Jump to content

Talk:Swedes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Infobox figures

The figures in the infobox appear to be based entirely on one source, Swedes Worldwide. According to the organization's own webpage, the figures are based on replies to a questionnaire sent to Swedish embassies around the world.[1] In my view, this seems like a rather rough estimate. Presenting it as solid fact in an infobox is not appropriate in my view. A total figure is relevant, but the context should be clearly provided.

I'm moving this out of the infobox and into the article. And as far as I can tell, the figure is Swedish citizens, not Swedish speakers. Pretty big difference there.

Also, what's the definition of the 7.6 million figure? If it's native Swedish speakers, the choice seems a tad arbitrary. Why exclude all other Swedish residents while at the same time include self-reported Swedish ancestors in North America that know little or nothing about contamporary Swedish culture?

Peter Isotalo 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as the source is substantiated and the major one available, these figures in the infobox create the desired disambiguity and are in line with Wikipedia formats for ethnicities articles. Certainly feel free to post other figures you may have from other cited sources; discussion is important to reach a consensus, but it's not responsible to remove information just because a person 'feels' or 'in your view', or 'it seems like a rough estimate' to you. Perhaps you can say why, offer other sources and figures to demonstrate why these figures would be off? If you provide no other figures to replace them and offer no other sources for discussion, removing these from the infobox is destructive rather than constructive. Refer to other ethnicities page such as those below to see format for these figures for other ethnicities. French_people Norwegians Danes Awolnetdiva (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Loreen

Don't make a political thing out of this. The thing is that Loreen's BOTH parents are foreign born. Therefore, she doesn't fit into the definition which is used in this article where it says there are 7.6 million Swedish people in Sweden. Foreign background include foreign-born and Swedish-born with two foreign-born parents and those are excluded according to that definition. --83.251.96.9 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any specific definitions used in the article, though. The 7.6 million figure in the infobox isn't motivated in any way. There are clearly several definitions, so I don't see how Loreen doesn't fit into any of them, especially since she's a native speaker of Swedish.
Peter Isotalo 15:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 7.6 million figure in the infobox is motivated.
It says:
Regions with significant populations:
Sweden: c. 7.6 million[1]
1. "Foreign background include foreign-born and Swedish-born with two foreign-born parents". Scb.se. Retrieved 2012-09-22.
Are you saying that being a native speaker of Swedish makes you Swedish? --83.251.96.9 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The reference here is a dead link to Statistics Sweden (SCB). It really ought to be updated, but I'll assume the figure is the number of people residing in Sweden minus those who match the criteria mentioned above. Nowhere does it say that a Swede is defined strictly as "a person born in Sweden or of two Swedish-born parents". I don't doubt this is a very common definition, but it still needs to be spelled out and referenced properly.
There is an ongoing and fairly complicated debate about ethnicity in Sweden. There have been historically unprecedented levels of immigration since the the early 1990s and definitions are currently somewhat in flux. Any discussion about the definition of Swedes or Swedishness needs to be backed up with sources that explicitly discusses those definitions.
Peter Isotalo 18:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who changed Celsius to Loreen though, ergo you should provide proof about her being Swedish. I will indulge you however; If we use Swedish law as a reference, like "hets mot folkgrupp", that states that ethnic Swedes can't be subject of hate crime, there seem to be a distinction at least in the eyes of the state. Since I don't think anybody can deny that Loreen can be a target of racially motivated hate crime and that a court could judge in her favour, there seem to be strong evidence for not calling her ethnically Swedish and including her in the gallery. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The whole edit specification was questionable at best, as it seems Peter is editing the page for personal political opinions/bias. The rest of the article, in every way, and indeed most wiki articles on ethicity, would NOT define Loreen as ethnically Swedish. Indeed, this would make the Swedish expat list very unreasonable, and the less than total population number in list of ethnic Swedes in Sweden would also become quite absurd. Celsius contributed greatly to science and is an iconic Swedish figure. A contemporary pop artist with Moroccan ancestry to me does not seem like a reasonable replacement. In plain speech, based on what Peter wrote, it is quite apparent he replaced Celsius with Loreen due to personal political bias regarding race and gender, which should not be allowed at all on wikipedia. 2001:2002:D543:722F:80DB:958B:79F0:CF17 (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


