Talk:Swedes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Swedish Population figure

I noticed that the Swedish population figure was changed. Can someone please change them back to the original figures. An ethnic Swede is someone who is of Swedish ancestry. This page is about Swedish People as an ethnic group, and not Swedish expatiates and recent emigrants as the current figures may suggest. By using the number of Swedish speakers and the number of Swedish born persons may be misleading since Swedish speakers and neutralized Swedish citizens of other ethnic origin are included. The figures also exclude the people of Swedish origin that were born outside of the country, as well as the decedents of earlier Swedish immigrants, as they are very much an important part of Swedish history (please see http://www.utvandrarnashus.se/). This is also to be consistent with the other ethnic group pages on Wikipedia.

I have reverted it to the original figures. Some citation are needed especially for the Latin American countries. Nevertheless the figure should be more accurate in reflecting the number of people with Swedish ethnic origin worldwide. It is also more consistet with the other ethnic pages on Wikipedia.

No matter how many times you change it I will keep on changing it back. An ethnic Swede is someone who is culturally Swedish. Only 7,500,000 people out of the ~9 million strong Swedish population is added due to ethnicity factors. Since Sweden keeps no records of ethnicity those born outside the country were excluded. As is clarified in the Swedish wikipedia this of course means that the people born in Sweden who identify with their parents ethnicity are wrongly included whilst those born outside of Sweden who have assimilated into the Swedish ethnic group are not. But it's as close as we can get.

The figures do not simply show recent expatriates and first-generation immigrants. It shows the people who are culturally Swedish. And the best way to measure this is to find those who speak the language. And I found these figures for the US. There are not 4 million Swedes in the US. There are 4 million Americans with partial Swedish ancestry. These people assimilated into the majority culture a long time ago. They are culturally Anglo-Americans. As I half-Swede I take offense in your belittling of our cultural heritage in applying it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry when there's clearly nothing Swedish about them.

Being an ethnic Swede means more than just sharing a common tongue or cultural practice. As a Swede yourself I am sure you know that there are many cultural and even linguistic differences between the different parts of Sweden, so how can you define a whole ethnic group by just that? Swedes that are culturally assimilate still share the same ancestors, heritage and history with the Swedes living in Sweden, which is what makes them ethnically Swedes. Just because they are born elsewhere and don't speak the language anymore doesn't make the Tom, Dick or Harry less of a Swede than you and me. Sweden has a rich emigration history, and it is very well documented, both in Sweden and abroad. We get people from all the United States and Canada visiting their ancestral land every year. How can you make your own judgment in dismissing their Swedish heritage? How can you proof that there are nothing "Swedish" about them? When it comes to culture and heritage there are much more than just language and birthplace. In addition, how can you take offense in sharing our heritage with others who have the same ancestors as we do?

And your figures can be fairly inaccurate. They are either based on the number of Swedish speakers and the country of birth. Even with your definition of ethnic Swede they can be misleading. You can be a ethnic Norwegian that has the knowledge of the Swedish Language. You can be born in Sweden to Chilean parents who briefly stayed in Stockholm in the 70s before moving to Australia. By your logic these two people are ethnic Swedes. At the same time you are excluding almost all the people with partial or full Swedish ancestry just because they don't speak the language or were born in another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.48.95 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency with other wikipedia entries. The only thing that distorts the numbers is the fact that Anglo countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia keep records of ancestry which some mistakenly use for ethnicity calculations. But that's their problem, not mine. Cheers. --Lilyserbia (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to similar Wikipedia pages such as British People, Germans, Norwegians, Finns and other pages on ethnic groups. There is a big discrepancy on how the general define an ethnic group and how you are defining it. The Swedish version of this page was consistent with the above definition until someone changed it by inputting the current figures based on their own definition.

All of them include people of such ancestry. You are confusing ethnic Swedes with people who are culturally Swedes. A person with Swedish ancestry means that he or she is an ethnic Swede. By changing the population figure to the ones that are based on your sources presents some inaccurate information on this topic. It is an irresponsible action. Instead of being persistent in changing the figures back please create a new section or page specifically devoted to People who are culturally Swedes.

That took a long time to change back people. I am not saying there is NOTHING Swedish about those of Swedish descent if they don't speak the language. But we have a word for these people in Sweden - svenskättlingar. It's not up to me to make a page about "cultural Swedes" since ethnicity is ABOUT culture. Everyone has ancestors from somewhere else. A lot of evidence points to all of us coming from Africa. So what divides us into groups? Ethnicity, which is a CULTURAL term. It's because Americans have hijacked Wikipedia that many of these ethnicity articles are being distorted since Americans and other Anglo breakoffs have a different view of ethnicity than Europeans/Asians/Africans. I'm asking you to respect the Swedish definition here since we actually have different terms for etniska svenskar (ethnic Swedes) and svenskättlingar (Swedish descendants). --Lilyserbia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to have a definite source of how you define an ethnic Swede (in English term, since this is an English Wikipedia page) before making major changes to this page, other than "American hijack". Your view of Swedish ethnicity = Swedish speaking OR Swedish citizen is ignoring some of the defining meaning of the word ethnicity, which is ancestry, culture and traditions. I am not the first one to say this but if you look at any other English Wikipedia page on ethnicity (this is the English version of Wikipedia, as you may know, if you are a native Swedish speaker, there are many Swedish words that translate differently in English and vice versa), people of certain ancestry are included. Saying how Americans and Anglo "breaoffs" hijacking and distorting the view of ethnicity is borderline racist. This is an English Wikipedia page. I am quite sure a native English speaker do have a better understanding of their language then we do. Yes, please do respect the Swedish language, but also the English language and not to make up your own definition. Yes Swedish we have terms like svenskättlingar, but it is not exlusive to the term etniska svenskar and svenskar.

And second of all please do not delete others legitimate input on the page without a legitimate reason. Have you been to American places with a high percentage of Swedish immigrants? If not I highly recommend you to do some research before you declare that they don't have share any Swedish cultural values as we do. Please discuss with other users before deleting 15% of the pages contents, which looking from the previous version did not delete any of the contents that you've written. As you can see this Wikipedia page does not contain as much information when compared to other ethnic pages.

Do you have a good understanding on how people in countries like USA, Canada and Australia identify themselves? Do you speak for the whole nation of Sweden when you say they don't consider Swedish descents ethnically Swedes? If not, please do not impose your own view on this page. People who edited this page have been considerate enough to be inclusive of all materials so that readers can extract the information they see fit.

