Talk:Immigration to Sweden/Archive 2

Graph y-axis edit war
The disputed graph may be rendered at this link. This is how scb.se presents the data with the y-axis as in graph image. 2017 data will be available at some point this year, the graph may need an update then. 1Kwords (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently IP address 130.241.34.166 belongs to Gothenburg University. 1Kwords (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Andel av befolkning behöriga till gymnasium efter födelseregion 1997-2015.png except Nordic Countries (blue), Outside Europe (green). Source Statistics Sweden.]]
 * Data from Statistics Sweden has been used to render the graph shown to the right. The data itself seems fine, but whoever created the graph using the data has unfortunately left out 0 from the vertical axis. If you know your graphs you would know that a percentage graph never should leave out 0 to give accurate proportions between the lines/bars/dots. For a pedagogic (and extreme) example, see this graph. Also please read Don't_draw_misleading_graphs. 83.252.117.151 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to double-check the tabular data. See this link, display the table as a line graph and it will be apparent that this is how scb.se renders the graph and they are expert statisticians. A Wikipedia essay is not a guideline and does not overrule expert statisticians at scb.se. The graph does not constitute "abuse", since ENWP is simply accurately representing the expert source material. The Y-axis is clearly labelled. 1Kwords (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, IP user, both Consensus (a policy, not an essay) and the expert source are against you. 1Kwords (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear registered user. You link to a tool made to allow users to extract tabular data and can hardly be interpreted as a professional endorsement of a vertical axis. I linked the essay Don't_draw_misleading_graphs since it is a gentle beginners guide on how a vertical axis are supposed to be formatted not be be perceived fraudulent. What consensus are you referring to and who are you quoting? 83.252.117.151 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus refers to myself and 3 other users who have already reverted your edit. After the deletion (bold) was first reverted, you should have started a discussion instead of doing further reverts per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Which beginners are you referring to? 1Kwords (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but you are avoiding the discussion. I stated in response to you: "Your link to a tool made to allow users to extract tabular data and can hardly be interpreted as a professional endorsement of a vertical axis. I linked the essay Don't_draw_misleading_graphs since it is a gentle beginners guide on how a vertical axis are supposed to be formatted not be be perceived fraudulent." 83.252.117.151 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither repeated statements by enwp editors nor essays by enwp editors change the fact that the graph is WP:V verifiable and from a WP:RS. That's the inclusion criteria for enwp material and those are the reasons your repeated deletions meet resistance. 1Kwords (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should necessarily assume that extent of the y-axis was chosen by expert statisticians. It's often chosen automatically by statistical software. I created a version that uses 0 as the origin - hopefully this will solve the issue. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous graph was published by a WP:RS and WP:V, hence outright deletion was never the right course of action. The graph you've done looks fine. Improving the graph with another versiom is more constructive than repeated deletion. Thanks! 1Kwords (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On a second look, the title in the graph is "too short", the graph shows up until 2016, not just 2015 as per title since the graphs pass the "2015" line. At least data is available until 2016 at scb.se. Style: The font of the title & attribution is relatively large, with the placement of the line legends this means that most real estate of the image is consumed by text, not the graph area. The scb.se image places the line legends below the graph area and has a smaller title, which makes the graph itself the main focus of the presentation. An alternative is to place the legend entirely in the caption below the image. The SCB attribution could be placed in the bottom left corner, that would free up some image real estate too. 1Kwords (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a new version that incorporates those suggestions: [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The graph looks fine, I experimented a little using a Template:Annotated image 4 as a means to give the image a header. Haven't used that template before, but it seems to give the option for both caption below and a header above.