To call a Maghrebian Swedish under the preface of political correctness is simply racist and flies in the face of Wikipedia's neutral standpoint. For the time being I have changed it to PewDiepie. Mb0742 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "ethic group" part if that is the case Peter. It's impossible for Loveen to be both ethnically Maghreb and Swedish. (80.217.34.42 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Loreen is not an ethnic Swede, this article is about ethnic Swedes. Remove Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Sunshinenevercomes: keep removed. The Swedes article is an ethnicity article, and should be formatted and treated the same way for other national ethnicity articles such as French, {Norwegians]] and Danes. Swedes is not a political proving ground; it's merely one of a hundred ethnicity articles about different ethnic peoples in Wikipedia. Awolnetdiva (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Un-crowding the infobox

The choice of individuals presented in the infobox is entirely arbitrary. The choices fluctuate between historical figures and more contemporary examples. Since the article doesn't actually have any information on how Swedish ethnicity is actually defined, it's very unclear how people of mixed background like Loreen should be treated in this context. Without any definition of an ethnic Swede, the criticism against including people like Loreen is up to the opinions of individual users.

And then there's the issue of the infobox being a bloated mess. So I'm proposing we simply clear out individual examples from the infobox altogether. At least until we can agree on a reasonable number of examples (definitely not 25) and a balance between historical and contemporary, politicians and cultural icons, female and male, etc.