And finally by your definition of an ethnic Swede Linus Torvalds should be considered a Swede. Swedish speaking and close cultural ties to Swede. Wouldn't it be contradicting to exclude him from the page? The term ethnic Swede (both Swedish and English) is defined by many things. The way of how you define it is limiting. I really appreciate your effort of creating a good page for this topic but you seems to have a strong opinion on who to exclude, as some biased comments were made in your discussion posts. It is important to take others into consideration as well. Similar statistics and figures (people of certain ancestry being included on the page) are not only relevant on other ethnicity pages, they are used on this page for years before you have edited them away. The same with the Swedish version of the page. No consensuses were made before the changes either on this subject matter. If you insist on putting a definite meaning on the word ethnicity based on where you got your information from (I am curios to know, or is that from that one person who made the changes on the Swedish version of this page), I suggest to include all the previous information as well. --Nagbg (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds is finlandssvensk. THIS is his ethnicity. He is neither a Finn nor a Swede. He's a finlandssvensk. I don't care if it borders on racism - I could care less about how various British and American dictionaries define ethnicity. I go by the views of social scientists. And the one in the highest regard when it comes to this is of course Max Weber. According to him an ethnic groups are: Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists. Read: "memories of migration" - "group formation" - "does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." You can argue all you want about how some Americans are Swedes. In fact at best they are Swedish-Americans. Not Swedish, not Anglo-American but culturally Swedish-American. THAT is their ethnic group, just like finlandssvenskar are an ethnic group. These Americans are not ethnic Swedes since there is no group formation or feeling of togetherness between these two groups. I'm changing it back again. I'll leave in the random pieces of historical information even though they really should be in the Germanic tribes or Swedish Descendants page. --Lilyserbia (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the link from this page to the diaspora takes us tothis page amongst others. There they give the true numbers of the Swedish diaspora in the UK. And as stated in the article, tens of millions of Britons are of partial Swedish ancestry. Should we put down that there are 20 million ethnic Swedes living in the UK? I think not. Should we put down that there are 4 million ethnic Swedes living in the USA. I think not. Do you get it yet? --Lilyserbia (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misundertood Max Weber's defination. I think you have mistakenly skipped the phraseCommon decent of similarities of physical type or of customs or both. By that definition alone Swedish Americans, Swedish Canadians ...etc fits the description perfectly. Not only are they decedents of Swedish immigrants from the 18th and 19th century (more than 1 million Swedes emigrated during that period, which is a significant number by any means), many have maintained the customs and traditions. There are hundreds of Swedish organizations in North America, as well as newspaper and magazines that have been around for generations. This is an important subject for us, an integral part of our history. Many of us, especially from the south of Sweden, still have ties to the US and the other countries mentioned. We learned about it in school and we have records, monuments and museums dedicated to this subject. It is premature to dismiss that group of people (which is a significant number) as not being ethnic Swedes. When we look beyond of definition of Swedish citizens, Swedish Americans are ethnic Swedes. The case in the UK, similar to the one you have about our African origin, is different than the case of Swedish Americans. It has to do with self identification, customs, traditions, language and religion. Sweden wasn't one nation back then either. But this is a whole another topic on its own.

And I'm telling you that without "group formation" "common descent" (whatever that means) is pointless. An important part of group formation in an ethnic group such as the Swedish one that values conformity - is CUSTOMS - of which LANGUAGE is the most important aspect. For the US figures I used the amount of SWEDISH SPEAKERS living in the US, not the number of Swedish citizens. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose to end this argument by a compromise. To present information from both perspective with a clear heading and title, and not to delete any information that you don't agree with. I respect your opinion, but you tend to use a fixated and narrow definition of the word ethnicity. At times you are mutually excluding a significant number of ethnic Swedes that may otherwise fit into your definition of the term by presenting the data you are using (The embassy figures focus on Swedish citizens). And once again, when you look at any other ethnicity pages, including the ones that are related to this page, they all would include information that you are, for whatever reasons, stubbornly excluding. So perhaps rather than deleting the figures (like you did in previous edits) I believe it is best to leave the subject neutral and present both information to the readers. Nagbg (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As if I'm the only one who has deleted information. I already added a note in the population box to point out the number of people of Swedish descent. You can either make a new page of Swedish descendants (svenskättlingar) or make their half of the page bigger (and add figures there too). But the main population box should be for people who speak Swedish and/or are Swedish citizens living abroad (if no other information is found). This is the best estimate to the number of Swedes out there. --Lilyserbia (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the way the population box is now I'm fine with (I didn't notice the change before.) So I guess this issue has been fixed then. --Lilyserbia (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why were the Finland Swedes which speak Swedish and have Swedish ancestry moved to form their own section? I thought the article on Swedish citizens was a different one. Is the reason that we have one Swede who personally does not identify with them? That Finland Swedes and Swedes don't root for the same team in ice-hockey does not mean that they don't share historical herritage and central aspects of their culture (language, snapsvisor, Lucia, midsommarstång etc.). 123.16.242.95 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) PS! Sorry for posting above under Linus by mistake. 123.16.242.95 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you might as well put Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians together and call us "Scandinavians." There are clear variations between all these ethnic groups that only locals would recognise. These differences exist between Swedes and Finland-Swedes too. They are ethnically Scandinavians but they should be differentiated from Swedes. This is hardly my opinion alone. It's however my opinion that they should have their own page which should merely be linked to this one. I'm being lenient in allowing them to be mentioned under Swedish population statistics. --Lilyserbia (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lilyserbia, please take a look at the information presented in the info box from these pages: Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Finns, Icelandic, Irish People, Scottish People, English People, British People, Germans, French People, Italian People, Spanish People, Portuguese People, Thai, Japanese People, Koreans and etc... None of the above mentioned pages separate the population statistics like we currently do. This situation is not unique to Sweden (of having a large population of Swedish decedents abroad). People of Swedish ancestry elsewhere should have their own page, but their population should also be included in the section and not separately like we do now. Nagbg (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Swedish population figure should reflect the Swedish population at any given time.

Where does any of these narrowed population figures consitering "the ethnic swedish population" who are these people? More scientifically put: what defines them and who registrers and counts them? Where does the international higer figure come from? There are few valid links in the table over Swedes abroad and where there are actuall numbers do then not refer to expatriot swedish citizens rather than a made up term like "etnic-swedes"? Why are made-up demographics viseble next to real demographics on Wikipedia? This article does hardly deserve a B rating. It should be througly revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedes and Finns

