy

Hi! I'm doing a project on Sweden,and i need to know about the economy. I was searching for some info, and i noticed that there isn't anything about the economy. Could someone find the Gross Domestic Product of Sweden in 2000? I seem to have trouble! Thanks. user:Proud Canadian

You can probably find something here Swedish economy Talous 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the last paragraph in the Economy section, there are some conflicting ideas. At first it says that Sweden has a very low level of economic disparity. However, in the last sentence it goes on to say "Two remnants of the event are the great economic segregation . . . ". I can only understand "great economic segregation" as economic/income disparity, no? If I am not understanding this correctly please let me know and clean up the language in the article. Thank you! user:JeffreyN 2006 Dec 15


[edit] Independence of Sweden

I believe that the independence of Sweden usually is counted since Sweden left the Kalmar Union (or when Gustav Vasa formally became King). The CIA fact book share the veiw[4] and I think that I remember seeing it elsewhere. I'm not sure if the council has to be abolished for a country to lose it's independence. I personally have no real prefernce if the Kalmar union should count as indpendence or not. I just want to make sure that we have the correct facts (if there is anything right or wrong in this case) - Jeltz talk 11:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be correct instead of repeating common misunderstandings. Also the US government and its agencies do sometimes misunderstand things. So is the case here. A state can't get independent unless it's been dependent. It's IMHO rather safe to rely on the opinion of the locals in a case like this.
--Ruhrjung 15:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I am one of the locals. :) I agree with you about that we should not repeat common missunderstandings and that the world factbook isn't the most reliable source. In this case I have no idea of what is correct. Jeltz talk 17:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You see the discussion higher up on this page?
--Ruhrjung 23:10, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
And yet, interestingly, we still rip the entire economy section straight from the CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ ... someone should change this, as its blatant plagarism, right? --Freshraisin 03:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes - however, that's been one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, to fill up with public domain material until someone cares to write something better. Go ahead!
--Johan Magnus 06:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To add my view on the independance "thing" (I to am a local :). I don't count the leaving of the Kalmar Union as an independance day. Strikly speaking, Sweden was in the union by free will and had existed as an independant state since at least the middle of the 13th century. The wars at the beginning of the 16th century was about leaving the union yes but it wasn't a war like the US indenpendance war. Just because a state is in a union doesn't mean it ceases to exist as an indenpendant state.
I second that view. The Kalmar Union was a weak one. By comparison, the EU is stronger, and I don't think anyone is prepared just yet to say that the EU nations are not independent. Sweden was always a seperate entity, politically and culturally. The only danish king with real ambitions to control Sweden was Christian II, who was replaced by Gustav Vasa for that very reason. An unfullfilled ambition cannot count. Also, if this was the independence of Sweden, then the series of strifes during the history of the Kalmar Union was a very odd "War of Independence", since the struggle (such as the Battle of Brunkeberg) was mainly fought between pro-union and anti-union Swedish factions, not between Swedes and Danes, although Vasa and later rulers would happily try to portray it otherwise. Vasa was by all accounts a very good propagandist, who worked hard to create an image of himself as a great liberator and father of the nation. Obviously, the effects of this are still being seen. :)

[edit] Pronunciation

IPA for Sverige would be nice.

X-SAMPA svErjE I think

I'm not an expert on the IPA system and what-not, but being a native swedish-speaker I can assure you that at least svErjE is not correct. The basics of it is correct, meaning the "s", "v", "r" and "j", but the first and the second Es aren't the same sound. The first E is pronounced like we Swedish-speakers pronounce the letter "Ä", the nearest english example I can come up with on short notice is the "a" in the english word "land". The second E is somewhat like the first "e" in the english word "letter". The stress is on the first E. This is, of course, totally unscientific, but should at least give you some pointers. Nappilainen 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in X-SAMPA, Sverige [sv\{4'j@] is fairly correct. (In IPA, [sʋæɾʲjə].)
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
It's [svæɾjɛ] or [svæɾjə]. I don't know of any forms of Standard Swedish that have [ʋ], e.i. labiodental approximants. The incidental palatalization of the /r/ and the devoicing of the /v/ (following the voiceless fricative [s]) is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about geography.
I've reinstated my original recording of the official name of Sweden until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation why the dialect of someone from Härjedalen (Jens) or Norrland (Herr apa) should be considered more neutral than someone from Stockholm. I don't mind people replacing my own recordings, but not with the motivation that a Stockholm dialect is per se non-neutral.
Peter Isotalo 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Swedish definitely has [ʋ] ratrher than [v]. Please, don't tell lies to ignorant people. I agree though that the palatal r, [ɾʲ], is not necessary to write out (though it would - again - be a lie to say it's not there in reality).
The problem with the way you speak is that it sounds like broken Swedish (I can hear some elements from Russian, though this seems irrational unless you lived there when you were a kid (!)). In any case, why would my dialect be considered less usable in the context than your? Sweden is far too Stockholmified, and since you even have a broken Swedish, I feel the necessity to put up my own recording, which I will do now. (With the user name Hunef.)
Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] French map

I know the phobia of "other" language, but the French map is clearly superior in that it shows lakes and rivers.

--Fred-Chess 08:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. The French map is a better map and so much superior that it should replace the English map untill a better one is found. I think that the World Factbook maps are of quite low quality. Jeltz talk 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made some improvements of the map and uploaded it. --Fred-Chess 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to cut down text

I would like your opinion on this. To give people a better overview, I would like to cut down on the text so that every section is 4-5 paragraphs long. The rest of the section would be merged with the "main" article.

Are there objections to this? If so, please give your own opinions.

--Fred-Chess 22:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've made som changes.
Concerning the massive history of the intro, I wrote it to go along with the anthem "du lever på minnet av fornstora dar".
--Fred-Chess 12:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To do includes cutting down the Culture and the Sport section to 4-5 paragraphs. The material will be moves to other articles. Please voice any objections. --Fred-Chess 14:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edit conflict...

i was just about to edit the pre-history, but I will wait a while and paste it here for the time being.

