Talk:Sweden

Archives:

• /Archive 1

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Sweden's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Sweden deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian in Swedish teaching?

I am currently in the first year of secondary school and i have not seen any Norwegian so far. Is this info wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.233.27 (talk • contribs)

What info? And I have never heard of norwegian in the Swedish school system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs)

I added it, my "Swedish A" course had some Norwegian in it as described in the article. As the Swedish subject syllabuses are far from standardised across all schools I wouldn't be surprised if some teachers like to leave it out. -Obli (Talk)^? 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source for it? I can't find anything on Skolverket.se (or any other site for that matter). Ullner 13:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it would be in the syllabus since I was taught some Norwegian in Swedish school, but considering the vagueness of any publication on what's to be included in Swedish education, I guess it's up to the teacher. The fact that I went to school in Värmland (county bordering Norway) might also be a part of the explanation. -Obli (Talk)^? 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Norwegian and Danish is sometimes taught in classes, but I believe it's optional and rather basic. It's a shame, though, since a few weeks of intensive studies in the neighboring languages should be really helpful about understanding. 惑乱 分からん 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my "Swedish B" one of our parts of the national test was a dannish text. And the national test is composed by the "skolverk" so i guess that would point to the inclusion of dannish (and norweigan) in the education. Upon askin the teacher of the class she replied that we were supose to have understanding of our neighboring languages. And that its a guideline from the "skolverk". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.182.133.172 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I qoute from Skolverket.se

"The school in its teaching of Swedish should aim to ensure that pupils:(...)develop their ability to understand spoken and written Norwegian and Danish, and become familiar with the literature, languages and language situation in the whole of the Nordic area, including minority languages in Sweden" 90.228.227.16 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that Norwegian is not part of the Swedish courses, however the two languages are very much alike and it is not too hard to understand the other language if you speak one of them. However, some basic language origin might include Norwegian among other languages. Adwicko 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adwicko. When I went to Swedish schools – some 20-30 years ago – we had may be three or four lessons on the subject of the Norwegian and Danish languages, all in all. Not too much, considering the educational system in Sweden is based on a mandatory nine-year primary school. In comparison, English is a mandatory subject for six of these nine years… As to "become familiar with the (…) language situation in the whole of the Nordic area", we did not get any education at all regarding the Icelandic language (which is rather different to Swedish) or Finnish (which is very different to more or less all languages other than the other Baltic-Finnic languages, such as Estonian and Karelian). ~ Tommy Kronkvist (talk|contribs)23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no Norwegian taught in school but if you read Svenska B in the gymnasium there is a (simple) text in either Danish or Norwegian every year.

Well, during the Swedish-course in ninth grade, we sure had a few lessons in both Norwegian and Danish. Kind of an introduction to understanding the structure of the two languages, or something. Similarities with Swedish and such. Our teacher did say that it's a part of the syllabus (kursplanen). - Mickey Macaroni 20:28, 14 May 2007 (CET)

Social-liberal and social democratic tendencies

The intro text currently reads:

"Today, the country is defined by social-liberal or social democratic tendencies, and usually ranks among the top nations in the UN Human Development Index."

I have two problems with this:

1. I don't like the sentence "defined by social-liberal or social democratic tendencies". What exactly are these 'tendencies'? How is the country 'defined' by them? I sugges we either take this part of the sentence out or clarify it.
2. inlcuding the the comment about the UNHD index in the same sentence could be interpreted as insinuating a link between a high ranking and social-liberal and social democratic tendencies. I suggest we make this into its own sentence or scrap it entirely as the standard of living has been mentioned already earlier in the intro.

KarlXII 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have not received any comments on the above I will go ahead with the proposals I made. If you have any plans to oppose the edits, then please also explain why you did not care enough to discuss your views on the Talk page.KarlXII 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

its probably talking about the strong middle class instead of people being really rich or really poor. also sweden has a good welfare, education, and healthcare system. also used to promote womens and minority rights. i dont know if that will continue though with the right wing in power.

Sweden is not generally a society that promotes womens and minority rights. Sweden has long been a country where there has been a high segregation of women and men in work life and also few women on high positions. The latter has been changing rapidly latelt and according to a recent article Sweden has now cought up. Although perhaps the public sector compensates for the private sector.

Jews in Sweden complain that laws against production of Kosher meat are a remnant from the 1930:s that most other European countries have abolished, jews in Sweden having to import such meat from neighbour countries. The indigenuous Sami people also complain that their rights are better protected in other Nordic countries than in Sweden. There has also been a discussion in Sweden that suggests that Sweden is not as good as other countries at integrating immigrants both socially and in work-life. 81.225.116.186 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Chernobyl radiation

Actually Finland was the first country to detect the radiation but Finland did not publish it until there had been an radiation alarm and shutdown of a nuclear plant in Sweden. --128.214.182.110 11:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

State & public ownership of capital

The article included a sentence claiming that the state and labor union controlled pension funds controlled 50% of all "capital" in Sweden. It has been removed. The reasons are:

• It was fales. The following table from SCB (Swedish Statistical Office) clearly shows this
• "Capital" is too general a term (it should have been "stock market" or similar).

KarlXII 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sweden is, after the US and the UK, the largest producer of music in the world."

Sources are not cited for this statement, which I think is highly improbable. Even though, for it's population size, Sweden has produced a large number of internationally successful artists (pop or otherwise), it does not PRODUCE more music than countries of much higher populations such as Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy or even India for that matter! It can be argued, however, that per capita, Sweden has exported more artists that have gained worldwide fame in the pop music realm than per se, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary or Portugal, all of which have larger populations, which is an extraordinary achievement. It has also been far more successful than any of the other Scandinavian countries in this manner. However, relatively few classical music composers from Sweden are known on an international level, and Sweden has never had a Grieg, Sibelius, or Carl Nielsen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.222.207 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 December 2006.

It should really read "was the largest exporter of pop music", and there are probably a few newspaper references to quote. I write "was" because this was probably true (if at all) in 1990's Roxette and europop (Ace of Base etc.) era, and I doubt it is still the case. --Ezeu 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing a while (like several years) ago we were the largest exporter per capita. Got no source though. 193.47.167.202 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much furniture Sweden produces, it wouldn't surprise me if said country is indeed #3 in music production. Vranak 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're refering to IKEA 99,999 % of the stuff are made in China :).