How are Trump comments relevant to Crime section
How are Trump comments relevant? 1) Trump is not a criminologist just like Tino Sanandaji is not a criminologist. 2) Migration USA<=>Sweden insignificant while Trump is in office, while emigration Sweden->USA had an impact on Sweden in the 19th century. 3) Trump is not a politician elected in the immediate region of Sweden like, say, Europe. 4) For the sake of the research and editing efforts not going to waste, I propose that Trump comments are relevant to the Sweden-bashing article which this article could link to, from the Politics section. 1Kwords (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not and should be removed. I agree with the proposal.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence "In February 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that crime was surging in Sweden due to immigration" should be removed. The sentence "According to FactCheck.Org, Trump's claim was an exaggeration and noted that "experts said there is no evidence of a major crime wave."" can be changed to "According to FactCheck.Org, "experts said there is no evidence of a major crime wave" as a result of immigration, despite popular assertions to the contrary". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "experts said there is no evidence of a major crime wave" as a result of immigration, is WP:SYNTH, as since 2005 there are no public statistics which state how immigration affects crime levels. For instance, a crime wave caused by immigration may disappear if natives commit fewer crimes. Unless those experts publish statistics, we have to describe it as the opinion of said expert. Factless opinion carry less weight than opinion backed by public statistics. 1Kwords (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Factless opinion"? We go by what reliable sources say, even if we disagree with their analyses. If, and only if, something is WP:SPS, when we attribute that opinion to the author instead of stating it in Wikipedia's voice.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources say the analysis is based on 2005 statistics, we as editors are obligated to describe the analysis as valid for pre 2005 data. 1Kwords (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed that Trump is inexpert on the subject of crime in Sweden. Since he is not an expert, his comments are irrelevant to this article but not the article Sweden-bashing. One cannot argue that Trump is inexpert but still relevant to this article, it makes no sense. 1Kwords (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How would the actual study do as a reliable source? NTU was started 2005, so we there is no data to compare with before that. The latest NTU show that sexual crimes have spiked since since the latest immigration wave and is currently at the highest levels ever recorded. By your simplistic reasoning this proves that immigration has caused an increase in sexual crime.  whereas annual government surveys show that the number of Swedes experiencing crime remain steady since 2005, even as Sweden has taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees over the same period -> Both reported crime and experienced crime has shown a dramatic increase since the European immigration crisis with harassment, threats, fraud and sexual violence has reached their alltime high directly after the latest immigration wave. This is the problem with using all these biased Trump sources that I think we should remove entirely. They are so desperate and proving that Trump is wrong that they gladly sacrifice the truth about Sweden for point in US domestic politics.
 * Something also tells me though that when simplistic reasoning goes in this direction it is no longer valid. While you dismissed 1Kwords's correct claims pointing out the flaws in this very thread, you will be praise them when it serves the angle that immigration has no effect. Alternatively, it would not surprise me either if NTU becomes UNDUE when it shows the opposite of what you think. This by the way another false statement by Snooganssnoogans, 5th time in a row on this topic.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