Okay, I have agreed to put the "related ethnic groups" back in the infobox and include the Finns. I guess you are right, the Finns may be genetically and linguistically distant from the Swedes, but they have shared a common border for ages and your arguments stand. However, I will also include the Dutch since the Dutch do share a common ancestry with the Swedes as Germanic peoples, so they are genetically closer and they both speak a Germanic language. I will revert the edit back to what it was and include the Finns also. TheGoodSon 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Finns and Swedes have not "shared a common border", They have – from the dawn of history – shared a single nationality within a single state Sweden proper – that later expanded into an empire, the Swedish Empire with other dominions of Sweden. The modern Finnish ethnicity is the invention of the Fennoman movement of the late 19th century. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You are still trying to define ethnicity on linguistic and genetic grounds - with no source for the latter. The first is questionable, and the second is simply wrong. In any case, there is no need for the infobox field at all - it is subjective, unverifiable, and adds nothing of any significance to the article. If there was a WP:RS that actually stated that 'ethnicity X is related to ethnicity Y' in some unambiguous way, it might have some validity, but including groups (actually, nationalities, which aren't necessarily the same thing as ethnic groups anyway) is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. THe field should never have been added to the infobox in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with Andy above I will accept this solution as an acceptable compromise for now, although I think that in the long run it is better to get rid of the "related groups" field since there are no well established way of determining what constitutes a "relation" between two ethnic groups, or how "close" the relation is. If you include the Dutch, then if for consistency you will have to include all west-Germanic ethnic groups: English, Frisians, Boer, Afrikaner, Norn, Scots, Plattdeutsch and Yiddish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to include ALL, but at least include the ones that are most well known or have sizeable populations (ie. Dutch, English, etc). I think including the Danes, Norwegians, Icelandics, Germans, Finns, Dutch, and English as a "related ethnic group" to the Swedes is good enough. And Andy, no I am not "trying to define ethnicity on linguistic and genetic grounds" - I have accepted Maunus' definition of an ethnic group. "Ethnic" is defined in the dictionary like this: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." The Germanic peoples all share a common ancestry and are descendents of ancient Germanic tribes, so yes they are genetically more closely related to each other than they are to the Finns, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, etc. There are studies that to back that up. For example, this study here of the Norwegians: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2002_v10_521-529.pdf It shows that Norwegians are closely related to central Europeans (Germans/Austrians) in particular. TheGoodSon 19:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, we have a compromise now, but your calculus of what kinds of relations are closer than others make no sense at all. There is considerable Germanic genetic and cultural influence in Spains and Northern italy (Longobards and Visigoths) remember. The reason that commonsense seems to dictate that Germans are more closely related than Spaniard is that historical accidents turned Spain and Italy into Nation states with Official languages of the romance family not due to any inherent natural closeness. The problem with commonsense is that it almost never corresponds to the way that the world actually looks. Dictionary definitions describe commonsense definitions and are therefore not good at defining technical terms - try to look up evolution in a dictionary and see how well it fits a biological understanding of the concept.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I understand what you are saying. I've said that ALL Europeans are related in one way or another, but there are those that are closer to each other genetically than to others. The Germanic Peoples are a historical ethno-linguistic group who originated in Northern Europe and are identified by their use of the Indo-European Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The descendants of these peoples became, and in many areas contributed to, the ethnic groups of North Western Europe: the Germans, Norwegians, Swedish, Finland-Swedes, Danish, Faroese, English, Icelanders, Austrians, Dutch and Flemish, Swiss Germans, and the inhabitants of Alsace, Lorraine (German: Lothringen) and Friesland. The ethnic groups I mentioned above are descendants of the Teutons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Geats, Goths, etc. The Finns are not descendants of these people and so are genetically more distant from the Swedes compared to the Danes, Germans, or Norwegians, for example. That's all that I am trying to say. Yes, we can include the Finns as a "related ethnic group" based on other factors besides genetic and linguistic relations. So I agree, the Finns should be included because the definition of an ethnic group is much broader than what I was suggesting yesterday. TheGoodSon 21:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. Your reasoning continues to be flawed when you claim that an historic population can be claimed to be "descendants" of populations only known in historical sources that are more than 1000 years old. You neglect the fact that contemporary populations are not homogeneous, historical populations were not homogeneous and that the argument of "genetic closeness" is a statistical argument, not one of one population descending from the other. Modern Germanic speaking populations are not genetically closer to an ancient Germanic speaking population than they are to neighboring non-germanic speaking populations between which there have been geneflows for the past millennium. There is no modern population that can be said to be a descendants of Geats, Jutes or Teutons in any meaningful sense of the word "descendant", just like there is no single individual that can trace his ancestry to any of them more than to any number of other groups. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TheGoodSon, the main problem with your reasoning is that it is yours. It is WP:OR, and as such, of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article that we couldn't download earlier is now back online [1], and it seems fairly unequivocal: "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...". The article is quite detailed, and I won't claim to understand it all, but it certainly doesn't support arguments for any great genetic differences between the majority Swedish and Finnish populations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't support arguements for any great genetic differences between Finns and Swedes (as I said before, all Europeans are related in one way or another genetically). But it does support what I have been saying: that the Swedes are genetically closer to the Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Dutch, and Icelandics. Yes, the Swedes share genetic ties to the Finns and they share genetic ties to the Italians, French, Spaniards, and all other Europeans. But they are more closely tied to their Germanic brethren. TheGoodSon 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention anything about closeness to Germanic brethren, it mentions the popssibility of a single recent founding population common for Finns and Swedes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And even more interestingly Sajantila and Pääbo (1995) describe the Finnish population as genetically much closer to Indo-European speaking populations than to the Finno-Ugric speaking Saami and they propose that the population of Finnland were originally Indoeuropean speakers who switched to a finnic language... so much for "ethnically closer".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How does it support that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(it is pretty funny how those geneticists manage to get three out of three linguistic classifications wrong).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A single founding population for Swedes and Finns? I've done a lot of reading on Baltic and Finnic (i.e., including Estonian) cultures. Nowhere is there any sort of contact that makes them related, just as a millennia of contact have not made Estonians and Latvians related. Swedes are ethno-linguistically Germanic and arrived to that territory by a completely different path whereby they intersected with the Finns—an intersection which is the result of Finland having been part of the Swedish empire. Sweden today has programs which recognize that long-standing minority status of Finns. Indo-Europeans who "switched" to become Finnish? Even with that, it would still not make the Swedes and Finns ethno-linguistically or culturally related. If you wish to write that recent studies point to "Finnified Swedes", that is appropriate. Contending (ergo) the cultures or ethnic groups are related is not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to answer your arguments I need to know how you define "related".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the linked article? It appears not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus, "related" would mean originating from a common area ancestral settlement, sharing common cultural customs and ethnolinguistic background. So, Swedes settling in the north who were Finnicized (going by mention of recent genetic study), that is, taking on culture and customs of a nation/people who originated from a completely different area of ancestral settlement with different cultural customs and ethnolinguistic background does not make Swedes and Finns related. No amount of cross-cultural/ethnic assimilation makes those cultures and/or ethnic groups "related." Does that help? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It might, if it was based on evidence. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By your "lack of evidence" you imply that the Germanic tribes and Finno-Ugric tribes are ethno-linguistically and culturally related. On the contrary, there is evidence, and it is that those tribes are not related. 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish people are a germanic ethnic group

if swedes are not germanic , then how come most articles on wikipedia describe what larger group an ethnic group belongs to ? pashtuns is written as an Eastern Iranian enthnic group , croats an South Slavic ethnic group , Uyghur an turkic aso so onWolsemkosh (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Pashtun people are described as being part of the Eastern Iranian ethnic group, not just Iranian group. Croats is described as a South Slavic ethnic group and Russians as a East Slavic ethnic group and not just Slavic group. Närking (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes are a nation, not just an ethnic group like Pashtun. One can be a Swede of Pashtun ethnicity. That is the first reason we don't write "germanic". If we write that swedes are a "germanic people" we exclude a number of swedes from being the topic of the article. Secondly being Germanic is not an ethnic criterion but a linguistic one - ethnicity is a question of identity. There is no Germanic identity and there hasn't been one since the demise of pan-germanism after WWII. By writing "germanic" we suggest that swedes have a common identity with other groups that speak germanic languages, such as Afrikaaners or Frisians. There is no evidence for this. Scandinavian or Nordic is a much more useful denominator, since we know that there is some sensee of shared identity among the scandinavian and the nordic countries. It is also more useful because those descriptors are based on geographic location and not on ancestry or ethnicity which would exclude a large part of the swedish population.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Being swedish (citizenship) , swedish (nationality) or swedish (ethnic group) are 3 different things actually , and this article is about the third category of being swedish (ethnic) and also please avoid making edits in areas which you have know nothing about , the germanic people are an ethno-linguistic group , "scandinavian" is not such a thing because scandinavia is a geographical and cultural area and there is no diffrence in definition of either being germanic or slavic but both being ethno-linguistic groups Wolsemkosh (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No the article is about swedes as a nation and as an ethnic group. Please avoid making edits that comment on other editors. Also please avoid using sockpuppets.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, culture and ethnic group are directly related to ethno-linguistic background. Scandinavians refer to the larger northern Germanic ethnic groups. Is there any controversy regarding the Swedes being Germanic? Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedish is a Germanic language that is not controversial. But that does not mean that the swedish nation or the swedish people can be characterised as such. The relation between culture, ethnicity, nation and language is anything but straightforward. Speaking a Germanic language does not mean that an ethno-national group can be defined unproblematically as "a germanic ethnic group. Ethnicity just doesn't work like that. That would make forexample African-Americans classifiable as Germanic. To classify a group as Germanic it must be shown that the group identifies with that Germanic linguistic heritage to a considerable extent. Scandinavian refers to the peoples of the geographic area of scandinavia, not to a particular linguistic or ethnic heritage. You would need to show with reliable sources that being speakers of a Germanic language is a significant part of the Swedish ethnic identity. I don't think that is possible, it certainly isn't for Denmark for example where the adjctive "Germanic" in a non-linguistic sense is almost a pejorative, bringing unfond memories of times when a certain "Germanic nation" tried to "Germanize" Denmark by force.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The peoples of the Scandinavian territories and Baltics (northern Germanic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic) have been indigenous to their territories for a very long time. "Swedes" don't have to identify with today's "Germans" any more than "Germans" need to identify with today's "Swedes" for Swedes to remain northern Germanic. Have you heard Swedish? It certainly reflects its ancient Germanic heritage. The proper approach is discussion of how/where/when the Germanic tribes split off from each other and where they went and how their cultures evolved, for example, in response to the territories they inhabited. What we consider "pejorative" because someone thinks EWWWWW GERMANS! isn't scholarship, it's polemics. We should not confuse the two. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Germanic tribes are of no consequence whatsoever for todays ethnicity. You are working with a definition of ethnicity that is outdated by several decades. What you think swedish sounds like is also completely irrelevant. I understand Swedish fully. To identify as an ethnic Dane or Swede does not in anyway require one to have ancestors who have "been indigenous" the territories that are today Sweden or Denmark. It only requires being accepted as a Swede or Dane by other Swedes or Danes. You may know that the Swdedish royal house for example is the House of Bernadotte - a French lineage. That does not mean that the king of Sweden isn't a Swede. It is not scholarship to classify peoples to ethnic groups that they themselves do not see them selves as belonging to - ethnicity is about identity and ideology - not about genetic ancestry. I am afraid it is you who are confused about what those concepts mean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't confuse a linguistic category with an ethnic one either. If the Swedes self-identify as ethnically Germanic, they are: if they don't, they aren't. And regarding the 'peoples' under discussion, the genetic evidence (see elsewhere on this page) suggests that trying to divide Scandinavians into 'northern Germanic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic' is nonsensical, except perhaps in terms of statistical averages - their ancestors moved around, and screwed around, far to often to maintain any vestiges of the discreet 'tribal' identities you seem keen to present - if it ever existed in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That English royalty renamed themselves (e.g., Battenburg to Mountbatten) does not change that they are German. The last I checked, the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns all identified as themselves. Done. Your contention that "if they don't consider themselves "GERMAN"ic they're not" and that ethnic heritage is purely personal opinion is (I believe, nothing personal) a disservice to the studies of cultures and their evolution. It's a position that politicians regularly use to drive peoples apart, viz. Transnistria, Moldova and Romania. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