The numbers where in absolute terms. Not per capita. But then again, an analysis of "the third largest exporter of music" reveals that everything that has got to do with music was added to this, such as CD/DVD-presses, speakers, recording equipment and so on. Lpwa 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Language

The Swedish language section could do with some work IMHO. It's evidently not an official language because of a voting error or pairing off problem (according to Swedish language#Official status. I don't know much about the Swedish parliamentry system but I'm a bit confused how someone could make a mistake in voting (don't you just vote yes or no?) and I don't know what a pairing off problem is so perhaps a wikilink or further clarification. A reference might do but the current one provided in Swedish language but not here is in Swedish so it doesn't help non Swedish speakers much. Also, the figures is confusing. Here is says 147 to 145. To me, this would imply 147 for to 145 against since to me anyway it's defacto that you usually specify for to against not against to for. If you are going to say 147 against to 145 for, you should at least specify that it's 147 against. I assume it's 147 against because if it's 147 for why did it fail? Also this implies there were at least two people who made a voting error/pairing off problem since I guess if it were 146-146 it would have failed Nil Einne 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sports: Ingmar Stenmark

Why dosen't it says anything about Ingmar Stenmark?! I'm about to getting furious if he isn't in this article! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.225.126.107 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Which map should we use?

Map #1 (original map)

Map #2 (EU map)

Map #3 (scandinavia map)

Map #4 (Europe map, not yet used in article)

Sweet zombie jesus, am I watching a revert war unfold here? Over something as trivial as WHAT MAP IS TO BE USED? Without any of the participant even raising the question on the talk page? STOP IT, ALL OF YOU, NOW.

So. What situation have we got? A lot of maps have been used; namely those on your right side.

I hope we can get this sorted out without further reverting. The original is in place at the time of writing, don't change that. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case don't look now :) Last time I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries the jury was still out on this issue, but that page would probably be a better place to debate this issue. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The map has finally been reverted to it's original decision, per consensus decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Vote. Those objecting should not that 1) I started a discussion here and noone wanted to participate, and 2) while Wikipedia is not a democracy and the vote tallies doesn't really represent a consensus (but indeed a sizable majority), the original map should be kept until consensus has been reached. So, now, NO TOUCHY! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian Aaker replaced the original map LocationSweden.png with EU location SWE.png on the 16th of January, 2007. I checked the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Vote and it appears that as of today 2007-01-17 1453 hrs UTC, the highest number of votes still belongs to those who would rather stick with the old maps for the meantime. So do we revert the image back the original or have I missed a discussion elsewhere that states that the maps should be changed to the newer ones? --Edward Sandstig 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it because I've seen the same kind of map in articles about many other EU-member states and therefore i thought i was standard. Maybe I was wrong. IMO "Map #3 (scandinavia map)" is the most beautiful one. Aaker 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It has now been reverted to it's original state due to two reasons: 1) lack of community consensus on changing, and 2) emerging community consensus on NOT changing. As thus, refrain from changing the map. See Talk:Sweden#Which map should we use? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries for more information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The preferences are #1 (simple, yet consistent with other countries) or #3 (SVG), so not #2 or #4 (EUrocentric, bad projection, unnecessarily detailed, horrid colours). How do you like them apples? Corticopia 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia's preferences. #1 had 18 individual voters (incl. Corticopia) only, #2-#4 had 25 (incl. myself) + 25 EU-member country articles (#2) + a number of non-member articles (#4). More recent style map #3 was not fully discussed and is only used for Spain (for its showing the Canary Islands), and does not even have a map of the United Kingdom yet, which is rather a handicap on the English-language Wikipedia... though that is not its only flaw. (See also section #Please don't revert the map... where Corticopia also added a comment today.) - While I was typing this reply, Corticopia's edit appears to have been reverted. Never mind, let's hope it may stay undisturbed now. — SomeHuman 25 Feb2007 19:31 (UTC)

2+2=5, eh? Flaws are abound, particularly in your argumentation. Even if it was valid (and it ain't, for reasons stated there), 25 out of 43 (58%) is NOT a consensus. And you employ a straw man to substantiate all actions since and exclude other options. Do you understand yet? Do I stutter? I defer to prior comments. Corticopia 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2# and 4# should not be used because they distort the true shape of Sweden (stretch in the north).

Good Article Review

I've put the article up for GA reviewing. / Fred-Chess 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Results

Here are the results of the GA Review:

Sweden

result: delist 4-1

As much as I have contributed to this article (I am the main contributor [14]), I do not believe it adheres to the GA criterias. I think it became listed at some time because it contains a lot of interesting information and nice images, but it probably doesn't conform with the current GA requirements. Everyone is adding his/hers bits and the article is a mosaic of generally unsourced information, trivias and list-like sections. / Fred-Chess 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• delist Fails meerly on the cite needed tags and it is undereferenced.Rlevse 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it only fitting I let this line from the article be seen: "ABBA is without a doubt the most well-known popular music group from Sweden, and the only one that ranks among the most well-known in the world". Well, there's something else "without a doubt" here to me thanks to that music section, namely, that this article should be Delisted. Homestarmy 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have changed my mind. Keep. It covers its topic sufficiently, and with the revision of criteria 2b, inline citations aren't required anymore. Some cleanup is necessary, but I think it should be a comparatively minor issue. / Fred-Chess 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• delist The "Culture" section alone would justify its removal. No citations, and most of the section is only music. Way too many unreferenced and poorly referenced sections in this article. Teemu08 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• delist refs are a mess and there are not enough for this size article.Rlevse 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

This article says that Sweden allows same sex marriage since 2006. This would be very good if it was true, but it isn't. Allowing same sex marriage has been discussed and proposed, but when it will be legally allowed is very unsure. I suggest that this is changed in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.179.178 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 January 2007.

Already removed. --Edward Sandstig 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welfare state section

Changes in the wording of the section were made for the following reasons:

1. It is not encyclopedic to state that Sweden is a "high-tax" country for the reason that what constitutes high and low taxes is highly relative. 30% income tax sounds very high to most people in the United States, but to someone in Sweden, a differing perspective may be at play. If Sweden does indeed have one of the highest tax rates in Europe, as someone here pointed out, then it should be stated and more importantly cited. But stating Sweden is a "high-tax" country is un-neutral.

