Talk:Ethnic Swedes

to revert or to edit
All in all, I think the edit of May 16th was an improvement to this article, and it being reverted instead of being edited on makes me concerned. It doesn't exactly motivate to participating in the editing, if one has reason to suspect that one's work is at danger for getting hastily wiped out. Which is bad, since as the article stands now, I think it's in need of some improvements. Please consider the discussions at Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version and Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version/Poll: Revert wars considered harmful! --Ruhrjung 10:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This in not an NPOV article as it is now, it represents a Finnish nationalist viewpoint (note that only the parts regarding Finland are changed, not the parts regarding Estonia and Ukraine). Please make additions to the article instead of censoring it. I started this article, and now some Finnish nationalists are trying to change this to a Finnish nationalist viewpoint. Of course could this Finnish nationalist viewpoint be represented in the article, but not on the expense of removing the other viewpoints! That is, add the Finnish nationalist viewpoint if you want to, but don't censor the other viewpoint. Den fjättrade ankan 15:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It's rather pointless to blame me for nationalism at all - particularly of Finnish nationalism, as I've never lived in Finland (although I've visited Helsinki, Turku and surroundings many times). I contributed with what I consider to be my knowledge and experience, based mainly on first-hand impressions from having worked in Denmark (with both "ethnically Swedish" collegues and such with experience of being immigrants in Sweden) and having lived myself a couple of years in Sweden.


 * In addition, I tried to integrate those parts of the reverted article that as far as I know were correct &mdash; or likely to be correct. The issue on Finland-Swedes and their self-designation of ethnicity is no simple question, and I fear one has to stick to weasel phrases there. When it comes to the number of the Finland-Swedes, it's of course nice of you to inflate their number, but I really can not see the point. They have diminished in relative size since the early 19th century, and that's not changed by clinging on to old figures.


 * I motivated my actions clearly above, and the impression you make would most likely gain from a repetition of the advices at Civility.
 * Ruhrjung 17:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "Finnish nationalist point of view"? Maybe a "Finland-Swedish nationalist point of view"? In any case, hardly a Fennoman point of view, since they would be happy to send all the impure Swedophones back to the (Southern half of the) Scandinavian peninsula where, in their opinions, whimps as they belong. ;-))


 * May I focus your attention on the matter of size? The Rikssvenskar are about 30 times as many as the Finland-Swedes, who in turn are about ten times as many as the Ålänningar. Can we maybe see the arrogance of the larger groups represented here, when the smaller groups' self-designation seemingly are considered irrelevant. /Tuomas 07:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

English language context
This part should be revised by some with English as their native language. I don't agree with this, especially distingusihing between the inhabitants of Åland and the Finland-Swedes in Mainland Finland. In Sweden both the inhabitants of Åland and the Swedish speaking minority in Mainland Finland are considered Finland-Swedes.
 * In the 1920s the tone from Stockholm was quite another. At that time you went to the League of Nations to demand the Åland islands (that you had occupied for a few weeks in 1918) back from Finland. At that time you did what you could to emphasize Åland's closeness to Sweden - contrary to Nyland, Åbolands skärgård and Österbotten. Have you realized your wrongdoing, or has you appetite grown? /Tuomas 07:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

It's the Finns that make this distincten.
 * Out of courtesy rather than out of conviction. Many Ålänningar tend to become berserks if you call them Finns or Finland-Swedes. But among the younger ones, "Finns" and occasionally "Swedish speaking Finns" get more and more common. /Tuomas 07:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think a person with English as their native language would resolve this conflict about the English language context, not persons with Swedish or finnish as their native language. Den fjättrade ankan 16:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * In an English language context, the concept of Ethnic Swedes may be used for:
 * People of Swedish heritage, typically immigrants to the Americas
 * Minorities outside of Sweden with Swedish mother tongue, who however might not designate themselves as "ethnically Swedish"
 * the inhabitants of the culturally and linguistically Swedish Åland
 * the Swedes living in the Estonian islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa (Estonia-Swedes)
 * the Swedes living in Gammalsvenskby (Old Swedish Village) in Ukraine.
 * The 265,000 Finland-Swedes in Mainland Finland.