Peter Isotalo 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This ethnicity article is treated and should be treated, the same way under an established Wikipedia format for ethnicity articles. Please see French, Danes and Norwegians etc., to help understand ethnicity articles, their formats, and how they are handled in Wikipedia. The Swedes article is not stand-alone, but is one of more than a hundred ethnicity articles that are handled the same way and it should not be handled any differently than the others. A few notable persons of Swedish ethnicity are all that's needed, certainly no more than similar ethnicity articles. Ethnicity does not need defined WITHIN the Swedes article since it has its own wiki Ethnicity. This is linked to from within the Swedes article according to Wikipedia format and solves the definition discussion. Awolnetdiva (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Peter, the choice of individuals was decided by the Swedish Wikipedia, as I said above. The choices fluctuate as does any other infobox containing examples of people of a particular group to give a good range of examples over time and claim to fame. As for ethnicity, there are many people whose Swedish ethnicity isnt up for debate and are actually relevant unlike the woman you so seem to like when you keep adding her in place of Celsius. The words 'Swedish' and 'ethnicty' are also well defined words that appear in every dictionary and even have an article on this very website, so any confusion can be cleared up easily.
As for the size of it, this is not far from the norms in terms of how big it is, and it most definitely balanced as you yourself admitted saying it 'fluctuated'. I have even checked the page for my own ethnicity (English) and it appears it has 24, in line with what I usually see and only one less than this. I hope this clears up any confusion.
And unluckily I had an edit conflict and I can see it was another reply to you. EEEEEE1 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Good thing we got a discussion got going. Swedes are indeed just one ethnicity among many, but all ethnicities are not defined in the same way. Here's a pretty informative quote from the first sentence of ethnicity:
"An ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience."
It varies from case to case, though there are of course a lot of similarities. Overall, the tendency these days is leaning towards self-definition. Swedish gov't agencies do not keep records of ethnicity or race and there is no official definition other than Swedish citizenship. I know from personal experience that "Swedishness" has become a very complicated issue in the last few decades with a rise in immigration. If you have any sources that present definitions, you should share them.
I personally don't see that much of a problem that I added "that woman" (Loreen) exactly once.[2] It's actually difficult to understand why a native Swedish-speaker who was born in Sweden and is a Swedish citizen can't be defined as a Swede. At the very least, she can't be considered 100% Moroccan. And is the point of this article to focus on only on "pure" Swedes? That seems like a very questionable choice without a solid third-party definition of what a Swede is.
From my perspective, the people that are in the infobox right now represent a very traditional, slightly nationalist view of Sweden. Perhaps that is the best choice, but arguing that Swedish Wikipedia "decided" this does not seem at all relevant. I've been active on Swedish Wikipedia myself and I know from experience that they can be quite conservative in these matters. Their choice is not a valid argument here unless we know the reason for that choice.
Peter Isotalo 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The current selection is not the one that is used on svwp (but all except one of those that are on Svwp is also here). Furthermore, the one that is used there has never really been discussed. I have a hard time understanding why Tegnér and Rydberg are on this list, or why one fifth are rulers from the 16th and 17th century.
Andejons (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if you think putting people of Swedish ethnicity into an article about Swedish people is somehow 'traditional' or 'nationalist', we are talking about facts and not just opinions. Relatedly, as said before and in the article, this article is about the Swedish 'nationality' AND 'ethnicity'. If you consider someone who is apparently ethnically 100% Morroccan Berber according to their page an ethnic Swede you are mistaken. As for the question of what you said about a definition, Awolnetdiva gave you a good answer above and I dont feel the need to reiterate it. You shouldnt need to keep repeating this point as it has been answered. This infobox is typical of an ethnical/national group and there is no reason to add people who arent Swedish to the page because its something or rather. The infobox is fine as it currently is no matter what you feel about the editors on the Swedish Wikipedia and with my own anecdotal knowledge of Swedish history I can say its a very famous and relevent group of people as is the usual choice for an infobox. EEEEEE1 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
EEEEEE1, you're not building consensus by basically saying "I don't want to discuss this anymore". There's an obvious problem here regarding how Swedish ethnicity is defined today. You're arguing this issue entirely from your own personal opinions. I'm saying we need to at least look at sources. And the issue here isn't specifically about a modern Swedish individual with foreign-born parents vs any particular historical figure. Loreen (singer) is included in categories like Swedish female singers and Swedish muslims. You're perspective is that only biological ancestry is relevant, but this has never been the sole definition of ethnicity. Again, sources should be brought in to the discussion.
As for the infobox selection, Andejons has some very relevant pointers. Why all the monarchs and Axel Oxenstierna (important, but hardly well-known internationally)? And why are only 1/5th living people?
Peter Isotalo 08:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
But Im not saying Im not discussing it anymore, Im saying your points about Swedishness are irrelevent because there are already guidelines for such a thing which has nothing to do with POV. If you want to discuss that, this is not the place. Saying that its my opinion and perspective is a complete fabrication particularly as we keep mentioning the guidelines. Her nationality also has nothing to do with this, its her ethnicity. Ethnicity is something you inherit; something a Berber with presumably no Swedish heritage clearly hasnt. After all, Jesus was born in a stable and yet was not a horse, was he? As for monarchs, there are only 4 of them and 3 of them are so important as to be unmissible (Gustavus, Carolus and Vasa). I also just saw you changed a Ulvaeus to ABBA; and while that makes sense I just want to say Im not trying to mess you around but I would appreciate it if you discussed (other) changes to it here :) As for living people, this is typical of an infobox and I see no problem with it. As I said before the infobox is supposed to give a good idea of famous examples over history, and most of history is not the present. And to add to that, most famous Swedes are dead so its only logical that most in the infobox are dead. On infoboxes in general, you seem to have a problem with how infoboxes are done, but for some reason are only targeting this one. As I said before there are a lot more on the site and they are all similar to this. To reiterate Swedishness again, it doesnt matter if theres a debate about what Swedish is as a nationality in Sweden, as this is about the Swedish ethnicity and that is a lot more objective and tangible. I hope this clears things up a bit. EEEEEE1 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been requesting that we discuss from sources, or it will just be a clash of wills. We currently lack any sources defining who is or isn't a Swede. So what "guidelines" are you referring to? Who says that ethnicity can only be (biologically) inherited?
Peter Isotalo 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Well the Wikipedia page for it for example says that shared ancestry is an important part of ethnicity and that 'Unlike most other social groups, ethnicity is primarily an inherited status.'. I can understand your point for something racial such as African-American for example, but for an ethnicity I do not agree and I dont feel the article does. As for guidelines, I always consult WP:ETHNIC on such things. The second paragraph after the bullet point is what I would feel is relevent. EEEEEE1 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Were do you draw the line, then? One parent from Sweden (Gustavus Adolphus)? Perhaps one grandparent (Christina)? Or one great-grandparent (Charles XII)?
There is no criteria presented for these people, so of course one can claim that kings obviously are important. But of the examples you named earlier, French people have four kings, emperors and presidents out of 27 people, Danes has one king of eight people, and Norwegians has one of 16. 4 out of 25 (and two other statesmen) seems a bit excessive, especially when they are all taken from the same time period.
I'd suggest getting rid of at least Christina and Oxenstierna. Other people who are not that important overall are Polhem, Celcius, Tegnér, Rydberg and Heidenstam.
Andejons (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well where do you draw the line for european monarchs? They are rarely full blood of their own nationality and all intermarry with each other, so by using that logic none of them are of their own country which is silly. You might as well make a up some sort of 'Victorian' ethnicity for them these days as they almost entirely come from Queen Victoria of the UK. And putting this into the context of a berber woman being of Swedish ethnicity or not I feel it is a bit of a beside point, I feel we should be discussing them on a more of a case by case basis than with a big paintbrush. I also dont feel that 4 out of 25 is excessive, although 5 out of 25 would be I agree. As for those you have listed, I dont agree at all with getting rid of Celsius. He did a lot of significant things for physics. EEEEEE1 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I would draw the line at the same place as for the subjects - wherever that might be. Loreen is just as much a part of the Swedish nation, or even more, than for example Charles XIV John ever was.
As for Celcius, he was a good physicist and astronomer. However, Jöns Jacob Berzelius is a more important scientist, even if he does not have Celcius' fame (which stems solely from the fact that he invented the temperature scale).
Andejons (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Charles XIV ist on here, so I dont think that sort of thing will be a problem. As for Celsius, I think its worth keeping him and maybe replacing one with Jöns. EEEEEE1 (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It was you who thought that monarchs should get a free pass, not me.
I reduced the number of people in the infobox now. Since there was also an excess of authors (previously seven), I changed one for an artist. I believe Zorn is the most internationally well-known, but there are of course other possibilities.
Andejons (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thats not what I meant to get across, I meant they are more of a weird case as due to prolonged interbreeding. As for the current infobox, I think its fine. The only person I disagree with being taken off is Carolus Rex because of the great northern war, even if hes yet another king. EEEEEE1 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Please comment on this RfC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Swedes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Swedes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