[edit] Pre-history

Sweden was inhabited by hunters and gatherers during the Stone Age (6000 BC – 4000 BC), following the recession of the last ice age – the Weichsel glaciation. The region developed rather slowly compared to southern Europe; while the Romans wrote poetry, Scandinavia had just entered the Iron Age.

Sweden was first mentioned in the 1st century, by Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that the Suiones lived out in the sea and were powerful in both arms and ships. After that, the sources are scarce.

Sweden as a name originated in a so-called "back-formation" from the plural form Swedes (Old English Sweoðeod, Swedish Svear), the land of the Suiones. This referred to the inhabitants of eastern Sweden only, in Östergötland, primarily around lake Mälaren; towns of Stockholm, Sigtuna and Birka. The western parts were on the other hand inhabitet by Götar in Västergötland.

During the Scandinavian Viking culture of the 9th and 10th century, the Svears primarily went east, to Balticum, Russia and the Black Sea, and by lakes of Russia down to southern Europe. The Kievan Rus', from which Russia takes its name, traces its heritage to the Sveas.

With the Christianization in the 12th century, the country was consolidated, with its center at the water-ways of the northern Baltic and the Gulf of Finland. Like the rest of Europe it was in the 14th century struck by the Black Death (the Plague), with all the effect. But Sweden's expansion into the northern wilderness of Laplandia, the Scandinavian peninsula, and present-day Finland continued; the country today known as Finland was a part of Sweden from 1362 until 1809.

--Fred-Chess 10:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A minor detail about Boule

I see that the link to the game called boule is showing a totally different article and it's not about the game boule, could anyone who knows the rules of boule make a disambiguation page about boule (or is this game known under another name in English?)

I added a note at the page of boule, and corrected the link here to point to the correct name boules. --Fred-Chess 19:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the boules page I wonder if it shouldn't be changed to Pétanque instead. This rings a bell for me. It seems like the English term for the specific game known as "Boule" in Sweden, whereas "Boules" seems to be a collective term for several games played with metal balls. / Alarm
As the game is known as Boule is Sweden, "boules" seems like an appropriate term. I also can not state with certainty that the game played in Sweden is the specific variant petaneque and not the other mentioned variants bocce or bowls, it may also be a unique variant, or the rules may differ as with brännboll and krocket. -- You can of course add petanuque in paranthesis afterwards if you think this is highly vital. --Fred-Chess 21:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Language

How easy is it for an american like me with dyslexia (see my profile) to understand basic swedish? --Admiral Roo 17:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of factors. If you know German, you should be able to understand most (the same goes for a German knowing English). However, the average English-speaker lacking linguistic training would understand very little.--Wiglaf 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Its not that hard if you put your mind to it. Try reading some articles on Swedish Wikipedia. :-)
Fred-Chess 19:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Swedish inventors

As you can see, only a portion of these inventors have their own articles. I suggest that anyone proficiently familiar with the subject(s) would do Wikipedia a service if he/she would take the time to write a cuple of articles.

Maybe the article Sweden should also have a segment that deals exclusively with Science in Sweden. Well-known inventions/inventors and discoveries/discoverers etc. What/why/when/how regarding the contributions to the international scientific community. Tsaddik Dervish 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist or capitalism?

Welfare state is all nice and good, but does it make Sweden a capitalist economy or socialist economy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as there is no production control imposed or widespread looting of private property being committed by the state, such as nationalization, I would probaby hold a country as capitalistic. In this sense and in most others, Sweden is a capitalist state. It's not a country with an entirely free market, but what country is? Still it's worth to note that Swedish state IS controlling some sectors of the economy more than most countries do. /Gustav 01:25 2 November 2005

Traditionally (within the time-frame of modern times) Sweden has described itself itself as a "mixed" economy. Neither capitalist nor socialist. Of course the problem here, as Gustav points out, is that there is black and white here. All "capitalist" countries have regulation of their industries to some extent, and all "communist" or "socialist" countries allow private enterprise to some extent (even North Korea). Sweden has followed a general trend in Social Democracy towards privatization during the last part of the 20th century, but still retains a relatively large public sector by western standards. --BluePlatypus 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"Today, the country is defined by socialist tendencies and a strong national quest for equality". What are "socialist tendencies"? Since Sweden is mostly capitalistic, I don't see why the article should talk about "socialist tendencies", if Sweden has those dendencies then so do most european countries. 81.216.236.207 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to read "liberal tendencies" as you can see here, but some people keep vandalizing... :-(
Fred-Chess 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I've criticized the "socialist tendencies" as well. As for capialist or not, as an economist, I prefer "market economy". "Capitalist" is more of a Marxist term. As for how much of a market economy Sweden is, I guess the Economic freedom index and other such indices are good indicators. Generally, Sweden is perceived to be a relatively well functioning market economy, although it does receive regular criticism from the likes of the OECD about the functioning of its labor market.KarlXII 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden with annexed territories

The image Image:Sweden 1658.png and the assosiated text "Current day Sweden (red) with annexed territories (orange) in 1658." views the Swedish Empire from our temporal Point-of-View.

It maybe Ok to include the present borders of Sweden in the picture. This could be done by overlaying the outlines on the 1658 map. It is however factually incorrect to represent Scania as a part of Sweden proper and Österland (Finland) as "annexed territory". The exact opposite is true. -- Petri Krohn 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote text. The picture still needs to be redrawn. -- Petri Krohn 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish sterilization

Removed this from article:

However, the Social Democratic Party presided over a massive campaign of forced sterilisation which belies the "well being for all" policy. Working class women, gypsys, mixed race women and those with disabilities were targetted in a co-ordinated sterilisation campaign which ranks second only to the Nazis in Germany. This aspect of Swedish policy is often conveniently fogotten. The last legal sterilisation took place in 1975.

Interesting and containing some truth, but not suitable just here, I think? // Fred-Chess 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also important: Though Socialdemocrats wanted this, so did all other parties (except the communists). It wasn't a form of welfare as much as something of the time, also done in many other countries. So.. what does it really say?