that is what ethnicity is - a cultural and political concept. There are no "natural nations", only groups that consider themselves to be so, or not. In this case you need to present evidence that the Swedish people consider themselves to be best described as a "Germanic people".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me give some more examples of why ethnicity doesn't work like that. 300 years ago the people of Southern Sweden (Götaland and Scania) were Danes, the swedish state conquered the territory and Swedified the people through a heavy handed political and military process. Now they are fully Swedish. The people of Bornholm used to be Swedish but at a certain point they rebelled against Sweden and asked the Danish king to incirporate them into Denmark, now they are Danish. So if you go by the ancient criteria of "Germanic tribes" only the part of Sweden that was inhabited by the tribe called "Svear" would be swedish and only those who could trace their roots to that area and that tribe (nobody have pedigrees that far back - we're talking 10th century) would be able to say they were swedish. That is not the case because the process that created the swedish nation state out of the medieval monarchy which was non-ethnic, created a swedish identity for the inhabitants of the swedish nation state. Sweden has received and influx of migrants from Slavic and Fennic speaking countries through the past 300 years - these people are indistinguishable from all other swedes, and identify as swedes not as Finns (some do) or Polish. Sweden is home to a considerable number of Sami, they are also Swedes. It is possible to be ethnically Sámi and ethnically Swedish at the same time. Being Swedish means to share that national identity and to identify ethnically with the swedish cultural identity as it has been formed in the past 250 years - regardless of ones ancestry.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Being a Dane living in Sweden, I can only agree that the term "Swedes" is conceptual, not inherited. There is only one all-absorbant culture in Sweden (and Denmark), and this consensus-driven culture changes slowly for each generation, slowly adding the influx of immigrants to the homogenic cultural pool. There is even an official statistical prasing called "Swedes born outside Sweden". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever studied "cultures and their evolution"? I suspect not. Claims of some mythical distinct 'tribal' ancestry are used to "drive peoples apart" a damned sight more often than assertions that people can (indeed, must) define their ethnicity for themselves. In any case, can you provide evidence that anyone ever self-identified as 'Germanic' ethnically? Did your imaginary ancestral tribes? I very much doubt it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, when you'd like to be civil instead of contemplating the level of my ignorance out loud, we can discuss the topic further.

@Maunus, I don't think we are as far apart as you expect. I completely agree on Swedification, Finnization, et al. and peoples originally of one culture being assimilated by force—or choice—into another, usually neighboring, culture. My point is simply that cultural assimilation does not make the cultures involved any more intrinsically "related" than they were before, nor does it change the roots of the dominant culture. Obviously customs bleed over, but in all my readings ethnic identity is remarkably resilient. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. On that, that does mean we do disagree on Swedes and Finns being "related," regardless of cross-cultural assimilation or amalgam (you, yes, myself, no). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultures don't have roots. They are not organisms. There are no criteria to determine whether to cultures are more or less related or not. But we are not discussing this here - that was in the section above. HEre we are discussing whether we need to describe the Swedish ethno-national group as "germanic". I am saying that we don't because there is no evidence that Swedes consider themselves to be more Germanic than (indo-)European or Scandinavian or Nordic etc. It is choosing an arbitary description based on a particular sockpuppeteering editors fetich for the adjective "germanic" and its connotations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, if you accuse me of doing "a disservice to the studies of cultures and their evolution", are you surprised that I respond in kind? And as for your comments about the resilience of 'ethnic identity', they are entirely at odds with the evidence (both historical and genetic) already presented. Nobody in contemporary Scandinavia (or indeed elsewhere in Europe) will have 'roots' that go back exclusively to some single 'tribe' from 2000 years or so ago, when the 'Germanic' peoples were first described as such - by outsiders. The simple fact is that ethnicity is a social construct, not a pre-ordained, inherited and immutable 'fact'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, hadn't thought about this one in a while until reminded. I see that we will perhaps never agree. Still, I feel compelled to make the point that by your theorem of pure social construct, the entire field of anthropology is moot except for the part about what people call themselves. Any individual "Swede" can call themselves whatever they like and divorce themselves, by application of label or denial thereof, from any past lineage. But that does not render that lineage immaterial or superfluous either for that individual or the ethno-linguistic group they are part of. Lineage does not go "poof"—either appearing or disappearing—just because an individual might will it to be so. Swedish is Germanic, the Swedes are ethno-linguistically and culturally Germanic.

@Maunus, in looking back, I have no idea what you mean by "sockpuppeteering editors fetich [sic.] for the adjective 'germanic' and its connotations." What possible "connotations" are you talking about? There are no connotations, merely ethno-linguistic cultural heritage and lineage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any changes at this point, I am attempting to establish what we mean, in the first place, by "Swede", and to have a conversation about that which does not involve insulting other editors, dismissing editors who disagree as sockpuppets, and making utterly vague implications about "germanic" which I can only infer as indicating "germanic" is something filthy. Perhaps I can have a more reasoned conversation with Philaweb, see below, feel free to continue our dialog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been invited here b a user. Though I am not too familiar with Swedish history, I do know that Swedes are at least strongly related to Germanic people - there are many Google Books search results for "Swedes Germanic people" that specifically say that Swedes are a Germanic people.[2]. Germanic people are an ethnic family, as for a specific ethnic group, that depends on specific characteristics as related to the geneaology, geography, customs, etc.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, proof by Google. Some comparative figures:

Swedes "germanic people" About 4,120 results

Irish "germanic people" About 4,020 results

Japanese "germanic people" About 2,270 results

Fish "germanic people" About 3,250 results

We don't base articles on what 'we know', or on Google hits. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I know that my contribution was not appreciated here by AndyTheGrump whom I've encountered before, well goodbye Andy I don't want to waste my life arguing with you with you replying with nasty condescending remarks. Adieu.--R-41 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid. Swedes form a genetic cluster with other Germanic people, but they also form a cluster together with Northern European people, Swedes are for instance genetically closer to Finnish people than Germans or Dutch people. So the best definition is that Swedes are a Northern European people, based on genetics. Also, you cannot be an ethnic Swede if you don't have Swedish blood, claiming otherwise means that you are a racist, because you deny Swedes the right to exist separated from Arabs, Africans etc. We are not Africans and Africans are not Swedes, let's not complicate things that are that obvious! It's only intellectually dishonest (like Stephen Jay Gould for instance). 46.194.232.69 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So adopted people are not Swedish? Aaker (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden 1/16 Swedish (and that is counting Gustav V as fully Swedish although he was in fact half German) 2/16 English, 9/16 German and 1/4 Brazilian-Portuguese. Not much Swedish blood there and it becomes less the further back in time you go. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up so it's not buried above

@Philaweb, there are those Swedes I know (Swedes born outside Sweden) who strongly identify with their ethno-linguistic lineage, customs, and cultural background. Indeed, Sweden funds Swedish-language schooling abroad in all things Swedish for families where at least one parent is a Swedish citizen. So, if being a Swede is merely a concept, what, exactly, culturally, is being preserved and passed on in such schooling? History, literature, geography, these are all merely subjects unless they are bound together at a cultural level into something that is more than the sum of its parts. By the "merely a concept" rule, then what is being passed on cannot be any more than a concoction of pseudo-cultural artifacts directed at manufacturing one's sense of self to be a "Swede"—whatever that is. I posit it's more than some Franken-cultural amalgam.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, rather, attempting (and apparently failing) to make the point that without a specific past: heritage, language, customs,..., there is no such thing as ethno-linguistic or cultural identity, merely a self-identifying label devoid of further inherent significance.