World Wars

Sweden was restrictive toward Jewish refugess before the 1942 or even 1943.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Swedesh volunteers joined Waffen SS.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of ethnic Swedes living in Sweden

I have updated the infobox with the latest data from Statistiska Centralbyrån, the number given is most probably lower than the real number, though, since Sweden only differentiates between people born in Sweden to parents also born in Sweden, people born outside Sweden, and people who are born in Sweden to parents born outside Sweden. Which means that neither ethnic Swedes born outside Sweden to Swedish parents but now living in Sweden, nor Finland Swedes born in Finland but now living in Sweden (estimated to be 20% of all immigrants registered as born in Finland, or born in Sweden to parents born in Finland) are included in the tables as "Swedes", instead being included in the tables as being "of foreign origin" ("av utländskt ursprung"). Thomas.W talk 22:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the update! As I don't know Swedish, I obviously wasn't in a position to run a search through Statistics Sweden in the Swedish language. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A number of other figures are also a bit shaky, including the number of Swedes living in the UK (~22,000 according to the infobox), since I've been told multiple times that there are more than that in London alone. And I have no reason to doubt that since there seems to be Swedes everywhere there... Thomas.W talk 22:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that the diasporic figures would be significantly higher throughout most of the developed world. It's finding more up-to-date figures that's difficult. Australia is set for a new census in August, so I'll be keeping my eyes open for changes in stats for all ethnic groups once the results are published later in the year. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It also probably includes Swedish sami. They are an order of magnitude less than the number of Finnish immigrants, though. I believe the number should be restored to two significant digits; the statistics is simply not good enough to give more than that.
Andejons (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There aren't 10 million Swedes living in Sweden. It's 10 million inhabitants. Not all of them are ethnic Swedes. Not all of them have Swedish citizenship. 10 million is way too high.--159.190.251.56 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Genetics