I don't get it. Is this true or not? Is this an exaggeration of some sort? If it is true, then why doesn't it belong to the main article? Being "bad" for Sweden is not an appropriate answer, I think; I deem Sweden as the beautiful country that it seems to be does not fear its history. I think that someone should comment on the truthfullness of this statement, change it accordingly and reinstate it in the main article. --Theoharis 09:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been TV-programs about this so it did occur at least to some degree. As far as I've understood it was only people with disabilities who were targeted though (don't remember hearing about "Working class women, gypsys, mixed race women" being targeted) because they wanted to stop the spreading of disabilities that could be inherited. (As the text says it was a "well being for all" policy.) Of course, they didn't know as much about these disabilities back then so many people were sterilized even though their condition could not be inherited by their children. /Jiiimbooh 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that only disabled people should have been sterilized is not true at all, it sounds more like propaganda by the Party, relayed by Pravda. ;-) Anyway, gypsies, working class women, women deemed to simply be to "stupid" to breed, disabled people, and so on, were all victims of these ideas. There are more info about this on the swedish wikipedia. It's in Swedish, but for the unfortunates who don't speak our language, there are some mentions of Sweden in the Eugenics article. As far as I know, Sweden ended up in a (fairly unflattering) second place in the eugenics/forced sterilization count. Nazi Germany as no 1, Sweden as no 2. Anyway, this should without doubt be mentioned in this article. It might even be worth an article of it's own. /Magore 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your right. According to the Swedish article it wasn't only disabled people being sterilized. I wouldn't blame this mistake on propaganda though, it was probably just me not remembering all the details. I'm not surprised that sterilization because of race was allowed in the 1930s when many people in Sweden sympatised with the nazis, but I think that sterilization because of race must have ended earlier than 1975, which the article doesn't reflect. I would be very surprised if racism of this sort was allowed in Sweden all the way till 1975.
Article about forced sterilization on the Swedish Wikipedia /Jiiimbooh 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it ended in 65 but I can't say anything about the "2nd" place because it depends if they mean per capita or over all. I think there was some cases where they sterilised women who where married to alcoholic husbands, to prevent them from getting kids. This is a dark page in Swedish history and should be exposed together with the ties to the naziideology(To my knoweledge, Sweden(Uppsala) was in the forfront of racesstudies during the 1900-1930is and influensed many german thinkers(Or something like that, I saw something about this on TV a couple of years ago.). )(I think the forum on skalman.net(if it is still up might be a good place for information on this subject.))(Sorry for the extremly bad english).

[edit] Demographics

I noticed that a FT article from 7/15/05 has significantly different demographics, specifically, it had the number of Muslim immigrants in Sweden at 350,000. Given the considerable difference, does anybody have a better way of getting this number? Malik

Depends on what you mean by "muslim". That number is probably the total of immigrants and native-with-both-parents-as-immigrants that originate in predominantly muslim countries. The most "optimistic" calculation along these lines is 400,000. The total membership of muslim congregations is about 80,000 so 100,000 is a reasonable number for the number of practicing muslims, and 350,000 may be a reasonable estimate of the number of people with an islamic cultural background. --BluePlatypus 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parallels with Cuba

Sorry to have to make this point, so heavy handedly, but there are some endlessly commenting on Cuba who believe that Cuba is a socialist country just like Sweden. See some discussion below and more at [5]

e.g. ::The socialist/communist discussion is neverending and I don't see a way out either (by the way, I'm in favour of 'socialist' for roughly your reasons and because Cuba calls itself socialist - it's their country, so who are we to disagree). The use of the word 'state' is something like the word 'regime'. They both have perfectly neutral meanings, but most to most people they have a flavour and are therefore perceived as pov. So that's tricky. Should we be correct or follow common usage (such as in the media)? Or simply avoid the issue by not using the words? Ultimately, the best solution seems to be consistent. So if we call this a state, we should also use that term for democracies, as you point out. So I'm with you on this account too, but it remains a messy issue. DirkvdM 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk to call the Cuban government "socialist" without a modifier does a injustice to democratic socialist states such as Sweden. El Jigüey 12-3-05

El J - why then is it necessary for you to add the modifier to Sweden's designation? "Socialist" is not such a narrowly defined term as you want it to be. The debate as to what variety of socialism Cuba practises belongs her in the talk pages, not in the main article. MichaelW 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Oh! So sorry! So terribly wrong of me!!!! I should have realized that the "socialism" that Castro practices is equivalent to that of Sweden. Of course now I know, for you have informed me so, that in the one party state of Sweden, the dictator, Göran Persson who has held power for almost fifty years has people arrested for "disrespect" and for "dangerousness," and makes sure that all gather to do "voluntary" labor or to hear him speak for hours. Please accept my most abject apologies. El Jigüey 12-4-05

I'll answer to your original question, DirkvdM. Sweden's government is usually described as social democratic. Cuba is not a democracy. / Fred-Chess 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred I know that and this is precisely my point. But some dunderheads keep insisting that Castro's Cuba is a socialist rather than communist state. Sorry to have have troubled you and your tranquil country, wish Cuba were the same. El Jigüe 12/5/05

Here's one more article for you to ignore: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- Curps 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electricity statistics

I updated and corrected the energy/electricity statistics and removed the old source. The old values mixed electricity production (from renewables) and total energy usage (from coal, peat etc.) in a very unlogical way. The new values are from Statistics Sweden[6] and deals only with electricity production. 130.240.200.146 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Swedish Culture

Hello, I've added the section "Swedish Nobel Prize Winners" --Cr34t0r 11:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

- Could someone delete Cornelis Vreeswijk from the Music-part? He never was a swedish citizen even if he released a great number of songs in Swedish./Martin

I fail to see why citizenship should matter. He was a resident of Sweden for almost all his life, and had a tremendous influence on Swedish culture. Of course, the fact that he remained a Dutch citizen could be mentioned, but it doesn't warrant his exclusion from the section. -- Jao 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference numbers are not correct

The reference numbers in the text go up to 7, while there are only 4 numbers listed below. Could someone fix this? (I don't know how to do that myself). Thanks, Bas


[edit] Vandalism

Hi,

I don't get involved here very often but I thought I should bring this to attention... I don't know how often this sort of thing happens or what the policy is towards correction, but the first sentence of the article reads as follows:

"The Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige (help·info)Stockholm accent) is retarded."