One cannot be a member of an ethnic group while effectively disavowing the past as immaterial. Otherwise, today I can say "I am a Latvian." And tomorrow I can say "Today, I am no longer a Latvian, I am a Swede." (Even though my maternal grandfather was a Ķulle, that doesn't give such a contention any more basis in reality.) The fallacy of the self-identity argument is that it takes the case of one person, and the notion that an individual can hypothetically change/assume an ethnic identity just as someone can become a member of another religion—or create a new religion where one did not exist before (and can one, really?), and projects that to the entire group that is that ethnic identity. That ethnic identity has a historical, linguistic, cultural, migratory,... heritage which is immutable. Any one person can choose what "past" they apply to their self-identity, but no one can change or deny the past. I can choose to move to Sweden, learn Swedish language and customs, claim to connect with my (minority) Swedish heritage, but I will always be a Latvian in Swedes' clothing. Nor is there anything I can contend about the origin of the Latvian culture which makes it something which is other than what it is. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am using Swedes as an example only, this can be applied to any nationality. Swedes born outside Sweden are Swedes by choice – whether emigrants or immigrants. They choose to become or keep on being Swedes. But, Swedish emigrants who choose to stay "Swedish", and does not stay in touch with the Swedish culture, will become relicts, a Swedish culture of has been Sweden – not Swedes as those living in Sweden. The past is not immaterial, but living in the past does not equal a culture on another place on this earth. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the example only part, just as my invoking personal Swedish background was to assist (I hope) in making my argument. Putting what you said another way... let's say a Swedish couple emigrate have a child and raise it "Swedish" but are, as well, disconnected from Sweden and Swedish life—your relicts. At the time of their emigration, they were friends with another couple who remained in Sweden, had a child, etc., etc.

Regardless whether Swedes frozen in time or Swedes moving forward in time, both families are Swedes who are products of (up to that point) a common cultural past. A past which informs us as to who is, and forms, the "Swede." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, you have not calculated with the time factor. If your conclusion would have been: "A past which informs us as to who were, and formed, the Swede", I could agree. Unfortunately, time does not work in the favour of your argument. For every generation that passes, your argument becomes weaker, and after a century with disconnection from the mother-culture, I am not sure the emigree Swede has much in common with Swedes in Sweden, than whatever you may find in any ethnographic museum.

The conceptual part of being a Swede is applied to immigrants. They are supposed to integrate, to become Swedish, regardless of their gene pool. Theoretically speaking, I am not sure how well a century disconnected Swede would integrate that well to what today is, and forms Sweden. (PS. I really hope my point is clear. My English is rusty, and I am not sure whether I am making this understandable) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It arguably isn't 'A past which informs us as to who is, and forms, the "Swede",' so much as our contemporary interpretation of that past - there has been a long, and often heated debate on this subject within the humanities and social sciences, but I think it can safely be said that nobody now sees 'a common cultural past' as an unproblematic 'object', from which later cultures can be said to have been descended - and in this particular case, was there ever a 'Swedish culture' which was both unique, and indivisible? I doubt it very much. If past Swedes didn't have as many conflicting and contradictory ideas about who they were as the rest of humanity routinely seems to, they may well be unique - but somehow, I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedes in Sweden are unique in at least one way (together with the Swiss). There has not been war on Swedish soil for 200 years, which means few to no conflicting and contradictory ideas about their national identity. It is typical for Nordic nations to have a very homogenic population with relatively little immigration up and until about a century ago. WWI and the Russian revolution actually broke the prevalence of Germannic culture in Sweden, and WWII burried it in all of the Nordic countries. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that being Swedish is not a "concept", Occam's razor. 46.194.232.69 (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Amending the photo montage

I'd like to propose expanding the photo montage in the infobox by one row. One promising candidate for inclusion is Amelia Andersdotter. She is highly notable as the youngest Member of the European Parliament. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

She is unknown to the public. Anybody included should be as wellknown as the Swedes already there. Thuresson (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The number of ethnic Swedes in Sweden is about 7 million (SCB)

Statistics show that the number of ethnic Swedes is approximately 7 million. The statistics is based on the prewar population, so it is the most accurate estimate of the ethnic Swedish population.

Page 117, Immigration and emigration in the postwar period. Year: 2004. Person: Nilsson, Åke. Publisher: Stockholm (SCB)

"How has postwar migration affected Sweden's population?

One direct consequence of postwar migration is that the number of foreign-born persons increased by nearly 1 million during the period from 1945 to 2003. Indirectly, immigration has also contributed to both more births and deaths. According to our calculations, immigration contributed around 1 million births between 1945-2003. Immigrants are young when they arrive in Sweden and belong to a selective group of people with a low mortality rate. The number of deaths among immigrants and their children is still low, at only 140 000. The calculated birth surplus is 870 000, which is almost as large as the immigration surplus, 970 000. Migration between 1945-2003 has thus contributed to an additional 1 840 000 people in Sweden. In comparison, it can be mentioned that, from the end of 1944 to 2003, Sweden's population increased by 2 380 000 people. Therefore, without migration, the birth surplus would only amount to 540 000, according to the calculations."

Note that the Swedish population numbered nine million in year 2003, meaning that the ethnic Swedish population (including pre-ww2 finnish, Jewish and other ethnicities in Sweden) in 2003 was roughly: 9,000,000 - 1,840,000 = 7,160,000.

Link to pdf file http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0701_1950I02_BR_BE51ST0405.pdf

I remember a recent report citing an approximate population of roughly 6,900,000 Swedes. I will try my best to find it, if I remember it correctly it is from SCB.

Signature: --81.235.166.67 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have a reasonable approximation of ethnic Swedes?

Yes anyone? I remember finding a research paper stating <7 million, however this article states >7 million which obviously is an overestimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.166.67 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition?