2. It is also inappropriate to state that the Swedish welfare state is "unusually extensive". What constitutes "unusual" in this case? If anything, the more proper wording would be that the Swedish welfare state is more extensive "...in comparison with other countries", as I have revised.

Thank you for reading, and please do not blanket revert these changes unless adequately discussed within the context of this section. Have a good afternoon.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweden is not "perceived" as being high-taxed, it does indeed have one of Europe's (and the world's) two highest levels of taxation. This will hardly come as much of a surprise to any Scandinavian. Sweden's main rival in this respect is my own country, Denmark, and to be frank I don't really know which of the two nations that currently hold the title of the world's heaviest taxed country. To quote an official Danish government publication from 2002 (quote) Danmark har sammen med Sverige det højeste skattetryk i OECD-området, jf. figur 3.4. I den anden ende af skalaen finder man lande som USA og Irland. (unquote) = Denmark has, along with Sweden, the highest level of taxation in the OECD-area, cf. figure 3.4. At the other end of the scale, one will find countries like the United States and Ireland") [15] Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian, thanks for providing your input. Helpful and thorough as usually.

I think that adding that reference to the article wouldn't hurt. The more references the better. / Fred-Chess 00:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fred :) A Swedish reference would be better but if you or anybody else can use the Danish reference, be my guest. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, state that the taxes are higher in comparison, but to directly state Sweden is a "high-tax" country is unencyclopedic.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No EnglishEfternamn, you have possibly one country with a higher rate (Denmark) and around 200 with a lower rate. That is quite sufficient evidence that both Sweden and Denmark are "high-tax" countries. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a newer article about the same issue [16]. I don't know if the Swedish cabinet has carried out its tax cut plan. If this hasn't happend, Sweden probably still has the highest tax rates in the world. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, if Sweden does have higher taxes than most countries, mention it in the article and more importantly cite it. But to directly state that Sweden is a "high-tax" country is unencyclopedic, because it deals with relative variables.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The figures clearly state that the average Swedish citizen in relative terms pays more taxes than the average citizen of any other country in the world. In addition to the two sources above, here are the 1995-2005 figures from the Danish Ministry of Taxation comparing tax / GDP ratios for the EU-25 countries. [17] Sweden consistently has the highest taxation / GDP ratio but Denmark is not far behind. If the Swedish cabinet indeed has implemented the promised tax reform, the average Dane will rank no. 1 on this list. Danish cabinets have compared total taxes to GDP for more than 20 years and I'd be very surprised if the same measurement isn't used in Sweden as well. The question about if this system of taxation is right or wrong is a politicial issue not relevant in this context. But the Kingdom of Sweden remains one of the two leading nations in the world when it comes to levying taxes, and I'd consider any article about Swedish or Danish economy incomplete without this piece of information. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then state that info in the article, as it certainly has its place there, but again, Sweden should not be referred directly as "high-tax".-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that your recent edit is a "middle ground" but let the Swedes decide. I won't edit the paragraph myself to avoid being accused of edit warring. I've already spent way too much effort on documenting something that is common knowledge throughout all of Scandinavia. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For the fifth time, you're erroneously equating the relative to the absolute. Sweden's taxes arecomparatively quite high, but nothing outside of human assertion says they are high in the absolute sense.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn and Valentian,

1. Sweden's taxes (well, at least those on personal income) are certainly higher than in most countries. Regardless of wether or not the government has or is planning to implement tax cuts these are unlikely to change this.
2. I'm leaning towards the position of EE that it would be, technically, more correct to say that Swedish taxes are "comparatively high" as opposed to saying that they are just "high". I don't see how the readers will be misled by choosing the former. Same goes for the welfare state.
3. I think the best comparison would be with other European/EU or OECD countries. It makes less sense to compare Sweden (or Denmark, for that matter) with Iran or Peru.
4. Might also be worthwhile to differentiate between the tax levels on various types of taxes - personal income taxes are high, but corporate income taxes are lower than in a lot of other countries, etc.

RegardsOsli73 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

is sweden doomed?

now that it has brought in a right wing prime minister after a strong and long history of social democracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.204.43 (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

We had a right-wing prime minister under Carl Bildt, 4 October 1991 – 7 October 1994, too. (And even though that brought us a damn lot of shit it didn't doom us.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't it cause great threats to the stability of many people in need, though? Now's the time more than ever to raise as much as we can for the Social Democrats.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd like to contest your latter statement, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article and not for politics. ;) If you're curious about what I'd say, drop me a note on my talk page instead. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, the Social Democrats caused the shitstorm in the early 90's: They even admit it --Winterus 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

In light of the recent waves of vandalism, I think it possible that the protection of this page from unregistered users is not a bad idea. If an administrator is reading this, I request that intervention be taken.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was brought to my attention and I went with a 12 hour semi protect, let's see if that slows things down. If not, just keep reverting... the frequency here is not THAT high... ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well i reverted the page from two words which im not sure what they mean i believe they were: "Tjena, grabben"

FYI: "Tjena, grabben" is Swedish for "Hi, dude!"... 83.250.203.52 09:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion section