I have have removed material sourced to "Sajantila and Pääbo, 1995" (the source link was long dead but I found the material elsewhere), saying "Another detailed nuclear genetic study has also implied that Swedes largely share genetics with Finns. The similarity between Finns and Swedes in allele and haplotype frequencies indicates that these two populations may be descended from the same central European source population—as has been suggested by Sajantila and Pääbo (1995)", since it doesn't paint the full picture. The impression I get is that it was written the way it was to support a very fringe theory that has been propagated on many articles on WP, about Finns being the original population of Scandinavia, and that that original population has later shifted language to Germanic/Swedish, while what the source actually says is that Finns, rather surprisingly, are genetically much closer to Swedes than to the also Uralic speaking Sami population, leading to a hypothesis about language replacement in Finns, from a proto-whatever they shared with Scandinavians to Finnish, i.e. the direct opposite to the fringe theory about who were "first" in the area. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just read the source and agree that it's WP:CHERRY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Germanic or North Germanic

should the intro be "Swedes are a germanic ethnic group" or "swedes are a north germanic ethnic group? North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (created account) "north germanic" is a language category not an ethnic one, i admit there WERE Middle Ages era norse people and the dna proves that Scandinavians descent from that, but the idea that there exists an "ancient or even a MODERN NORTH GERMANIC peoples has no SPECIFIC evidence and is original research, so i say lets remove this "north germanic" original reasearch nonsense once and for all! Johansweden27 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be called North Germanic? Lets try and be consistent and precise, also see Danes, Norwegians, Faroese, Icelanders. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
it is better to simplify and before 2018 it only said germanic, and if you want to be consistent, germans, dutch etc dont use west germanic, they actually say germanic 83.185.92.238 (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Swedes are North Germanic. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Germans and Dutch not being described as West Germanic is not really a reason not the have Swedes described as North Germanic. The latter is more often emphasised, isn't it, with their more clearly confined common background in Norse language? PPEMES (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This is ambiguous, North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological. Either is fine really. I'd defer to any other editor's preference. 141.136.232.251 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
We have a whole page covering "North Germanic peoples", as distinguished from "Germanic peoples" as a whole so we might as well be precise. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We should be precise, which would be describing them as a Germanic people (an ethno-cultural designation) speaking a North Germanic language (a linguistic categorization). Do the same with the other articles on Norwegians, etc. People cannot credibly advance a precision argument and then, in the same breath, also argue to misuse a linguistic term as an ethnic label. That's the worst sort of "amateur encyclopedists" error, and a symptom of Dunning–Kruger effect ("knowing just enough to get into trouble"). The fact that some other articles are making the same error is a problem fix, not something to emulate (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFF).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, while the general reasoning is commendable, does it really accurately apply here? In fact, if you would be going to go die hard anthropological, in the end what would make North Germanic peoples more ethno-linguistic and less anthropologic in definition (c.f. i.e. Haplogroup I-M253) than Germanic peoples? I'm not sure, I just wanted to bring about scepticism. PPEMES (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Quite possible. I think we're going to have to re-think all of that eventually, but it will be when there's sufficient scientific consensus to do so, reflected in large numbers of high-quality sources. I'm not sure we're there yet. Probably not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (invited by the bot) The initial RFC is basically choosing which attribute to characterize them by (ethho-cultural vs. linguistic), and then not including the context of that choice, thus resulting in an overreaching statement. So, IMO either drop the whole idea on the attempted characterization is such a prominent place (first sentence of the lead) and or include the context and specifics as SMcCandlish suggested. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, Oska. I forgot about that. A Swede is a person from Sweden. Including if they immigrated from Zanzibar or Mongolia are not any type of Germanic. So either choice is false as written. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a stupid question. Swedes are people from Sweden (or historically Svealand). The Swedish language is North Germanic but languages do not describe a people, nor their origins. This opening sentence:
> Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Sweden.
is an embarrassment to wikipedia and should be removed. The same goes for the opening sentences in the Danes, Norwegians, Faroese, and Icelanders articles. Oska (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's see. Are we confusing multiple dimensions now: ethnic/ethno-linguistic, ethnicity/nationality? Could we apply some caution before we delete stuff? PPEMES (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Stith Thompson: "The North Germanic, or Scandinavian group, consists of the Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, and Icelanders."[3]
  • John Cameron McLaughlin: "Some of the Vikings were Swedes, some Norwegian, and some Danes, but they were all North Germanic people who spoke much the same language and whose social and cultural patterns of behavior were very much alike."[4]
  • Otfried Höffe: " Sweden (where more than 95% belong to the North Germanic people of the Swedes)."[5]

