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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3]), 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") [4] 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)

is sweden doomed?

now that it has brought in a right wing prime minister after a strong and long history of social democracy.