There is a statement towards the end that states that there has been "renewed" practices of religion in Sweden. I'm not so sure this statement is appropriate, because every authoritative source on the subject seems to imply quite the opposite. Until a specific citation is provided on the subject, I'm not so sure the statement belongs in this article, because what is seemingly going on is so highly contradictory to it.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, just for anyone's comment, I've tried to source up the article based on some books I have. A lot of it is from the same books, but I guess that's the nature of the topic. I tried to include some of the text in the citations, just for verification, but also as a basis if others want to incorporate that additional material, as one person did nicely [18]. I was pretty happy with finding direct sources for what was already in the article, but the material in the article might be modified a little as well where it differs slightly. Maybe after a little while we would be able to remove the quotes from the sources, then, to the extent they're not necessary. Best, Mackan79 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, just a quick note to let you know that I think you're doing a great job! Much needed and appreciated by all contributors to this article, I'm sure. I would suggest that the many references to Nordstrom are consolidated by combining all those that are on consecutive pages (i.e. Nordstrom 6-20 and so on), that is, those that do not have direct quotes in the footnote. Also, the latest recommendation on the "cite your sources" page states that the full citations should be listed in alphabetical order under References, so all the major sources need to be duplicated in that section, with full ISBN numbers etc. Not sure how the majority of the people working on the article wants to handle the citations or Wikipedia:Footnotes yet, as there various fixes (including parenthesis with page numbers). Pia 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing that! I appreciated the tip, I simply have to figure out exactly how to do that. I guess it's pretty simple. Thanks in any case for doing it this time. Mackan79 04:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Mackan, I also think you're doing a great thing by finally getting it referenced----- i've been wanting to do it for years but don't have access to (hardly) any English language literature, something I think is important on Eng Wikipedia... / Fred-Chess 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, I was wondering if we could remove some of the direct quotes from Nordstrom that appear in the footnotes (maybe by leaving some of them in meta tags if the passage referred to is controversial in some way)? I'm feeling a bit worried about the extent of the quotes, which combined make the article copy pretty large chunks, word by word, of certain pages of the book as it stands now. The point with the direct quotes is to remove any doubts concerning how the author is interpreted in the running text, but when you stay close to the intended meaning in the source and refer to a limited range of pages, the reader should be sufficiently informed to do the fact checking her-himself if doubt arises in her/his mind about the accuracy of the Wiki text. I am going to do an initial attempt to remove some quotes, but I will leave all of them in "invisibility tags" (look like this <!--- Nordstrom, pg 539. ---> so that you can look it over and revert if you feel that direct quotes are needed in some of the instances. Please look it over and remove the <!--- ---> tags around the quotes you feel are essential as support to the text and they will appear in the footnotes again. Best, Pia 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pia, well it looks fine to me. Is that fine then? Or should we go back and delete the stuff that was made invisible then? I'd be happy to do that if necessary, otherwise I'd be inclined to leave it as is. Thanks, Mackan79 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mackan, I think it's fine. But it probably wouldn't hurt to delete some quotes from the meta tags though, since there are so many. Eventually. When time allows. :) Best wishes, Pia 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert the map...

Hi. I know you all want to have the "best" map on this article. But please do not revert war over this. It is not a big deal, it's only that the article will appear unstable if the map is changed all the time. Thank you. / Fred-Chess 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, a poll is currently taking place regarding which maps should be used in the future for all the European material. See User talk:Valentinian#Location Maps for more information and the link to this poll. Voting closes on 20 February. If anybody feels strongly about this issue, why not vote there? Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The poll is located here and so far there has been no clear decision hence the initial push to keep things as they were. Unfortunately, anonymous users keep changing the map. We could push for a move to have the article locked from anonymous users if that's acceptable. --Edward Sandstig 09:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

After one user without relevant edit comment or contribution on this talk page once more replaced the location map, I reverted it to the one that nearly all EU members had by the end of the forementioned survey (all except at that time Spain and here Sweden, I think. A few contributors are still fighting against that version, but at both the earlier poll and the recent survey and in discussions, many contributors very clearly put great weight on having a uniform map - it is clear that at present this is the Liuzzo style and with the EU shaded for a map of a member state. Another map that was here above appreciated (Rei-artur style) does not exist for all countries (not even for the United Kingdom, for instance) and the 'old' style appears to be abandoned by European countries [except where the above user as for Sweden switched to that one]. — SomeHuman 25 Feb2007 17:19 (UTC)

As the above clearly indicates and despite the commentator's grandiloquence, there is no consensus (neither here nor elsewhere) to support substandard EUrocentric maps; this can be said, though, for the original PNG maps. Until a new consensus arises, boldly go ... Corticopia 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia is the only one (except for one on this matter friend-editor [see WikiProject Countries] only on the 'Netherlands' article where that edit already became reverted) that disturbs the de facto consensus of 25 EU member countries and most other European countries where the proper version of Liuzzo map had been placed by a number of contributors; reverting to a map that was less appreciated than the Liuzzo style is not merely "bold" with so many countries' articles showing to at least accept a different opinion. A hitherto unenvolved user already reverted Corticopia's continued and at same articles repeated "boldness" on Finland and on Iceland... (See also my reply at #Which map should we use? where Corticopia added one more comment today.) — SomeHuman 25 Feb2007 19:10 (UTC)

That is because you expect deference to a de factofalse consensus, which exists neither here nor elsewhere and which you alone assert. This is not revealed in any poll, and is a point of view which months of prior stability cannot forego because of point-of-view pushing by those who support the 'crap maps'. Less appreciated? Quite the value judgement, actually, and quite the contrary. The only thing that disturbs anything is continuous obstructionist, verbose dialogue meant to force an unpopular decision down our collective throats. I will continue to be bold, and others should do the same. Corticopia 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not make those 25 out of 27 EU member countries or the non-EU member countries select the Liuzzo style map, unless my "point-of-view pushing" and "verbose dialogue" on the WikiProject Countries talk page has convinced their contributors... I'm sure there may have been a few with several agendas who like you obstinately were running along series of articles pushing 'their' map. But by the time the survey ended, there were many different users who had put the last map change in, and those happened so largely to come to a same map. That is not a false but a true de facto consensus. I never touched an article's map before the survey had ended. — SomeHuman 25 Feb2007 19:40 (UTC)

Sources on Swedish history

The following is a reply to a question[19] about sources on History of Sweden added to my Talk page.

I though the information was common knowledge and therefore didn't think any 'source' was needed. A couple easily accessible and widely accepted references which could be used are:

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online's article on the History of Sweden [20]
• US Department of State's site on Sweden [21]
• Columbia Encyclopedia's article on Sweden [22]
• EuroDocs also has a quite good link library (in English) to sources on Swedish history (in English) [23]

I'd be glad to cooperate in improving the article on Sweden. I've made som attempts in the past with the Economy section (since I'm an economist) but nothing sustained. I've added this reply also on the Sweden Talk page. Cheers Osli73 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I agree, the sources aren't really necessary, I just saw this article seems to keep getting under-rated for lack of sources, so I wondered if there was something we could add. These do look like pretty common knowledge stuff, so maybe there's not any great use... I'll try to check it out in a bit. Mackan79 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:29 (UTC)

EU membership

The membership to the EU is yet not mentioned in the introduction. Lear 21

Recent History section tangle

After mentioning WWII, and then the 1960s, there follows the sentance "By the 1930s, the living standard in Sweden was ranked as one of Europe's highest and its ranking at or near the top was maintained well into the mid-20th century.", before then mentioning joining the EU in 1995, and then continuing on about the Cold War, the 1970s, etc. These snippets might want to be moved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.75.199 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Music page

One of swedens current biggest exports is heavy metal music. "Swedish death metal" is now a genre and has become a huge success in America as well as europe. Bands like the haunted are very big and I think it should be mentioned in the music section.