AND https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden.html The Swedes are primarily Scandinavians of Germanic origin. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

four editors prefer germanic over "north germanic" so there is a majority here for change 83.185.85.216 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written on the basis of majority vote, it operates on the basis of WP:Consensus. Please read up so that you understand those practices. VanIsaacWScont 04:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep. The actual rationales people provide (under reliable sourcing and/or policies and guidelines) is what matters, not the head-count. I'll repeat that what we should be doing is distinguishing clearly between ethnographic and linguistic labels ("We should be precise, which would be describing them as a Germanic people (an ethno-cultural designation) speaking a North Germanic language (a linguistic categorization).")  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we shouldn't be presenting linguistic groupings as ethnicity. There's too much of that nonsense on WP. But is the Swedish ethnic identity Germanic or Scandinavian? — kwami (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • (bold edit) again "north germanic" is a language category not an ethnic one, i admit there WERE Middle Ages era norse people and the dna proves that Scandinavians descent from that, but the idea that there exists an "ancient or even a MODERN NORTH GERMANIC peoples has no SPECIFIC evidence and is original research, so i say lets remove this "north germanic" original reasearch nonsense once and for all! Johansweden27 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with SMcCandlish "We should be precise, which would be describing them as a Germanic people (an ethno-cultural designation) speaking a North Germanic language (a linguistic categorization)". Don't lets confuse the two. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

is this metapedia or wikipedia?

this is NOT metapedia, wikipedia is NOT a place for outdated racial theories, in fact most Swedes even consider ethnicity to be a social construction, so where do think this nonsense belongs to? Krismarin2076 (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion two sections above. (You did not explain what you meant here but your previous edits make it clear that your post is related to that discussion.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
i noticed that, btw, what is "North Germanic" anyways?, swedes never call themselves that, meybe if i rewrite the Article with sources from Swedish Wikipedia, how about that? Krismarin2076 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
i have improved the article now, i think that reality is more complicated than mere simplifications Krismarin2076 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krismarin2076: All your sources talk of Sweden and Swedish population in general, which includes ethnic, religious and national minorities, rather than an identifiable Indo-European ethnic group with shared characteristics as do similar articles; some of them even reek of modern reality-bending left-wing rhetoric and unnecessary definition-shifting for the sake of social equality I'd assume, as if multiculturalism and differences are bad? That is not the topic of this article (i.e. not all people of Sweden are Swedes and not all Swedes are in Sweden). This aritcle is about a specific ethnic group, its ethnogenesis and history. I understand what you mean by your edits, but these would better fit on Demographics of Sweden. Take this article as historical overview rather than modern representation of Sweden as a melting pot. And on that point, let's maybe not use it to push a controversial agenda. Also, North Germanic is a lingustic, and from what I understand ethnic, grouping of related peoples of Scandinavia. ProKro (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@ProKro: btw i have been reading the earlier discussion and i have to say none of the sides makes any sense, i mean the proposed version links to " were an indigenous ethnolinguistic group of Northern European origin identified by Roman-era authors" and the current version has no support in its included sources, read them! it does not mention any "NORTH" Germanic, my summary is that both versions does not make any sense! Krismarin2076 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krismarin2076: Are we shifting to that discussion? In that case, we should move it to the section above. To be honest with you, I am not up-to-date on the terminology; I'm neither a linguist nor an anthropologist and I'd defer to the users' consensus and accept either option. If North Germanic is a lingustic term only, then Germanic should be used. I actually prefer just "Germanic", it just sounds better to my ears, but we do have North Germanic peoples so it should be considered and employed to encourage linking to it. ProKro (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@ProKro: Nope, we are not. Am still proposing my own version, that completely removes the "Germanic/North Germanic" nonsense that confuses the readers, again i mean seriously even "North Germanic" links to "were an indigenous ethnolinguistic group of Northern European origin identified by Roman-era authors", and you call my version of "Swedes are a nationality of diffrent meanings with the majority being Scandinavian of Germanic origin", what is this "modern reality-bending left-wing rhetoric and unnecessary definition-shifting for the sake of social equality that pushes a controversial agenda" one of that kind of controversial conspiracy theories on the far right of the political spectrum? dont forget that it was your side which introduced this here in the first place, also you admit yourself that "I am not up-to-date on the terminology; I'm neither a linguist nor an anthropologist" neither am i but you must realise now that i have better knowledge of the subject? Krismarin2076 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@ProKro: @Bonadea: first read the above, second this is obviously going nowhere, what if i start an rfc with three options
1."Swedes are a nationality of diffrent meanings with the majority being Scandinavian of Germanic origin" (my version)
2.North Germanic (current version unsupported by sources included in this article, links to a ancient dead tribe)
3.Germanic (proposed version which also links to an anicent dead tribe)
Opinions? Krismarin2076 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
No replies? i going to take that as a yes Krismarin2076 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krismarin2076: Ok, first of all, give people time to reply, you can't expect them to work on your schedule nor assume that they agree with you if they don't say anything, that's just ridiculous. Secondly, we are repeating ourselves here. You are talking about a completely different topic, modern Swedish society is NOT tantamount to Swedes as an ethnic group, you said it youself "Swedes are a nationality of diffrent meanings with the majority being Scandinavian of Germanic origin". I don't know how to convey my point differently. I don't need to be up-to-date on the topic to understand that two different things aren't one and the same, especially not in different contexts, one of which this article is discussing. What do you mean "dead Scandinavian/Germanic tribe", have you been to Sweden? They very much exist despite what you personally believe, but even so, it's merely used as a term itended to group related peoples based on genealogical and lingusitic criteria - Swedes are categorized as a people exhibiting a N.Germanic culture and speaking a N.Germanic language and being native to their nation state of Sweden. That's all there really is to it. I won't even address "your side" as I am not Swedish nor do I have a side in this at all. Don't cram agendas and politics where they don't belong. All in all, which one of us is more knowledgeable on the topic is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the consensus backed by sources and there's no consensus here obviously. Bide your time. ProKro (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ProKro: What i mean? First sentence of the Germanic peoples article "WERE an indigenous ethnolinguistic group of Northern European origin identified by Roman-era authors" if that does not mean death i do not know what will Krismarin2076 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ProKro: What sources? there like only one source that mentions the word "North", but even without or with that word it links to death, do really consider that to make any sense whatsoever? Krismarin2076 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding the above discussion about the "North Germanic/Germanic" issue