What is the definition of an ethnic Swede? Is it self identification? Aaker (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any. Self-identification is the only thing we have to go by.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is phenotypicaly & ethnicaly Swedish. All European nations share Haplogroups with each other. As an ethnic group Swedes, Norwegians, & Danes do not differ much. Phenotypicaly you can tell a Scandinavian from most other Europeans no matter whether fair or not. For example, a blonde Russian & a blonde British cannot pass as a typical Scandinavian. In the same way that a dark haired Scandinavian looks entirely different from a dark haired Brit or Pole. This idea that all Caucasians are "the same" seems to be some new world American invention. Its not reality though. It is a shame the new world idealogy has entered and poisoned the mind of westerners. Apparently groups in Asia can be "ethnic groups" but according to new world idealogy all caucaisans = the same. Its just another ploy to destroy European identities and shove multiculturalism down our throats. All European countries have people where phenotypes are more & less common. Europe is actualy the most heterogeneous continent on the planet, more phenotypes and groups have survived within the Caucasian race than they have with any other group. Look up the Anthropology groups of Europe. New Worlders are deluded and do not have a clue of what Caucasians other than the British look like, mostly due to the British colonial history, so the new worlder idea of white is "British", they portray the British as everything from Italians, to French, to Scandinavians, whom ever in films because the average American is incapable of recognizing a difference. To us, we all knew Chris Hemsworth who played Thor in the Avengers looked obviously Anglo and not Scandinavian at all. They think you can just put blonde hair on anyone and have them look like a Norsemen, not the way it works. The same way putting dark hair on a Scandinavian doesn't make them look Italian. America makes a habit of these sort of things, in America an Anglo can pass as a Greek a Slavic can pass as an Italian. They have Paul Wesley, a Pole who obviously looks like a Pole playing an "Italian". Gerard Butler, an Irishmen playing a Greek neither look anything like an ethnic to us who know the phenotypes between different European groups.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:88F1:4AC1:A7EF:43C3 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Islam in Infobox

A couple of users have been editwarring to insert "Islam" as a religion in the infobox. Islam accounts for about 5% of the population in Sweden. I basically don't have an opinion on this, but it raises the question of what the infobox is for and how large a minority has to be in order to be included. This should be consistent across wikipedia I think - or at least be based on an actual local consensus here on the talkpage before a decision is made to include. So what are the arguments for and against including minority religions? Discuss here:·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How many of the Muslims in Sweden are ethnic Swedes? Basically the argument against including non-ethnic Swedes in the article about ethnic Swedes is that this article is about ethnic Swedes and not about other people. Aaker (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about all swedes, not just "ethnic swedes" - being a Swede is to be a citizen of Sweden, and to identify as a Swede.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're right we certainly have to change the introduction to this article which now reads:

"This article is about the Swedes as an ethnic group. For information on the population of Sweden, see Demographics of Sweden. For the ancient Germanic tribe, see Swedes (Germanic tribe). Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a nation and ethnic group native to Sweden, mostly inhabiting Sweden and the other Nordic countries, with descendants living in a number of countries."

Also we would have to create a separate article named Swedes (ethnic group), since it is one of the largest ethnic groups in Northern Europe. Aaker (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It used to say "ethnic group and nation", as the definition. I doubt you can find any reliable literature that distinguishes between Swedish citizens and ethnic swedes. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Also we would have to create a separate article named Swedes (ethnic group)" very good idea! i support it! 95.199.199.39 (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article currently starts off with:

This article is about the Swedes as an ethnic group. For information on the population of Sweden, see Demographics of Sweden. For the ancient Germanic tribe, see Swedes (Germanic tribe).

If you take an article about an ethnic group, and move all information about that ethnic group somewhere else, what's left? If there's anything at all, that's the part that should be moved somewhere else. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ʍaunus said "This article is about all swedes not just ethnic swedes and the article is not about swedes because swedes are not just a nation they are also a germanic ethnic group Abminostropkov (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Germanic ethnic group. There are Germanic languages and ethnic groups that speak those languages - almost all of which (except perhaps Afrikaaners and Frisians and Ålanders are also Nations).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that User:Maunus is incorrect. Information about Swedes as an ethnic group goes in this article, information about Swedes as an nation goes into Demographics of Sweden, and I just sent Swedes (ethnic group) up for deletion as an unnecessary content fork. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no distinction between Swedes as an ethnic group and Swedes as a nation. You need to present literature that makes such a distinction to make this article only concern "ethnic swedes" whatever the hell that is. Also Demographics of Sweden is not about Swedes as a NAtion but about Swedish demographics - which is obviously not the same thing. If this article decides to distinguish between ethnic swedes and swedish citizens it is adopting a restrictive nationalist definition that is used by Swedish nativist politicians- who constitute a minority of Swedes - but which is not accepted by a majority of the swedish public. Right-wing ethno-nationalist agendas should not get to decide how to define topics on wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked for literature: [3] "Ett illustrativt exempel i detta sammanhang är diskussionerna om skiljaktigheter som finns mellan etniska svenskar och människor med utländsk bakgrund. I det senare fallet är det inte i första hand geografiskt avstånd som spelar den avgörande rollen, utan snarare andra faktorer som kulturella föreställningar och traditioner, religiösa föreställningar och sociala koder. Etniska och religiösa minoriteter tenderar att tillskrivas denna egenskap som någonting främmande. En grupp människor, som i själva verket inte utgör någon enhetlig grupp men gärna och ofta framställs som om de vore det, och som får gestalta det främmande är muslimer. De ses som en grupp människor som inte hör hemma i en europeisk kontext som dessutom omhuldar religiösa och kulturella föreställningar som ligger långt ifrån de europeiska normerna och värderingarna. Ett flertal opinionsundersökningar visar denna tydliga tendens." ; [4] ("Swede's" attitudes towards Islam, unfortunately too many Swedes have a negative view of Islam); [5] (Examples of Ethnification of Islam Among Young Muslims in Sweden and the United States) ... There's probably more if you search for them. Aaker (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nativist politicians"? Sweden's Prime minister Reinfeldt: "det är inte korrekt att beskriva Sverige som i ett läge med massarbetslöshet. Om man tittar på etniska svenskar mitt i livet så har vi mycket låg arbetslöshet." --37.3.35.221 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

Although it's a sensitive topic, I've added a section about Swedishness and integration of immigrants because I consider it very important with regards to the present ethno-demograpic situation. However, most sources I used are not academic and I think more "serious" literature is needed in order to give a fairer picture of inter-ethnic relations in Sweden, with regards to the Swedes as the majority ethnic groups. Aaker (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, [6] I think this material is of more relevance to an article on Swedish politics than this one. If it is to remain, it will need substantial improvement in sourcing. I'm not sure it needs a top-level section heading either. I see that you have restored the section. This is entirely contrary to WP:BRD policy, and I ask you to self-revert, while we wait for others to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I think at least a mention of inter-ethnic relations in general should be noted is that it is a major issue in Sweden. It's somehow impossible to speak about ethnic Swedes without mentioning their relation to other ethnic groups and the liminal position of immigrants. Also in academic circles there is a lot of research conducted about Swedishness and self identification of Swedish born people and different ethnic groups and the relations between them. Hopefully, I will add this research instead, but unfortunately it requires much more effort. I'm also aware that the section somehow got a negative twist, which was not intended, and it would be great to add some positive "news" too like the fact that Swedes gradually are becoming more positive towards immigration. Aaker (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

More citation from academic sources would certainly be welcome. The article you link above certainly looks very relevant, though I'm relying on Google translate for understanding. It probably helps balance the largely-negative reporting in the mass media, which tends to focus on dramatic events rather than on everyday realities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are Swedes really an ethnic group?

I came across Wikipedia's article about the Orania enclave in South Africa. It is a small community of white Afrikaners (boers). In the discussion page a case was made that the citizens' of Oranias ban against other groups to settle in Orania isn't racist because they are enacting their right to associate according to the United Nations resolution 47/135. And that this right may be claimed because they're an ethnic group according to the UN.