Is it really necessary to mention Basshunter as he is a rather non famous (internationally) artist?

Re: Music Page

I believe some info of heavy metal have recently been added. Also I agree with you about listing Basshunter, to be honest I find it embarassing. Adwicko 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Telecommunications

Wanted to know why isn't there any information about Sweden's Telecommunications industry in this article. I had posted referenced information on it but it got removed. The information was a brief overview of the history of the Telecommunication industry. Is it necessary to have a completely different article that deals with the Telecommunications industry?

Any thoughts?

Tread carefully

As a Swede and anthropologist, I have some general remarks to make to this article.

Sweden is not generally liberal, it is traditionally a collectivistic and corporativistic country, in the public sphere. More so than any other Western country. Even if there have been many rapid changes the last 15 years.

Sweden is also not generally speaking modern. To the contrary, explanations regarding Swedish society generally focus on pre-modern cultural paradigms, such as the organisation of rural villages in Sweden before the 1840:ies. Swedish mentality is in fact often described as rural and backward.

This creates some confusion, since according to other aspects of modernity and liberalism, Sweden does perhaps may register high. In fact, Japan has some resemblance with Sweden in this respect.

There is a need to tread carefully with nebuolous concepts such as "modernity". A country may be very modern in some aspects and not at all in others.

I also urge some care with statistics. In this article a unproportionate amount of initial text is spent suggesting that Sweden is environmentally progressive. I suggest that global statistics concerning polution per capita are consulted, in which, from memory, Sweden compares less favorably to other countries.

Living standards is also debatable. Sweden started to drop in GNP/capita in the middle of the 1970:s and ended up below average. I am not sure to what extent Sweden now has regained its position. GNP is not the same as living standards, but I am also not sure that Swedish living standards are generall high? Based on which criteria? Which sources?

In my view, there are far too many layers of political propaganda and misconceptions concerning Sweden, to allow for latitude in repeating established stereotypes of Sweden. There must be extremely high demands when using and interpreting different source concering Swedish politics, culture, history and economy.

If not, you may end up reproducing too much of one the two traditional extremes in the description of Swedish society: "Marquis Childs, Swden the middle way, 1936" and "Roland Huntford, "The New Totalitarians, 1971".

For those acquainted with anthropology, conceptions of Sweden have much in common with the "Mead" - "Freeman" controversy.

81.225.116.186 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Introductory text

>> The citizens enjoy a high standard of living and the country is generally perceived as modern and liberal.>>

Even if true, why relate "perceptions"? That something is percieved to be in a certain way does not necessarily mean that it also is that way.

>> Nature conservation, environmental protection and energy efficiency are generally prioritized in policy making and embraced by the general public in Sweden. >>

What are the source for this? As a Swede I know that the political propaganda depicting Sweden as environmentally conscious is pervasive. But ciritics say that Sweden has a high degree of pollution per capita, and surveys to this effect are intermittently referenced - but never discussed - in media.

In fact, having a heavy mechanical industry, large living space in homes and long transportation routes, a degree of pollution equivalent to countries such as Canada, US, etc would be to expect.

I once compared EU statistics on some environmental indicators, and Britain, for one, was much less polluting than Sweden, although one tends to end up with a bunch of indicators that are more or less easy to summarize and or weigh.

The author of this article also seems to put a tremendous weight on environmental issues. I think that there is a disproportionate amount space dedicated to Swedish environmental policies. Why not put these under a separate heading?

>>The country has for many years pursued a strategy of indirect taxation as an instrument of environmental policy, including energy taxes in general and carbon dioxide taxes in particular.[3] >>

Maybe so, but why put that in an intro?

>> In an effort to phase out the dependency on nuclear power and fossil fuels, the Swedish government has launched a multi-billion dollar program to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.[3][4] >>

Why do we want to know this in an intro? 81.225.116.186 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Late industrialisation

>> Economic liberalization as well as universal schooling contributed to the rapid industrialization, and by the 1890s the country had begun to develop an advanced manufacturing industry. >>

In terms of industrialisation, Sweden was a rural country until 1930. (That is the year when the proportion of industrial workers exceeded that of the rural population).

I am also not so sure about liberalisation in absolute terms. What is meant by this? Examples of laws, regulations, etc, that define economic "liberalisation"? Nonetheless, the emergence of the Swedish model probably spelled a reversal in terms of liberalisation of the economy. State intervention and regulation increased in several respects, beginning in the 1930:ies.

How many people know that Sweden, Rumania and Italy had the lost percentage of sufferage in Europe in the beginning of the 1900:ies? How many know that Sweden had the second largest turn of the century emigration per capita to the US after Irland?

According to recieved history this was because Sweden was both economically and politically backward.

The cited text may give an incorrect impression of Swedish society in the 1800:ies compared to other European countries. Also compare with the modernisation chapter, which is rather clear about Swedish belatedness. 81.225.116.186 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Welfare state

>> Sweden emerged as a welfare state; consequently, it usually ranks among the top countries in the UN Human Development Index or HDI. >>

Milton Friedman has sometimes been quoted as saying that Swedes in USA are equally well off as Swedes in Sweden (as measured by such indices). This suggests that the "welfare state" is not the only possible cause. It could simply be a question of lutheran work ethics.

Nonetheless, the current political discussion in Sweden concerns the issue that according to statistics, in reality, 20% of the population (or is it the labour force) do not go to work.