Thanks, Sören - 26 feb 2006


[edit] Sweden during WWII

I have added some information about Sweden's collaboration with the Allied forces during WWII that is necessary to include because it creates a balanced picture of Sweden's role during the war. Sweden breeched neutrality in favor of both sides, but for the Nazis it was forced upon them, while for the Allies it was voluntary. The cooperation with the Allies was actually a more serious breech of neutrality, but it is unfortunately often forgotten, probably because the cooperation with the Nazis is seen as more sensational. I haven't yet found an English source about this online, but maybe someone else can? The swedish source is: http://www.smb.nu/pos/02/06a_beredskapsserien.asp

Sweden had little choice. Sweden also gave shelter to many jews from other countries. (Blacksun 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

The article currently says that Sweden's "neutrality during World War II has been disputed because it was under German influence for most of the war". Yes, there was strong German pressure on Sweden and the Swedish government did bend its neturality to accomodate Germans wishes, but I it is a bit harsh to say that it was under German influence for most of the war. Yes, it had to adjust to / accomodate German wishes during part of the war, though once Germany looked less sure to win (by 1943 or so) this 'cooperation' was ended.

Could we change this sentence? ~~

I would say that Sweden "went with the wind". 1944 when the allied was winning, we started collaborating with the allies, thus beaking the neutrality. 1940-1943 was mostly nazi-german centered, then changed to england and to USA.

[edit] Prime Minister/Minister of state

I do not fully agree with calling our 'Statsminister' 'Prime Minister': 1. Prime Minister gets translated to Permiärminister in Swedish. (fe. prime minister Tony Blair -> Premiärminister Tony Blair) Whereas Minister of State would be directly translated to 'Statsminister'. 2. If you asked a swede who the prime minister of sweden is he would probably be confused and not understand you if you asked who was the minister of State most people would quickly say Göran Persson. 3. Comparable to the Tsar (sp?) of Russia, we would never the monarch of Russia for king of Russia (Same goes with severall other countrys too, Emperor of China, Ceasar of Rome etc. etc.) Anyway I as a Swede would like it to be changed to Minister of State, with an explanation of it being equivalent to Prime Minister. 83.226.228.40 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Lyml

The Swedish Goverment Offices[7] use the name Prime Minister themselves, and I think that Göran Person usually (or always) is called Prime Minister in English media. While I don't think that it would be wrong to call him Minister of State the general usage is Prime Minister. Jeltz talk 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Google: "prime minister göran persson" - 68,100 hits. "minister of state göran persson" - 6 hits. So that's the end of that. He's most commonly referred to as "Prime Minister" in English, so that's what should be used. It's also what's used officially. As for 1) It's a different word, but still the same title. 2) I doubt that very much. I don't think many Swedes would have problems knowing the answer to "Who is your Prime Minister?". (in English) They might be confused if you asked them in Swedish and said "Premiärminister", but that's simply because it's not the usual term. It's still the same term as "Statsminister", even if "Premiärminister" is the more direct translation of the English term. 3) Exactly. It would be confusing to use a term other than the commonly-accepted one, even if it has the same meaning. Which is exactly why "Prime Minister" should be preferred over "Minister of State". (BTW, "Tsar" means "Emperor", not "King"). --BluePlatypus 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, Minister of State means an junior minister in English, i.e. someone who isn't even a proper minister. Thomas Blomberg 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jews in Sweden"

Someone adds this section. I'm removing it. Comments?

==Sweden and the Jewish people==
In the beginning of the war, nobody knew about the German concentration camps and the treating of Jews. But after some years of war the knowledge of these camps was spread into Sweden, and many leaders in the country knew about it, without doing anything. Sweden was the first country which got information about the concentration camps, the annihilation of the Jews, and about "Die Endlösung" the final solution. The reason to why Sweden didn´t intervene was that it wasn´t very good to make trouble with the Germans, and Sweden was also afraid of an invasion from Germany.
The Swedes worried more about the Jewish immigration than about the Jewish suffering in German camps. Swedish newspapers wrote about how bad the Jewish was treated in Europe, but the Swedes were often suspicious and thought of it as overstatement propaganda. People in Sweden saw how the Jews "stole" their jobs, and many thought of preserving the Aryan race. German tourists had no problem getting into Sweden, but Jews on the other hand needed two passports to enter Sweden. It was a Swedeish proposal to mark the Jews´ passports with a big "J" so they could be identified as Jews and stopped. Other countries also started with the same method, and later on there came laws which forbade Jews to travel through Sweden.
But, Sweden didn´t act that execrable all the time. It received a large number of refugees both from Norway and Denmark, and when the persecution of Jews started in Denmark, many Jews went over to Sweden to find asylum there. The greatest rescue operation during the war was carried out by the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who succeeded in saving thousands of Jews before he himself was brought to an unknown fate by the Russians. Sweden also sent the well-known White Buses, organized by Folke Bernadotte to rescue Jews from the concentration camps. Many of the Jews who survived live in Sweden today.