UH Swedes are more of an ethnic group than most other Europeans, same with Eastern Europeans. Most western Europeans from the Germans to the French, to the British share an affinity with R1b haplogroup, the complete opposite of Eastern Europe & Scandinavia who have little R1b input. The Scandinavians are the last remaining "mostly germanic" people. They call the Dutch, English, & Germans Germanic, but its only cultural. The Dutch, English, & Germans are very mixed they had celtic influence, mediterranean influence, and even Eastern Germany had slavic influence, they're far from being as Germanic as Scandinavians are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:88F1:4AC1:A7EF:43C3 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

With this in mind. Can you really claim that Swedes are an "official" ethnic group? Do Swedes for instance have the right to associate in such a way that they exclude people of other "ethnicities"? Also are Swedes even an ethnic group according to the UN? I don't see how a group that lacks the right to associate in this fashion and who isn't even seen as an ethnicity by the UN can be considered a people. Shouldn't this article then be about Swedes as a nationality rather than as an ethnic group? 90.141.33.29 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on a Wikipedia talk page isn't a reliable source for anything. And as far as I can see, the article makes no claim that Swedes are an 'official' ethnic group - merely that they are an ethnic group in the sense that it is usually used, in as much as they consider themselves to be (which, in simple terms, is how ethnicity is generally defined: as a self-identification). Also, note that the UN resolution refers to "...Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities" - which clearly isn't applicable to Swedes as a whole. Regarding Swedes being a 'nationality', the article states that "Swedes are a nation and ethnic group native to Sweden, mostly inhabiting Sweden and the other Nordic countries, with descendants living in a number of countries". The 'nation' concerned is clearly Sweden (though not all persons of Swedish nationality may be ethnically Swedish) - many ethnic Swedes live elsewhere, and have other nationalities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you define self-identification? A person that is born in Sweden with two foreign born parents might see him- or herself as a Swede. The stats used at the moment is of "Swedes" being born to at least one native (Sweden) parent.

I'd have thought that the definition of self-identification was fairly obvious - it is how people identify themselves, when asked about their ethnicity. As for 'stats', which are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The one in the info box. See "Regions with significant populations". The number given for the number of Swedes are people born in Sweden to at least one native parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.3.9.108 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd missed that. As with all such statistics, they tend to over-simplify things. There can't really be an objective measure for something as inherently subjective as ethnicity anyway. People may give different answers to the same question, depending on the context. They may revise their own self-identity over time. They may even give intentionally-misleading answers. A census is a crude tool for assessing such things. Anyway, this talk page is intended for matters relating to improving the article, rather than as a general forum for discussions of Swedish ethnicity. Unless you have a specific proposal for changes to the article, I think we'd best call a halt here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading quote

The article states that Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt was criticized for his use of the term "ethnic Swede". That is not completely true. He was criticized for undermining the high unemployment rate by saying that the unemployment rate is quite low if you only count "ethnic Swedes who are in mid-life". The critic was mainly about him undermining the issue of all unemployed who are young or born in another country. I think that sentence just should be removed, for it serves no purpose in that context. /(an Icelandic Swede) Mariasif (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Markus Persson

You should seriously consider adding Markus Persson (creator of Minecraft) to the portraits of famous Swedish people. He is really well known. It's just a suggestion.JohnnyR997 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is really comparable to Linneaus, Nobel and Celsius.... or not. Aaker (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The first known dwelling place, found in southern Sweden, dates from around 12,000 BC.

http://sweden.se/society/history-of-sweden/ This is Sweden's government website and they know there own history. The language is German based not the people. Facts are Germany does not have a DNA project!. So how can you prove they have Germanic blood. And Swedish peoples DNA is most similar in ratios to other Central European countries like Czech Republic and Poland. Google, Jomsborg, Jomsborg Vikings, Skane slavic, Skane slavic pottery, slavic pagans, King Eric of Pomerania Does it hurt to do a little research?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.7.110 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'Genetics' section

Much of the material cited in the 'Genetics' section is now inaccessible, in that it is cited to bare URL broken links. This clearly needs rectifying, with proper full citations identifying source document, publisher, author etc. If anyone can help identifying the sources, it would be much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Errors with Swedish Paternal Haplogroups

The assertion that I1d1, i.e., I1-P109 is the dominant paternal haplogroup, is incorrect. It is I1-M253 that constitutes a plurality, of which I1-L22+ and its subclades constitute a majority. Of the L22+ subclades, roughly 1/3rd are P109+, 1/3rd are Z74+, and the others are P109- Z74-. Additionally, a significant fraction, perhaps up to 50%, of Swedish I1 is L22- and represented mostly by the other DF29+ subclades, including I1-Z58, I1-Z63, and I1-CTS6364(xL22), with only a small fraction falling DF29-. I can only imagine that similar assertions with regards to the subclades of R1a and R1b are also incorrect. This section on genetics is in dire need of rewriting with correct figures and use of current haplogroup designations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.102.70 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

An analysis of the publically available data at Swedish DNA Project at Familytreedna demonstrates the following:

• I1-M253 — 40%
  • I1-L22- — 18.3%
    • I1-Z58 — 6%
      • I1-Z73+ L1302+ — 1%
    • I1-Z63 — ~1%
    • I1-unspecified — 10%
  • I1-L22+ — 22%
    • I1-Z74+ — 10%
      • I1-L813+ — 1.8%
      • I1-L287+ — 1.8%
      • I1-Z74* — 6%
    • I1-P109+ — 2%
    • I1-L22+ unspecified — 10%
• R1b — 22%
• R1a — 18%
• N — 8%
• I2 — 4%
• Q — 4%
• E — 2%
• G — 1.4%
• J — 0.5%

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.102.70 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a big Population count error here

As because of there being 9.7 million Swedes, as on the contrary of 7.6

Because 20% of Sweden's population are actually foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.153.196 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Swedes as an ethnicity - it includes for example the 4.3 million people self-identifying as being of Swedish ethnicity in the United States. As with all ethnicity-based demographic data, there can be no exact numbers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

the united states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.37.30 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous edit warring

User Inhakito constantly made extensive edits that seemed irrelevant and then Peter Isolato came forward to fix the error which I thought would put an end to the problem. But Inhakito again constantly making edits without being clear. Even though I didn't see that the sources were defunct, I am willing to look for a source in regards to Swedish Brazilians, even though it's hard to find one, doesn't mean there aren't any people of Swedish descent in Brazil. (N0n3up (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC))

The statement is not backed up by the sources provided. The reason is that they consist of dead links or have changed. In that sense Inhakito was right to remove the source. Anyone who reverts such a removal should be expected to fix the sources or at the very least mark the links as broken. It's up to the user who wants to keep a de facto unreferenced fact to provide a reference.

Also, I strongly dislike having long lists of dinky stats in infoboxes. They obscure nuances, are prone to black-and-white definitions of complicated issue and often result in pointless conflicts like this one. They are difficult to to update and tend to go out of sync with, or even contradict, article content.

The issue of how a Swede is defined is way too complicated and should not be presented with pseudo-exactness. I believe we should reduce the infobox to just the overall figures for native Swedish-speakers, Swedish citizens and ancestors of Swedish emigrants. The rest should be dealt with in the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@N0n3up: Just undo your reversal. If you find a source regarding Swedes in Brazil, then you can add it to the article (and check that it has not been a product of citogenesis), but until then that unbacked statement must be removed.

P.S. How could you argue "Did you even read it?" when you did not read it, as you have later recognized? ★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 06:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo gallery

Obviously the selection of Swedes in the photo gallery will necessarily have an element of randomness, and probably no two editors would favor exactly the same selection. That said, I always kind of stumble when I see Annika Sörenstam in there. Nothing against her, and it's good to have as many women as possible, but a golfer, however successful? Golf is a small sport. Women's golf is a really small sport. And she's the only sports personality in the gallery! No Björn Borg, no Zlatan. To have two currently popular singers in the gallery is absurd too btw. (Though the notion, mooted above, of defining Loreen as "not Swedish" because her parents are foreign born is so distasteful to me that I'd vote to keep her in the gallery just for that.) For more women, an obvious suggestion would be to replace Björn Ulvaeus by Agneta Fältskog, and prince Carl Philip by his sister Victoria, the heir apparent. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Very valid pointers regarding Sörenstam and Carl Philip, so I replaced them both; more notable examples with gender-balanced intact. And while Sanna Nielsen is fairly well-known in Sweden, she's obviously outmatched by Robyn in the notability department, so I made that switch as well.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Crowding the infobox

Regarding the recent back-and-forth[7] relating to the number of people in the infobox, the opinion among at least two editors, myself and Thomas.W, is that the infobox is definitely getting over-crowded. It's supposed to be a small sample of notable representatives of Swedes, not a constantly growing list of names. I urge those who want to add more faces motivate the additions.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It would also be nice if not people like you, Isotalo, did not try to change the subject of the article, from ethnic Swedes to Swedish citizens, by including non-ethnic Swedes to the gallery. You should at the very least consult the community before taking such a step, as the creation of additional articles might be necessary as this one loses its original meaning. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove Loreen from examples of Swedes.