This is mainly due to high rates of sickness, with unusually high degrees of mental issues ("burn-out") but also physical strain on orderlies and nurses in the health service. The reasons for this are debated but it seems that this rate started to climb in the mid 1990:ies. One possible cause could therefore be the effects of cut-bakcs in an attempt to restore the economy after the depression in the early 1990:ies.

Dear 81.225.116.186, please incorporate the high rate of sickness leave into the text, with reliable sources, and wherever you find gaps in the coverage, please do contribute. There is no queen bee to report to; it's just a matter of rolling up your sleeves, unfolding your wings and fly in with your nectar to the hive like the very few worker bees active here among the bird-dropping type contribution from fly-by vandals. Time is precious..we can't be expected to all compose essays, reverse vandalism, check sources and contribute to articles constantly, on a volunteer basis, so you might not get the response you hope for in regards to the many posts above on this chat page. To give you at least one response: "Say what?!"--How does Mead versus Freeman and other such age-old anthropology bickering apply to Sweden did you say again? Free love is not readily available for the asking and crime is not dealt with by exchanging a few mats in neither Sweden nor Samoa? He, he. Well, I'm glad you found a comparison that close--like peas and cavorts, as they say, or like apples and orangoutangs. You also state that Sweden is not "modern", but "to the contrary, pre-modern" with a "mentality" that is "rural and backward"---Maybe you actually meant to say that Sweden is like Mead's Samoa and that we shouldn't allow Freeman-type scepticism to dispel such notions about Sweden either, because Sweden really does have a frollicking, rural and backward population, flat on their backs on straw mats, with one leg in the east and one leg in the west. Sorry, trying to be serious, but you really make me full of giggles with that one. As for your objection that the country is not environmentally progressive, I would like to register my protest. Sweden is party to the Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Sulfur 85, Air Pollution-Sulfur 94, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94 and Wetlands agreements. It's actually quite progressive in environmental issues in general. See also its Municipal Waste per capita, and its CO2 Emissions (per capita). The Oil consumption (per capita) is in the mid range, below the UK, Iceland, Finland and Norway, Belgium, but above Denmark, France and Germany. Not to promote crazy superlative stories, but I just want to point out that the perception is pretty general among Swedes, whether true or false: "Sweden is paying great attention to environmental protection and is one of the world leaders in the transition to a national policy of ecologically sustainable development" and "For almost 30 years, Sweden has taken a pragmatic approach to environmental issues, achieving outstanding economic and environmental results in the process...its rather surprising that Canada is lagging so far behind Sweden when it comes to environmental performance", and bla, bla, etc, etc. :) Best wishes, Pia 05:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Being lenghty and glib and lacking in respect of science and other people's views, it comes as no surprise that this reply is signed with a Swedish name. Swedes have a very problematic relation to images of their own country. As exemplified by the debate about Swedish eugenics 1997 (world record in involuntary sterilisations per capita during a period after the second world war, while claiming to be the most "humane" country in the world).

There was also recently a seven programme long series about Swedish mentality in Swedish state television ("Världens modernaste land"). One of the conclusions in the programme was that Swedes have a problematic relation to their very recent rural past. Expressed as denial of this recent past. A way of overcompensating is then to quickly adopt everything that they feel is "modern". But this only makes Swedes superficially modern. The mentality is still by most scholars and commentators described as backward.

Responses in media to the program series also gave several examples that Sweden is not very modern, even in the more superficial sense of the word. Those of you who have seen Discovery channel travel programmes may also remember a visistor to Sweden who found the capital to be rather rural and booring. Such comments are frequent in literature and debate.

In fact, Sweden's leading foreign-born journalist, Maciej Zaremba, has as his main thesis that the Swedish model is the rural village mentality and an old Christian "volk" tradition writ large. Our leading ethnologist, Åke Daun, also frequently analyses Swedish behvaiour in terms of a wistfull rural mentality, uncomfortable in an urban setting.

The signature "Pia" is obvioulsy not very aware of social sciences and public debate in Sweden. She also reacts in a way that many Swedes do, when discussing these matters. She becomes glib and tries to ridicule the person who says things that she does not seem to want to accept. Well, government is at least nice to people like Pia. They feed here with myths of Swedish humanitarianism, high living standards, progressiveness, equality, and now environemntal consciousness.

Sweden has signed a lot of international treatises, but could not care less about implementation in Sweden. Ask the indigenous Sami people. You can also consult Sweden's poor track record at the European court for human rights. You may also consult UN:s committée against torture. Sweden has the current world record in being found by the committée to violate the convention against torture. Why? One reason stated by the comittée is that Sweden signs treaties, but national jurisprudence (dualism) renders them void in national courts.

I also note that the reference for quotes regarding environemntal policies are fetched directly from government web pages. That is not even remotly acceptable. Two serious reference are, however, given. To municipal statistics and CO2 emissions. As if that would cover the claims made about Swedish environmental progresiveness!