/ Fred-Chess 10:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Fred chessplayer: I see you are very keen in writing and exaggerate some things about Sweden.
It is good to show the good side of a country but it is also virtuous to show the bad.
So I think that at least some part of this article is apropiate conserning the recent history of Sweden.
I'll leave some links bellow. If you are Swedish, which I hope you are, since you seem to know a lot about Sverige, maybe you can read them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.230.18 (talk • contribs)


I agree with Fred that this article, which is supposed to summarize all aspects of Sweden, cannot possibly accommodate an enormous section on Jews in Sweden. It is enough to mention Jews briefly in the sections on religion and ethnic minorities in Sweden. In addition to being out-of-place here, the added section lacks perspective even from the narrow perspective of the topic of "Jews in Sweden". It can be compared to including several long paragraphs in the article on Sweden about the history of Gävle, all of it focusing on the history of Gävle 1938-1943. It is all about one particular episode. It also oversimplifies complex issues, by not putting different attitudes and actions in a larger context.
OTOH, we should have a separate article on the History of Jews in Sweden. I once wrote a couple of minor articles on related topics on the Swedish Wikipedia (see Aaron Isaac), but then tired of the theme. There is an outdated, but public domain article on Jews in Sweden in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which could serve as a starting point. It only covers the period until about 1900, but could be useful for that. But, especially as this a contentious issue, it is important to go to sources other than a few newspaper articles. There are after all serious historical studies both on the topic of Jews in Sweden in general and on Swedish foreign and immigration politics before and during WWII. I'll actually start the article now with the JE material, but it will need to be expanded later. up◦land 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. The above text is also badly written, non-NPOV and in places incorrect and misleading. For instance, the J-mark in passports was also requested by Switzerland. The knowledge of the Holocaust before anyone else was not 'spread' in Sweden, but was information from a single source restricted to a few diplomats, who regrettably chose to disbelieve it. (I.e. it was not even notably spread within the State Department) I've never heard of any laws in the 1930s or 40s banning the travel of Jews through Sweden and I'd like to see some kind of reference for that. (Perhaps he's thinking of Gränsrekommendationssystemet - under which people who could be suspected of not returning to their country would not be admitted to Sweden. A rule which did not target Jews specifically, although they were often the victim of it) Antisemitism certainly existed in Sweden, but there was never a general perception of Jews "stealing jobs" - there were anti-jewish-immigration demonstrations, but they were not particularily large (a few hundred people) or many (two, if memory serves, both at Östermalmstorg in Stockholm, a Nazi one in 1937 and a medical student protest in 1939 against 10 Jewish doctors reciving asylum). You can't generalize the actions of these small, relatively extreme groups to the society as a whole. --BluePlatypus 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branting the first democratically elected Prime Minister??

"Hjalmar Branting, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Sweden", claims the caption under his portrait - and the article about him, as well. Well, that's news to me - and I think most Swedes. What about Nils Edén, Carl Swartz, Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, Karl Staaff, Arvid Lindman and all the others? Hjalmar Branting was the first Social Democratic Prime Minister, but definitely not the first Prime Minister to be democratically elected. Sweden became a constitutional monarchy in 1809. Anyone care to argue about this before I change it? Thomas Blomberg 09:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That depends a lot on one's definition of "democratically elected". Branting is certainly one candidate, as his second cabinet was created after the first election to the second chamber including women (1921). But parliamentary principles had of course been laid down in practice for several decades then (even though a truly "democratically elected" PM, in a strictly formal sense, didn't exist until the 1970s), so if male-only democracy counts, we could just as well get a very early name, e.g. Arvid Posse. But this phrase is by no means clear-cut, and so should not be used lightly, such as here or in the introduction of the Hjalmar Branting article. -- Jao 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the only valid statement would be that he was the first Social Democratic Prime Minister. Measuring democracy by the rules for suffrage is very difficult, as there has always been rules limiting who can vote. Right now, all Swedes who are 18 or older can vote, so one could argue that there was no democracy when only those who were 21 or older could vote - and if the voting age is lowered to 16, then suddenly there was no democracy until that happened. Also, formally no Swedish Prime Ministers have ever been elected, as Swedes vote for parties, not individuals, and the leader of the party with the most votes normally becomes the Prime Minister, so the sentence is misleading in that aspect as well. Thomas Blomberg 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the image caption since I agree with that it is hard to say who was the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Sweden. A claim this uncertain doesn't belong in an image caption. Jeltz talk 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And I have changed the Hjalmar Branting article the same way. Thomas Blomberg 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality or non-alignment?

IMO, the term "neutrality" is used in the wrong way in this article. Sweden maintains a policy of non-alignment, meaning that the country doesn't belong to any military alliances or unions, despite any sympathies or allegiances towards other countries. That is not the same as being neutral, which basicly means that the country is totally impartial toward any other country. Maybe this article would benefit from an explanation of the differences between those two? /Magore 14:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice picture, but not here

There is a very good picture from the city Linköping in the Sweden article, but it hasn´t got anything to do with the context of the article - the motive is a local government office in Linköping and doesn´t say anything about the landscape, culture or topography of Sweden. I have removed it - but anyone who would like to see it can look at the Linköping article. user:Erik031

I agree. It is a very nice image, but it is not clear why it should be among the relatively few pictures on this page. (But Erik, when you edit, you should log in with your username and leave an edit comment to explain what you are doing - otherwise it will just make people think it is some random vandalism.) I also think we should remove the Thor painting by Winge from the history section. It is an interesting example of 19th century national romanticism, but has nothing to do with Swedish pre-history. I think a picture of the mounds at Gamla Uppsala or a Vendel period helmet would be better. up◦land 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be more careful when editing, please

I have reverted this article back to version 55579635, since it was vandalized by user 68.96.129.77, who replaced the entire section about the history of Sweden with some nonsense. Unfortunately, a few constructive edits were removed as well, and this is what happens when we edit vandalized versions of the articles on wikipedia. If your edits were lost, please add them again. And be more careful the next time you make edits to an article on Wikipedia, and check that the version is good before proceeding. If not (ie it has been vandalized), revert back to the last good version. Thank you. /Magore 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the two edits removed was changing the number of muslims to soemthign different to what the source used in this article says without removing the refernce. The other was adding some information about some kind of Swedish dumplings. They might deserve to be mentioned in the main article since they are kinda well-known in Sweden, but I think of many other well-known local dishes. Jeltz talk 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish politics

Hello, I've taken the liberty of making what I feel are some improvement to the politics section. The previous text was not that bad, I just felt it focused a bit too much on history of Swedish politics. I belive this is best explored in a separate more detailed article. Likewise for the foreign policy of Sweden section, which was more about Swedish politics during WWII and the Cold War than about the politics today. The Catalina affair isn't exactly defining of Swedish foreign policy today.