Also need comments about English language context for the article Swedes. Den fjättrade ankan 16:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

As this is the English wikipedia, the usage in Sweden and or Swedish is of no other interest than as to explain why the English usage might seem somewhat confusing and inconsistent. It's English usage that is at the center of interest &mdash; or at least ought to be! --Ruhrjung 17:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

msg:npov
According to NPOV dispute: If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

It would be nice to see what you consider to motivate the NPOV-dispute lable! --Ruhrjung 16:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You find the answer to that question if you read my comments above. Please read the other comments on a talk page beforeyou make comments yourself. Den fjättrade ankan 17:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here you've misunderstood me completely. It is your writings above which I don't understand as sufficient for showing the conflict-flag in the top of the article. You could have been far more exact in your critic and your proposals. Who knows, maybe you would have gained support for your modified wordings?


 * Unless you go into some detail on which sentences are harming Wikipedia's NPOV-guidelines, I prepar to take away the dispute-warning.
 * Ruhrjung 08:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Swedes
This article contains significant overlap with Swedes and I'm not convinced regarding the merit of an indepth and separate article for Ethnic Swedes. In one sense it seems to up hold a distinction of the Ethnic Swedes from the New Swedes as the reason for its existence. The relevant issues handled in the article could well be dealt within a single article covering the Swedes. The same need of separating Finns and Ethinic Finns, does not really exist for Swedes. Ethnic Swedes is still a relevant term but it should be merged and developed with the Swedes article. -- Mic 20:54, May 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I can't see the point in promoting this nominal distinction between people in Sweden and in diaspora that is apparently made in Swedish into article names in the English Wikipedia. The article Swedes should list and describe everything. --Shallot 22:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I've to carry the responsibility for giving the advice to write an article on Ethnic Swedes. I'm not sure if that was so much of an mistake, as you hold it to be, but if so, I offer my sincerest apologies. /Tuomas 06:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I still think that Ethnic Swedes is relevant term and substantially it would compose the bulk of the Swedes article. In this sense it seems a bit ridiculous to develop it as a separate article. It would be somewhat similar to developing an extensive and indepth article on Proper Swedish (Rikssvenska) only to keep it separate from a poorly developed article on the Swedish language. In some sense it is about structure, but it is also creating an environment able to reach a more exhaustive perspective. -- Mic 10:28, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

--

Just as a note. I know nothing at all about Swedes, but I've written a lot about Chinese identity on Taiwan, and its nice to know that things are just a complex and messy in another part of the world.

My advice is this


 * Focus your article on explaining why people are screaming at each other. One thing that I've learned is that identity disputes are very heated among people involved in them, but they are totally often incomprehesible to outsiders.


 * Explain naming and categorization controversies. Why does group A hate to be called B or lumped in with group C?


 * Quantify things, what are the sizes of the groups? What is the approximate support for the views.  Do most people in group A think B?  Some people?  Only the extremists?


 * Don't assume that outsiders know what you know. There are things about these disputes that "everyone knows" that outsiders don't.


 * Explain the history.


 * Focus on the unexpected and the complex. For example, there is a tendency to try to classify people into distinct groups, but I've found that this tends to far oversimplify a situation.


 * Try to avoid going into nitpick mode (i.e by the Treaty of X signed in 1685, shows clearly that Ebonian land was originally occupied by Batislavans). The trouble with these arguments is that you aren't going to convince insiders, and they are totally imcomprehenisble to outsiders.

One thing that I found is that I learned a lot about issues of Taiwanese identity by studying the Hungarians and the Romanians scream at each other. The main thing that I learned was how silly these disputes sometimes look to someone who isn't emotionally involved in them.

Roadrunner 07:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)