I prefer discussing before making changes. I have now concluded that there are no susbtantial factual basis for the claims made about, inter alia, Swedish environmental policies. I will be back. 81.225.116.186 14:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please roll up your sleeves and report to work then, 81.225.116.186. I appologize if I was glib. I actually share some opinions conveyed in your statement, but articles are not about contributor opinions (nor are talk pages supposed to be about contributors' user name, psychological state, ethnicity or professional status). Although I may agree with some things in your above post, I do not agree with generalizations without proper documentation. My plea to you was to participate with sourced facts where the coverage is weak, rather than trying to start a discussion so generalized that it needs to include the Mead versus Freeman debate and declarations about contributors' professional status. In my opinion, that debate has very little to do with the issue at hand, which is why I found it funny. I did not mean to ridicule you; I'm sorry if I appeared to do just that. I get impatient with the extent of vandalism targeting this article and with people in general who write long statements on talk pages and demand that others do the work to accommodate their unsourced claims. What I meant to convey to you was that if you object to the use of the words modern and liberal in the lead, and to the characterization of Sweden as environmentally progressive, it cannot be based on Mead or Freeman. (However, for the record, if pressed on the subject I admit that I'd have to agree with the scholars described by Micaela di Leonardo: "Margaret Mead and Samoa is a badly written and unconvincing claim that Mead, influenced in a 'culturally determinist' direction by her nefarious adviser Franz Boas, falsely interpreted the Hobbesian world in which Samoan youth came of age as a gentle idyll." And: "Freeman's theoretical vacuity and empirical flaws, his ahistorical claim of an Eternal Samoa, his failure to realize that his key informants--older, high-status males--were no more a 'true and accurate lens' of Samoan culture than were Mead's young female companions." And even with the feminists, "who noted the rank sexism of Freeman's focus on Mead's youth and size: 'The liberated young American...only twenty-three years of age...[was] smaller in stature than some of the girls she was studying.'") But back to the issue at hand: Generalized statements such as "Swedes have a problematic relation to images of their own country" cannot be used to refute what international scholars and sources have to say about Sweden. I am not the one who added that Sweden is viewed as liberal and modern, but since it appeared to be based on the CIA World Fact book, I added a ref tag to demonstrate in which areas the country has been described by international sources as modern and liberal, especially in order to satisfy your criticism on this talk page. Many countries on Wikipedia rely on that source for a "general view". Without taking a stand on whether that policy is acceptable or not: the factbook defines Sweden as modern in reference to its distribution system, communications, labor force and engineering sector. It says NOTHING about the Swedish mentality. If you feel that a critical view of the "Swedish mentality" from an anthropological point of view is lacking, please add it, with references that demonstrate the importance and the degree of acceptance in the scholarly community for the views. Also: rather than demanding exclusion of views that are described as generally used and sourced to show in which context they are used, please improve the article by adding alternative views, if they are generally held and from reliable sources, and especially if they are views held by renowned scholars and demonstrate that the generally held view might be considered incorrect. That goes for the environmental issue too, of course. Pia 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the either-or argument is at fault. It seems perfectly valid to start participation with some general views and by trying to get some responses from those involved. Often the writers want to change their own texts, not have them changed. Better to tread carefully. Also, this does not preclude a more hands-on participation after initial contact.

For the record, I have also already contributed by rewriting some of the paragraphs about the Swedish constitution and Swedish Modern history, which showed signs of the same uncritical and unscholarly acceptance of offical government texts.

I also do not think that the others are very interested in lengthy biased quotes from the Mead-Freeman debate. I instead suggest George W Stockings's history of anthropology, regarding anthropological sensitivities of the 1920:ies. He criticises both Freeman and Mead, but does find that a number of dissertations from the 1920:ies were probably "scotomized".

Before writing about Sweden it is very important to know that depictions of Swedish society are highly problematic. The best way of understanding the reason for this is to start with the relation between Marquis Childs, "Sweden the middle way" (1936) and Mead, Oscar Lewis and Ruth Benedict (as described by Stocking) and then compare with Roland Huntford.

I hope to show this in more practical detail. My first contribution has been to add Uddhammar's thesis to the reference list. He showed that, contrary to common opinion, the non-social democratic parties by and large agreed on the radical expansion of the public sector in Sweden, 1950-1980:ies.

I have also changed the description made of judicial review in Sweden. No other Western country has the same system as Sweden. They either have strong case-based judicial review or constitutional courts. Sweden has a review board that is not compulsory and often not respected and judicial review has been curtailed both in constitutional text, doctrine and practice. The official political doctrine has also for decades condemned judicial review as un-democratic.

I have also looked for environmental indicators. These are diverse and difficult to compare. All the more credit to those who have tried. This ranking of high-income OECD countries (2005) puts Sweden as number 8: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/EnvirPerf.pdf. Compare this with the strong emphasis on enviornmental issues in the first paragraphs of this article. If no one wants to rewrite and/or move these to a sub-chapter about environment, I would be happy to do so.

Finally, Pia's argument about liberal and modern is perhaps valid from a sourcing point of view, but I actually consulted the CIA page and found it laughable (sorry!). However, it is not just an issue of "mentality". For example, the Swedish constitution is probably the least modern in the Western world (in terms of developments in a majority of Western countries), only comparable to the British one. Swedish corporatism is another example.

Sweden has also for long been one of the countries with the lowest degree of equality in the labor market. Only some ten years ago Sweden had the least equal labor market in the world. Women did women's work and were excluded in a much higher degree from high positions than in other countries. (This last fact has recently changed due, it seems, mostly to changes in the public sphere).

I guess what I have been trying to say is that Swede's in general believe their government more than other western peoples do. At the same time they probably have much less reason to do so that in any other western country. It can be worth while to keep this, and Mead-Freeman, in mind when evaluating sources.

Great Power

Regarding these changes, I'm concerned the new material gets too far afield. For one thing there are a lot of typos that need to be fixed; I could do that, but I think the previous section was more concise and to the point, for an already long article. Could we maybe work with the previous section and add material as seems necessary? I think that would be better. Mackan79 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The royal orders

I would very much like to see a little something about the Swedish Orders, especially since these aren't active anymore and is somewhat part of the history. If anyone feels up to it, I belive some info can be found at www.royalcourt.se I would write it myself, however I'm not much of a writer, and I find my english rather bad. And it would be nice with some info not noted on the royal court webby.

Baltic Sea Borders

Quote from current text: "It has maritime borders with Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia...". The Baltic Sea is international waters, i.e. it does not constitute as a "maritime border", whatever the definition of a "maritime border" may be? Could not find it in the Wikipedia. Anything beyond 12 nautical miles from the coastline is considered international waters. --Philaweb 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that the author was thinking about Exclusive Economic Zones. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And why was Denmark missing from the list? Sweden has not only one border with Denmark but two (one with Zealand and the Kattegat islands and a second one with Bornholm). I've added Denmark to the list. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The one who wrote it probably thought the Oresund Bridge is a "non maritime border" :) chandler 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How are people elected?

I think the article needs something which mentions how politicians are elected. It is alluded to (parties need 4% of the vote), but no details are given.

Are things done on a national level with individuals voting for parties? Or is it done on a regional level or what? ~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweden has a strong tradition of voting for ideological parties instead of indidividual politicians, and this practice has only been avalible a few elections. To become elected you first have to be nominated by your parties local and regional branches so that your name is on a regional ballot were there are a list of politicians. If the party gets more then 4% of the national votes or 12% of a votes in a region, the party the number of seats is then calculated from the number of votes per party. If there are enough votes on a individual party, the politician bypasses the order of the list and gets directly elected before him on the list... The members of the national parliament, the riksdag, is voted in on regional ballots. Some are elected directly, some are elected by their high position on the list. Some of the places in the riksdag is reserved for certain regions, however there are also a number of seats witch is used to balance the riksdag according to the national outcome of partys. Ssteinberger

No natural history? Flora and fauna?