I didn't mean to upset anyone, so, if anyone disapproves, please feel free to revert (though I hope you will not) or give me suggestions for which bits to keep/change/improve.

Cheers, Osli73 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Policy

It looks perfectly fine to me. Although the passage could incorporate some of the facts of the former passage... I think I'll try to find a synthesis of the two, feel free to change it as much as possible.

Thanks Impact_red 0:35, 5 June 2006 (PST)

[edit] Language - dialects

The Language section consists of two paragraphs - one about Swedish and the other about the knowledge of English in Sweden. Nothing technically wrong with this, though I think it gives the section a slightly wrong focus. I would suggest adding something about the different dialects in Sweden (which are quite varied for a country with such a small population) and, perhaps, something about the languages of recent imigrants to Sweden (Finnish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, etc.). Osli73 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific comments on the introduction and general comments on the article

While the introduction isn't technically wrong I feel that it's not as good as it could be. A couple of thigs bug me (though just a bit):

1. How can Sweden be a "Nordic country in Scandinavia"? At the very least, the wording is a bit strange.

2. "Mountainous wildreness" sounds a bit harsh. Better to say something about mountains on the border to Norway or similar.

3. "Natural resources of water, timber, and iron ore have made Sweden highly prosperous." It's one thing to state what the main natural resources are. It might even be correct to state that these contributed to Sweden's early industrialization (though other factors, such as early economic liberalization, contributed perhaps even more). However, to say that these natural resources "have made Sweden highly prosperous" is not correct. These natural resources continue to play an important role in the economy, but they are by far superceeded by other sectors and factors. I would suggest something else (perhaps saying something about the telecommunications, IT, automotive and pharmaceutical industries).

4. "Its citizens enjoy an extremely high standard of living in a country that is universally perceived as clean, modern, and liberal." Saying that Swedens standard of living is "extreme" is pushing it a bit and quite subjective. "Universally" feels a bit too broad, better to take it out.

In general, I find the article very good. However, I have three general criticisms:

  • It has quite a lot of focus on history, also outside of the history section. I've already made some changes of this in the Politics section.
  • The article feels a bit antiquated. As if it had come from some 1970s school book if you will (no offense intended to any editors here). It talks about iron ore and hydropower, the welfare state, etc. It also includes a slightly smug tone (the "excellent" this and the "modern" that).
  • Related to the second point above (the 1970s feel) the text feels a bit like it was written by a member of the Social Democrat party. Sentences like "The standard of living has become markedly high under Sweden's social democratic system" don't feel NPOV. Add comments about how "In addition, the ceiling on health care costs makes it easier, relative to other nations, for Swedish workers to take time off for medical reasons."

What do you think about my comments? I would be willing to work through some changes and either make them directly in the article (and let you revert them if you dislike them) or publish them here on the Talk page and let you discuss them. Osli73 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music - Cleanup

I've decided to be bold, and thus removed some of the information from the section about music. We already have an article about the music of Sweden, and I don't see any reason for adding the name of every swedish group or artist that someone has heard about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information added to the main article should be notable and of general interest. /Magore 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed images in geography section

I removed all the images. I'd like to have a discussion on what images should be best suited for the section. Currently the images were:

View of Gamla Stan in Stockholm.]]

Image near Kebnekaise from Lappland in northern Norrland.]]

Image from Göteborg archipelago in northern Götaland.]]

Image from Skåne in southern Götaland.]]

An autumn image from Dalarna.]]

The Turning Torso skyscraper in Malmö, Skåne.]]

Akalla outside Stockholm.]]

Södermalm, Stockholm.]]

Ideally the images should give a selection of typical Swedish stuff. However, of these images, three are from stockholm, two are from Skåne, one from Norrland, one from Gothenburg, and one from Dalarna (but it could be taken anywhere?).

Please have a say on which images you like to be included! Please also make any suggestions you may have on what images you would like to see for the section. I am fairly acquainted with the Commons server and could probably dig up something.

Fred-Chess 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other removed material

external links:

Why removing the official tourism site?

see also

(more to follow)

Fred-Chess 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going ahead with cleanup of the article

Hello, Since noone responded to my comments on "Specific comments on the introduction and general comments on the article" above I will now go ahead and do some cleaning up of the article. Please let me know if anyone thinks these are inappropriate (make specific comments).Osli73 07:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden, the name

The root of the name Sweden has come up in Talk:Viking. This was said.

The name of Sweden in Swedish (Sverige) is short for Svea Rike. Svear (or, in English, "Suiones") is the old and indigenous name of the (tribe of) people who lived in the core area of Sweden, ie where Stockholm lies today. The middle part of Sweden is still named Svealand, which translates into "Land of the Suiones". So, to sum it up, Sverige or Svea Rike can be translated into "Kingdom of the Suiones", or something like that.

Maybe this should be investigated and included in the article if it is true.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Sweden of today is divided into three regions - Svealand (same meaning as Svea rike, Sweden proper), Götaland and Norrland. Svealand and Götaland are former lands or countries of their own, but I'm not sure about Norrland. As far as I know, it was settled a lot more recently. Anyway, that the indigenous name for Sweden is derived from "Svea rike" is correct and should in my opinion be included in this article. /Magore 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But it is in the article. Look under section Pre-history. / Fred-Chess 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports - popularity

I thought floorball ("Innebandy" in swedish) is the most popular sport in Sweden? Popular as practitioning, not watching. I'm pretty sure it has the highest numbers of participants if you count the players not "registred" (in a league club etc), who just plays for fun/exercise with collegues/friends etc. Hallogallo 12:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have somewhere read that floorball was the second most popular sport in Sweden if you count the number of pracitioners. I don't remember where I read it though. Jeltz talk 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murders of Palme and Lindh - political?

The article currently calls the murders of Palme and Lindh "political". Since the motive of the Palme murder is unknown and the murder of Lindh does not seem to be politically motivated at all I think it is incorrect/misleading to call the murder "political". It would be better to say that "two high-ranking politicians have been murdered", or something in along with that.