While she was born in Sweden, this article is about the ethnic group which she obviously does not belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.194.130 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I am not convinced that this article is solely about the ethnic group - there is an entire section devoted to how immigrants play into Swedishness. Join in the discussion on Loreen above. Cannolis (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the ethnic group. First, there is a Genetic section and second, do you actually think there are 4,325,000 Americans with a Swedish passport and citizenship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.194.130 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This page has for years been about ethnic swedes, since when did this change? And was the change of Celsius, one of history's most important scientists, for Loreen, a Eurovision winner, based on "consensus"? Moreover, with the change you are pushing for to move the subject of the article from Ethnic Swedes to Swedish citizens, we are now lacking an article for ethnic Swedes instead. You are just creating new issues this way. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the accountless anon, an important historical figure has been replaced with an absoloute nobody. She represents no one and has done nothing. And to top it off you actually removed someone genuinely more notable (PewDiePie). You are making up the rules as you go along to fit your own agenda very clearly. EEEEEE1 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just use the gallery from the Swedish version? That seems like a perfectly good solution to this whole feud. 46.249.225.1 (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think thats a reasonable solution EEEEEE1 (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed it as per consensus EEEEEE1 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, have no horse in this race, just did not feel the change appropriate for a edit request when there was discussion over the same issue earlier this month. Cannolis (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@EEEEEE1: Three editors, none of whom has ever contributed to the article before but just showed up for the first time (and in fact have only about 50 edits in total on en-WP between them, with the two IPs having only a few each), "discussing" it for about an hour at a time of day and week when none of the regular editors is active, giving no-one else a chance to take part in the discussion, is NOT a valid consensus. Thomas.W ^talk 13:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

When they come they can discuss it, in the meantime this edit is fine and logical and everyone here has agreed on it. There is no reason to revert it. EEEEEE1 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I also forgot to say that the version you are reverting it to is not even complete, there are spaces left. Why are you reverting it from an agreed upon and complete version to an incomplete version no one agrees on? EEEEEE1 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The addition of Loreen and removal of Celsius is the action of a single editor, done without any discussion what so ever. This is somehow OK? The edit that started this whole debate seems politically motivated. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And your actions aren't? Removing Loreen with the claim that she's not a "real" Swede is clearly politically motivated. A single autoconfirmed editor editing a semi-protected article, backed up on the talk page by multiple IPs, none of whom have ever edited the article and all edit in the same style, seems like an organized attempt, by a single person or a small group, to make the article reflect a certain political view. And that's not how we do things here on en-WP. Thomas.W ^talk 13:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You are deflecting the heart of the matter, with a very elitistic tone. One man is pretty much trying to change the subject of the article by his own. I don't belong to a group or organisation, Wikipedia is open to everybody and my previous non-involvement shouldn't matter. See my comment on Swedish hate crime laws above, there IS a clear distinction in Swedish law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.215.25 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

... and by the way, "real" Swede is a very interesting way of using words. We're discussing the difference between ethnicity and citizenry. You seem to assume that she somehow is of lesser value if she can't be considered ethnically Swedish --217.211.215.25 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if Loreen is in that gallery or not, and I care even less about which political views you have, but I very much care about how things are being done here. I revert POV-pushing on a very wide range of articles every day, including ethnical/political/religious/caste motivated POV-pushing on articles relating to many different countries in different parts of the world, and regularly see both single individuals and small groups try to do what you're trying to do, create a fake consensus and then push things through. So it's not the first time, and you're not going to get your way unless you're supported by editors who regularly edit this article. Thomas.W ^talk 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to accuse me of something Thomas? All I am saying is that the page as you keep reverting it to is incomplete. I did not read the other parts of the talk page so I would not know that there is a problem about this and I do not see why there should be a problem about this. It seems that one man changed it and everyone else is trying to change it back, but what I am doing is just trying to make it complete again by just using the Swedish Wikipedia version, which I dont see the wrong in doing. Either way its almost entirely the same people and the Swedish wikipedia has more important people in it as I understand from my knowledge of Swedish history. This one doesnt even have Gustavus Adolphus or Carolus Rex.

I do understand now that there isnt a full consensus now but what is the harm in having the one I did in the meantime? After all isnt a fully done proper version what we are going for anyway? EEEEEE1 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that this all looks very suspicious to someone who has seen as much here as I have. This is a semi-protected article and you, an autoconfirmed user, which is what it takes to edit semi-protected articles, suddenly pops up out of nowhere, escorted and cheered on by a handful of IPs that have never edited the article, who along with you create a fake consensus "supporting" the edit you make. At a time and date of the week when none of the regular editors here can be expected to be active... Thomas.W ^talk 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe theyre Swedish? I havent done anything and I dont know who they are. I just think it looks bad with empty spaces and I agree with whoever it was that Nobel shoudnt be replaced with some random eurovision singer for political reasons. I just thought it was a good solution taking it from the Swedish Wikipedia. EEEEEE1 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• And I'm going to take a good look at The Swedish Wikipedia (yes, I'm fluent in Swedish) and see when, how and by whom that collage was made. The way you've found your way around here from day one is also way beyond what you'd expect from a new user, so I'll take a good look at that too. Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at what? I just edit articles I read, and this isnt my first account. I forgot the password to my old one and wanted to start again anyway. Im not sure why this is such a big deal that you would need to look through my history. As for Swedish Wikipedia I have no clue as this was the first time I have visited it. EEEEEE1 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"replaced Celsius with Loreen; she's representative of modern, multi-ethnic Swedes (and we don't need two 18th c. scientists" is the original change that we are debating, made by Peter Isotalo 18th of May. You can't complain about POV-pushing and defend this change without looking like a massive hypocrite. I'm asking for status quo which is way less politically charged than the previous quote. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas, I am going to be blunt. You are a idiot and you seem to be arguing just to argue. Furthermore you seem to lack any sort of education or knowledge about the term ethnicity, national identity or citizenship. Those are different things. Loreen is a citizen of Sweden, that does not make her a ethnic Swede. She might identify with the Swedish national identify. However this Wikipedia article is about the Swedish ethnicity. Most people would have seen the logical error at this point. Yet here we have two individuals who are blatantly pushing a agenda against all established academic work on a relatively straight forward topic such a definition of ethnicity. Allow me to use the definition of ethnicity as provided by Wikipedia; An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc. Loreen is obviously not part of the ethnic Swedish group. That does not make her any less of a Swedish citizen nor does it mean she cannot identify with the Swedish national identity. But it does not make her a ethnic Swede. User:guywhoactuallywenttotheuniverisity (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.184.129 (talk)

Next time I suggest that you a) read the discussion you're entering, because if you had done that you would have known that my revert had nothing to do with Loreen, it was all about how the "consensus" for it was achieved, and b) don't hide behind an IP that might very well be a proxy (considering that it is blacklisted as a spamsource in several blacklist-databases). Thomas.W ^talk 17:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My IP? Its in the normal range for my ISP, which is the biggest in the country and owned by the government.EEEEEE1 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh his lol EEEEEE1 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@EEEEEE1: ???? I didn't make any connection between you and the dutch Ziggo IP (the one that might very well be a proxy), but if you say that IP was you I guess I'll have to believe you. Ziggo isn't owned by the government, though, but maybe you were thinking of TeliaSonera? Thomas.W ^talk 09:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont really understand what you are saying EEEEEE1 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas, you are of course an idiot, our "univerisity" educated friend said so! All ad hominem aside, I would suggest that we add Sebastian Ingrosso, Alesso, or another Swedish DJ, as they are much more globally recognizable than Loreen, modern day people, and are also ethnically Swedish, basically which is what everyone wants. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)