No natural history? Flora and fauna? What's up with that? Shouldn't there be something about these things? Mike 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kattegat/Kattegatt

Not sure it matters too much, but Dictionary.com gives two hits for Kattegat [24] and one for Kattegatt,[25] if we want a tie breaker.Mackan79 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a Google search of "the Kattegat strait" vs same for Kattegatt shows 10,100 hits to 6, which seems clear enough. Mackan79 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Ezeu 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is Kattegat in the Danish language and Kattegatt in the Swedish language.--Philaweb 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That we know, Kattegat says so. Question is: which usage is the most common in English? Question seems to be answered though, Danish it is. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is the page about Sweden, I think the most appropriate use is the word in Swedish - not which use is most common in English. --Philaweb 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's English Wikipedia, though, is the point. Does anybody know if there's a policy, though? I see WP:Style and WP:SPELLING, which seem to take English as a premise, but I don't see the specific statement for geography. Mackan79 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that the most common english name should be used. I mean, sure, Copenhagen is "Köpenhamn" in Swedish, and this is an article on Sweden - but we still link Copenhagen and not Köpenhamn. That the article's name is spelled with one T is another hint. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of "common English" would make the page about Sweden obscure. Umlaut is unfamiliar to the English language and is omitted in most cases. Malmö as an example would become Malmo in "common English", all municipalities as a consequence would have to be corrected to "common English" in the Wiki. The argument about Copenhagen and not Köpenhamn has nothing to do with the Swedish/Danish version of a word. Copenhagen and Gothenburg are Anglophile versions due to historic, commercial and political ties. There are very few municipalities and geographical spots in both Denmark and Sweden with anglified versions, mostly the local Danish/Swedish version is used - of which the current Wiki is an excellent example. --Philaweb 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section is much longer than the main article. Maybe it should be exported and substituted with a summary? The main article could use some more content.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Study discovers Swedes are less well-off than the poorest Americans" removed

According to Statistics Sweden ("Statistiska centralbyrån"), the median income of Swedes in 2005 was SEK 280 000 per annum. That's about 40.9 thousand dollars per year. The "poorest Americans" would be those living under poverty, and as of 2002, that number was 34 million. To get a general idea of what the U.S. Census Bureau defines as poverty, a single individual would have to be earning less than US$ 9,183 (±5%) per annum - in this case, over 9.3 million people fall under this category. --Edward Sandstig 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, such a study would be comparing apples with pears (to use a Danish expression). Even if the average American has a higher income, he/she won't have access to free medical care, free (or almost free) education etc. I still think Scandinavian taxes are too high, but on the other hand, Scandinavians normally don't risk personal bankruptcy if struck by a serious illness, and you don't have to fear the cost of giving your children an education. Just my 2 cents. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Swedes do not get "free medical care" and "free education." They pay for it in taxes, reduced GDP, and unemployment. Whether you pay for medical care and college voluntarily or in taxes, you still pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nillson 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm Danish, and we have pretty much the same system. If you get a serious illness, you don't risk getting a $300,000 bill from the hospital that will make you a financial cripple for the rest of your life. So in that case you'd get most of the lunch for free. For the record, Denmark has a similar system but a rather low unemployment. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And you have to live in small spaces, drive tiny uncomfortable cars, and forfeit many other luxury amenities, because the government is draining the nation's wealth to provide "free" things. Nillson 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote Thor Pedersen: "I can't imagine a political task more important than curing people of illness." Denmark's economy is the strongest in 30 years, unemployment is low and our debt is falling like a brick. We'll be fine. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that quote is hilarious, at best! Is there an agenda lurking about?

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I may have jumped the gun on this one. Here's what I removed:

A study conducted by the Swedish Institute of Trade (HUI) found that at the end of the 1990s that median income was $26,800, compared to $39,400 in the United States. Moreover, the study said that, "Black people, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household.^[26]

It doesn't seem too out of place considering that it follows directly after a few sentences about Sweden's economic downturn during the 1990s (see diff), but surely, even then Americans living below the poverty line wouldn't be earning more than the $ 26,800 per annum mentioned in the study. Thoughts? --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, both Fredrik Bergström and Robert Gidehag, who produced the study, are associated with Timbro and Skattebetalarnas förening. Both these organizations are associated with the Swedish Employers' Confederation. This information might thus deserve attention in an appropriate article, but surely isn't NPOV in any sense of the word.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the news article yourself. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678046/posts Do you see an agenda? Nillson 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a news article, its a forum (e.g. Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.)

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a "Free Republic" article. It is a news article from Reuters that someone posted to their forum. That's just the only copy of the news article I could find online to link to. Nillson 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

News articles and studies can be wrong. Why propagate a myth? Can you explain how over 9 million Americans living below the poverty line could be better off than your average Swede? --Edward Sandstig 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about this. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. "Understanding Poverty in America": http://www.fullemployment.org/Understanding%20Poverty%20in%20America.pdf Nillson 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article or study is wrong or right is irrelevant. It's an admissible source. Nillson 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So you just ignore the more than 18 million (~34 million * 54%) who live in worse conditions? --Edward Sandstig 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. ... In addition, in Sweden a large number of individuals don't have a car so they don't need a room to store their vehicles. Lets say your arguments are arguably admissible but obviously POV.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard in a long time. :bloodofox: 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Nillson has been indefinitely blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned tendentious user. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Im swedish! And im proud! XD

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Add Arts Section

I recently received a gift bearing the Dala Horse image. Don't know much about art in Sweden, but seems like this kind of national symbol should be part of the article, perhaps an "arts" section under the topic of "culture"? LilianPhoebs 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there should absolutely be a separate article on "Culture in Sweden". Sadly, you'll have to do with Dalecarlian horse until someone writes it.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IKEA

An entry on Sweden with no mention of IKEA? Jonaschau 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm "de facto" capital

Since when is Stockholm only a "de facto" capital? I've always assumed it's a "de jure" capital. JIP | Talk 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)