Do you agree to change? Osli73 09:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section outdated

The Economy section presents a very outdated picture of the Swedish economy. Some examples:

  1. The "social democratic system" - what is that? Sweden very obviously has a "market economy" or, if you prefer an older term, "capitalist system".
  2. The section presents "Timber, hydropower, and iron ore" as the main drivers of the economy, when this is far from true. It may have been correct in 1950-1970, but not anymore.
  3. There is too much emphasis on the role of the trade unions. Although it is one characteristic of the Economy of Sweden, it is not the most important thing a reader needs to know about what the Economy looks like and how it functions.
  4. School vouchers is incorrectly labelled as a recession/budget motivated reform of the welfare state when in fact it was motivated by ideological reasons alone (not budgetary).
  5. The most important reform of the welfare state carried out during the early 1990s - the change in the pension system - is not mentioned at all.

Would it be ok for me to rewrite this section a little? Any other comments? Osli73 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a suggestion, how about making use of some recognized reference literature and then use them as the backbone, with appropriate and accurate citations in text, instead of just writing along with your hunches of what is important? / Fred-Chess 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Of course, a new text should be based on and should reference recognized literature. which the present article doesn't. My list was just an off the cuff list of objections to the current text based on my uni studies of Swedish economic history.

I'll get back her in a couple of days with a proposal. Any comments you would like to make before I get started? Osli73 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded arrogant. Do I have any comments? No, I don't know much about economical history -- I have some knowledge about social history that I also added to the article, but am aware that my writings are not accurate.
I don't remember if I wrote this already in some other section: plenty of material regarding economy and politics (the "boring" parts) comes from the CIA World Factbook and the United States Department of State. You should check the links at the references section.
Fred-Chess 10:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Fred, no offence taken. I studied Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics some ten years ago so I was thinking of digging out some of my old textbooks on Swedish economic history. Also, I think the Economy (as the Politics section) should focus more on current economics (and politics) than on history, which is the case in the article today.

As for sources, I'm mainly thinking of using Schön's (2000) En modern svensk ekonomisk historia. Tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel (reviewed, in Swedish, here and here). Without having read them, I suspect some US sources (such as the CIA and the State Department) are likely to overemphasize the socialism thing.

Anyways, I'll post a suggested text here on the talk page in a couple of days (if all goes well). Cheers, Osli73 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is one comment I'd like to add... it is preferable if the references are in English, when such material is available. Of course it should still be the most widely renowned English language material (not just websites in English). We must acknowledge that most of our intended audience are English speakers.
Fred-Chess 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I'll see what I can do (as most of the lit on Swedish economic history that I have are, well, in Swedish).Cheers, Osli73 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign policy section focuses too much on history, at the expense of the present

The Foreign policy section feels too much like the History of Swedish foreign policy rather than current foreign policy. I suggest a rewrite. Is that ok by everyone?Osli73 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding a fact in the introduction.

The line "In the 17th and 18th centuries Sweden extended its territory through warfare and became a Great Power" ought to be changed to "In the 16th and 17th century" or even better "In the 17th century". Sweden did not do any territorial wins during the 18th century, and it certainly did not become a Great Power in the 18th century.--Warfvinge 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the 17th century" would be OK for me, but the mention of the 16th century should be left out. Not much happened during that century in terms of expansion, although we have the bloodbath in Stockholm as well as the rebellion led by Gustav Vasa. /M.O (u) (t) 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nuclear phase out

The last paragraph in the Energy politics section says that: "Sweden decided to phase out nuclear fission before 2020, although it is very unlikely that this will happen." Could someone please add why it is unlikely to happen? I'd appreciate that. Samuel 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for a new Economy section

A while back I promised to come up with a suggestion for a new Economy section. My main problem with the current one is that it sounds lightly out of fashion, too much focus on natural resources and talk of iron ore and such (instead of telecoms, automobiles and IT, which would have been more correct). Unfortanately I was 'otherwise engaged' for a long time. However, after a long delay though, here's my suggestion:

Sweden began its industrialization during the second half of the 19th century with raw materials such as iron ore, timber and hydroelectric power playing a major role. Towards the end of the century inventions and innovations laid the foundation for successful engineering companies which, among other things, began to export ball bearings, telephone exchanges and cream separators.
Engineering and car manufacturing account for over 40 per cent of added value in Swedish industry. Wood, pulp and the paper industry account for over 20 per cent while the chemical industry's share is around 12 per cent. Information technology, IT, plays an ever greater role in the Swedish economy.
The Swedish economy is highly dependent on exports and the country has a considerable trade balance surplus with exports of goods and services equivalent to 45 percent of the GNP. Most exports go to the rest of Europe - almost 60 per cent of Swedish exports go to other EU countries. Exports to North America, East and South East Asia are also of major importance. Among other things, Sweden is a successful exporter of music and is the third largest music exporting nation in the world after the USA and the UK.
A distinctive feature of the Swedish economy is the relatively large amount of services produced in the public sector.
In the 1980s and 1990s growth in Sweden was weak compared to the rest of Europe and North America. Between 1990 and 1993, GNP fell by five percent at the same time as employment decreased by almost 10 per cent. In 1993, unemployment was more than twice as high as it had ever been in the period since World War II. The economic setbacks coincided with an international economic recession but the decline in production and employment was greater than in several other comparable countries.
During the latter part of the 1990s the decline was reversed with the Swedish economy largely performing better than that of most other European countries.

During the 1990s several structural reforms have changed economic policy in Sweden. A new Competition Act has been adopted. Deregulation has been implemented in several important sectors of the economy, for example, financial market, the electricity market, telecommunications, agriculture, air traffic and several other markets. State owned companies have been privatized and several different state monopolies have been abolished and a new government framework agreement has given the municipalities and county councils incentives to open their operations to competition and more effective working methods. The state pension system has also been overhauled.

What do you think? Maybe something more could be added on the labor market and perhaps some figures for intl. trade (this is mostly from memory). A good source is the Swedish statistical office.