Socks have been blocked, and this is history... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To resolve this long lasting dispute, I ask editors which version is the best. Also see my discussion above Talk:Swedes#is_this_metapedia_or_wikipedia?

  1. North Germanic (current version, links to an ancient dead tribe)
  2. Germanic (also links to an ancient dead tribe)
  3. "Swedes are a nationality of different meanings with the majority being Scandinavian of Germanic origin"

Krismarin2076 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep (either 1/2) Either Germanic or North Germanic; "Swedes are a nationality of different meanings with the majority being Scandinavian of Germanic origin" is nonsensical. Literally any country's population is like this, it defeats its own purpose and mixes various identities, Swedes can't be an exception to a rule. "A groups of things are things that can be interpreted in different ways but most being this way", why complicate things? Is that your concern, that the definition of what a "Swede" is has changed in modern times. I don't see that leading to a meaningful conversation. ProKro (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither 1 or 2. Both are unacceptable. I don't think the suggested version 3 is a good replacement however. I suggest we look to the Swedish article which has a more nuanced definition:

Svenskar är personer av svensk nationalitet.[5] Svenskar kan även vara personer som, till exempel genom modersmål, kulturyttringar, traditioner, härstamning eller familjeband, betraktar sig som svenskar.[6]

Sveriges majoritetsbefolkning har traditionellt kategoriserats som skandinaver med germanskt ursprung,[7] men har under historien nåtts av migrationsströmmar och språkligt och kulturellt inflytande även från andra folk. Sveriges majoritetsbefolkning beskrivs ibland i engelskspråkig litteratur som en etnicitet eller folkgrupp[7][8][9], en beteckning som kan vara kontroversiell, och i äldre litteratur som ett folk med tre konstituerande folkstammar: svear, götar och gutar.[10]

The first paragraph is particularly well-expressed. It says that Swedes are 1) people of Swedish nationality and/or 2) people who, through various connections (language, culture, ancestry etc), consider themselves Swedes. The second paragraph goes into the Germanic origins thing a bit but points out that it is not a simple matter (the origins of the Swedish people have never been wholly Germanic). Would we say that the people of Britain are of Germanic origin? No, of course we wouldn't; it's nothing like the complete story. The same with Swedes. Oska (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: well that is not really what i mean, i mean Swedes as an ethnicity is a social construction and exists in the only in the minds of Sweden Democrats so either 3 without your "supposedly better" changes or 2, most sources do not support 1 Krismarin2076 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • That's a load of BS, Swedes as an ethnicity has existed since prehistoric times (see Swedes (Germanic tribe)), and still does, and this article is about the ethnicity, not the nationality, whether you like it or not. And Swedish language sources about what the current politically correct meaning of "svenskar" is in Sweden are totally irrelevant, since this is the English language Wikipedia, where we go by what words/terms mean in English. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swedish-speaking Finns and the article's definition