Regards Osli73 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds very well. If you have some references to it, it will probably stay longer, and be easier for others to check up. I have reconsidered somewhat about the language of references: although I still think English are better, anything is better than none.
If you want to be even more lengthy than above, I suggest you do it on article Economy of Sweden.
Fred-Chess 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


I'll try to find some sources (this was mostly from memory and from what I've read in recent newspaper articles. Yes, I agree that sources in English would be much better, I'll do my best.

Anyone else have any comments?

The text is saying that "of apporximately 1245 miliard Swedish Krona". It might be unimportant but isnt billion a more conventional word?

Regards Osli73 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Minister and Goverment

The Prime Minister of Sweden is still Göran Persson, even though he and his party lost this sundays election. New Prime Minister will probably be Fredrik Reinfeld, BUT that is not yet declared. I don't know the exact dates for when this goverment will step down and the new will take over, but as of today this has not yet been done. 213.112.157.154 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Request for semiprotection

I received a request to semiprotect this article, in advance of the change in governments. I have to say that I do not think that's necessarily warranted based on a quick review of the history. (and I don't really have the background to know whether there is more to it than that) In general, WP policy is to use protection and semiprotection very sparingly. If there is a flood of vandalism, please feel free to ask on the vandalism noticeboard or the general admin noticeboard or (best) the request for page protection board for assistance. Hope that helps and happy editing on this generally quite excellent article, all... ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the process when appointing the Prime Minster

From the Swedish constitution, Instrument of government, §1-4.

När statsminister skall utses, kallar talmannen företrädare för varje partigrupp inom riksdagen till samråd. Talmannen överlägger med vice talmännen och avgiver sedan förslag till riksdagen. Riksdagen skall senast på fjärde dagen härefter, utan beredning i utskott, pröva förslaget genom omröstning. Röstar mer än hälften av riksdagens ledamöter mot förslaget, är det förkastat. I annat fall är det godkänt.

Haven't got the time to traslate it, but it says explicitly that the speaker suggests a prime minister and that the Riksdag needs to approve him. --Warfvinge 11:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And, just to settle it ones and for all, I received this letter from the information department of the Riksdag:
Hej,
Göran Persson är statsminister i den expeditionsministär/regering som sitter nu fram till regeringsskiftet den 6 oktober. Göran Persson is the prime minister of the interim ministry that will rule until the change of government on the 6th October --Warfvinge 11:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HDI

considering that sweden holds the 6th position in the HDI, i don´t see why this isn´t considered as the "very top". unless the very top is the top 5. i´m just wondering why, i don´t know.

If you look at the article on Human Development Index it has a category for countries with an HDI from 0.95 and above. Sweden is incredibly close but not included in this group. I think this is the reason. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Composition of the Riksdag

In the Politics section, the party composition of the Riksdag is said to be as of May 2006, though the primary figures are actually the results of the September elections. The newly elected Riksdag is not yet in place, and is to be opened on October 3. Either should the figures concerning the previous Riksdag be restored until October 3, or the text should be changed to something like "the future Riksdag, to be officially opened on October 3, will constist of ...". /The Phoenix 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia bug ?

What is with this: "foreign policy in peacetime and neutrality in wartime. Sweden is a very poor country in Southern Africa."

I see it in the main page but I can't seem to find it in the edit section.

The sentence was introduced by an anonymous user today at 08:26 UTC and removed by Gnangarra today at 09:26 UTC. It's the nature of this project that content changes, articles get vandalized, and the vandalizations get reverted. If you refresh the page, bypassing your browser's cache, you will get the most recent version. -- Jao 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public health?

Former wording sugested the public health care system leading to unusually high suicide statistics. For my part i can not see this glancing over http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html WHO's figures. In fact Sweden is on par with most western european nations (even if you disregard differentialting countries with primarilly public health care or private). Further its suggested the statement to be a common myth, due to sweden being one of the first nations to publicise their statistics on health care. As for the statement on mental health, i would suggest someone looks into the validity of this.

It is a rumour in the U.S. that Swedes are prone to suicides. I've heard it on several sit-coms. I don't where it comes from. / Fred-Chess 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


"Though a negative aspect of public health is a high rate of people with mental illnesses, such as depression." Calling it a negative aspect isn't that very subjective, I mean, the people of sweden seem to think of this as something good, or we would have probably totaly taken out the mental care from our public health... without quoting any source, and just from memory I think with the downsizing of the mental clinics where mental patients lived the number of homeless people in increased, and there has been some acts of voilence by people who are trying to get back into a mental institutes. So my subjective oppinion is that helping as many people with mental problems as possible is a possitive, not negative thing. so without quoting some nice study about public health's negative inpact on peoples mental helth I'd suggest this sentance to be if not removed atleast objectified. - salle

[edit] Fredrik Reinfeldt elected prime minister of Sweden

Fredrik Reinfeldt is as of today, October the 5th, 2006, the new prime minister of Sweden, after officially being elected by the swedish Riksdag. Do NOT change back to Göran Persson as the PM of Sweden, please. /M.O (u) (t) 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Göran Persson will resign tomorrow noon, until then Sweden will have two prime ministers. See http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=673993&lid=puff_673992&lpos=rubrik or Swedish Wikipeida. Vints 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonsence, Göran Persson resigned today (Oct 5) at 14.08. See e.g. press release of the Riksdag --- Camptown 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. The Riksdag chose Reinfeldt Oct 5 14.08. But he will take office Oct 6 noon. Persson signed his resignation September 18. Vints 06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Image:Avsked.jpg
Persson heads the caretaker government until PM Reinfeldt presents his cabinet. Persson's application for resignation was "approved" by the Riksdag on October 5, when Mr. Reinfeldt took office. Big deal? ---Camptown 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Swedish Wikipedia says October 6. See also [8] Vints 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually heard at swedish TV4 Nyhetsmorgon that its unclear if we had two PMs between the 5 -6 th october or not, the swedish constituition doesn't say anything about it.


It is no longer October 5 or October 6, and I think everybody can agree that the only current prime minister of Sweden is Fredrik Reinfeldt, so perhaps the page could be unprotected again? --Maggu 10:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Kusma (討論) 10:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)