I just read the article Swedish-speaking Finns and now I'm wondering that do the modern-day Swedish-speaking Finns mentioned and linked in the infobox and in the lede really fit into the article's current definition "Swedes are a North Germanic ethnic group native to Sweden" (and from the article North Germanic peoples: "[North Germanic peoples] are identified by their cultural similarities, common ancestry and common use of the Proto-Norse language")? Also, regarding the lede, I'm not sure if Swedes are an officially recognized minority in Finland. However, the Swedish-speakers of Finland are an officially recognized linguistic minority in Finland. Furthermore, I don't think there's a consensus of all 290,000 Swedish-speakers of Finland belonging to the ethnic Swedish diaspora - much like not all 231 million English-speaking Americans are of ethnic English descent. Now if this article's definition would be something like "Swedes are a North Germanic ethnic group native to Sweden, or anyone that speaks Swedish as their mother tongue", then the Swedish-speaking Finns would fit into that description perfectly. Yes, I know there are many people in Finland who actually do belong to the Swedish diaspora, but I don't think you can use that Swedish-speakers number for them just like that, because it's controversial. The Swedish language, which has been an official language in Finland for ages, maintained a high status on politics and nobility, so many adapted to use it as their mother tongue in the past centuries (see: Finland_Swedish#History). Not just many ethnic Finns, but emigrants from Central Europe, Russia, etc. 194.68.44.35 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Swedish diaspora numbers

The infobox gives a figure of 4 million Swedes in the United States. According to the source, these are people with Swedish ancestry. While retaining a few Swedish customs, they have during 100–150 years assimilated significantly into the American culture, and generally do not speak Swedish. Should they really be included as Swedish? --St.nerol (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a ridiculous reference. It should not be included Gumsaint (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The same goes for the Canadian source, especially since a large majority there included Swedish as one of multiple ethnic origin responses. Sjö (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
According to page 2 of the US source (titled NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS IN THE UNITED STATES) there are some 29,000 Swedes that are not US citizens and some 23,000 that are naturalized citizens. And the Canada source says that about 26,000 gave Swedish as their single ethnic origin. It seems reasonable to use those numbers instead. Sjö (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sjö: I noted that the figures refer to ancestry primarily, as all censuses do, but we shouldn't make any significant changes here without a consensus (even though this discussion has obviously fizzled out). If we do, pretty much all the figures in the infobox are moot. While I see where editors here are coming from, this is a biased view and goes contrary to the established style for similar articles on ethnic groups where ancestry/self-identity is taken into account, no matter the integration into the new country/society - or in other words - Swedes are not solely Swedish citizens abroad nor are all people who identify as Swedes citizens of Sweden, furthermore neither are all people from/in Sweden Swedes; if people claim Swedish ancestry freely, they are that, even if only partially or in family name. If this were to be ignored so would be Swedish minority groups elsewhere in Scandinavia, Europe and the world. The article should reflect historical, genealogical and anthropological view of the cultural group who refer to themselves as "Swedes", as a cultural identity. Ancestry, nationality and citizenship are not synonymous here nor mutually exclusive. Otherwise, there is no point to these articles as one would run into all sorts of ambiguities as to who or who isn't included (we already have Swedish diaspora and Demographics of Sweden). The less guessing the better. On that note, we shouldn't misinterpret the figures given by the censuses simply because you find them more fitting for the purpose (per WP:Synthesis). They do not clearly state what you claim they do and so they are just as valid at corroborating the 4.5 mil./350K figures as they are at 29,000/26,000; "single ethnic origin" means simply that, not necessarily "immigrants", we can't assume this. Sources could be found that make a distinction between immigrants and ancestry but the distinction still stands, I will leave that to you. ProKro (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swedes/Archive_5&oldid=1210782683"