an NTU is a reliable source, yes, but for the article Crime in Sweden, not the section Immigration to Sweden since that source only indicate rising aggregate crime levels in Sweden, it does not state any reasons for those crime levels. There is no source of pulic research for Sweden like there is for Norway]. I have already stated that I think the entire Trump debate is irrelevant to this article and talk page and therefore discussion about the Trump comments are irrelevant too. 1Kwords (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was mostly referring to Sno and Green, but I answer this anyway. I agree with you that it is not directly relevant, but it disproves the statements in the section. I think that the section should have a paragraph about the rising crimes rates and the over representation so that readers will understand what is discussed and argued. By posting the full graph we can also prevents attempts where they pick the crime peak years of the 1990s as a reference point and claim that crime overall is going down. What is your opinion about this?
 * You raise a good point about the anti-scientific policy of hiding the data. This should be included in the section as well. What is the best link of that? We have this one of new over representation and this debate article . Do we have something stronger?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The NTU doesn't appear to endorse the claim that there is an upward trend in sex crimes or in violent crime in general. Nor do they support drawing a connection between crime rates and immigration. Citing a source like the NTU to advance that claim would be WP:OR [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am saying, sorry if I was not clear. Including the NTU however stops sentences such as According to official statistics, the reported crime rate in Sweden has risen since 2005 whereas annual government surveys show that the number of Swedes experiencing crime remain steady since 2005, even as Sweden has taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees over the same period.[75][76][77][78][79]  or Viral falsehoods have circulated in recent years that tie immigrants and refugees to an alleged surge in rapes and crime in Sweden.[71][72] According to Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, "What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all. For readers not familiar with the subject they might be fooled by the number of sources that claim the opposite. It would also correct that view if they were reading the article elsewhere on the Internet. I think the NTU and crime statistics should be represented for what they are as a background without adding in any analysis. An issue people who are here because of Trump is also that they think the trouble started 2015, however crimes have been rising for as long as there is statistics (violent crime 550 % since 1950). Violence was of course higher in the before modern times, but you get what I am saying. As you see in the history section immigration really began in 1940s--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Overall, crime in Sweden has gone down. It's just that it has gone down more in Denmark and Norway than Sweden. For instance, gun violence has increased from 8 in 2006 to 43 in 2017 according to police statistics. Even such a trend can be hidden if it has become less common with people beating each other to death in drunken fights caused by Scandinavian drinking habits or wife beatings has decreased. The fashion among criminologists is to blame things on socioeconomic status, but that is not the correct causality if language difficulties are themselves a leading cause of low socioeconomic status. 1Kwords (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this proves my point, maybe you would have been helped by a figure of the actual statistics :). The crime has been going up with the only exception of car theft. It is also increasing with 2015 and 2016 being the highest recorded. As you see in the data you can select data point and crime data series to show that the crime has decrease but it wouldn't be fair representation. The statement with slow decrease relative other Nordics countries only refers to the last years, and is probably no longer true.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite clear on what you want in the article, but if you are suggesting that the entry should include a link to an excel spreadsheet or a chart without any additional analysis or commentary, I don't think that is a proposal that will get very far. We need to provide context and analysis from reliable secondary sources. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 23:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bra government agency's reported offences per 100,000 of the mean population between 1950-2000 is okay per WP:PRIMARY (primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.). However, the agency doesn't indicate anything about other countries, which in any case is WP:OFFTOPIC. Soupforone (talk)

The added graph an example on how an overall trend towards lower numbers of killings in the general population of a county may hide a trend of increased gun killings as part of gang warfare. Just because a total is falling (if it is still falling) it doesn't paint the whole picture. Denmark is generally relevant, as immigration to Sweden also affects Denmark, a neighbour country. 1Kwords (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That emigration claim could be made for any country since statistically most nations have at least some emigrants from Sweden. It's still WP:OFFTOPIC. Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Relying on SCB stats only to make such a claim would violate WP:SYNTH and be WP:OR. In this case, the heads of Danish government has discussed having permanent border checks due to the jihadist threat as Swedish jihadists went to Copenhagen to start a massacre. 1Kwords (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Key words here: immigration (not emigration) to Sweden (not to other countries). Soupforone (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First immigrated to Sweden, terrorists then used Sweden as a base to conduct operations in Denmark. 1Kwords (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * this discussion got seriously derailed. Reading through the comments, I still do not see any convincing argument on how rumours about crime in Sweden, even if shared by inexpert Trump, are WP:RELEVANT to this article. They also violate WP:NOTSPECULATION, since Trump is inexpert. They belong in Sweden-bashing article imho. 1Kwords (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed
Hello.

I have found the following statistics references, that I think seem important and reliable.

I would greatly appreciate if somebody could please check through them and incorporate them into the article if they are deemed appropriate.

Thanks in advance for any help.

60% of students born abroad are among those with the lowest academic test scores:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/invandrade-elever-presterar-samre

http://www.gp.se/ledare/sonesson-fler-svaga-elever-och-färre-lärare-är-inget-framgångsrecept-för-svensk-ekonomi-1.5417809

50% of all recent immigrants to Sweden have not finished the first 9 years of school:

https://unv.is/arbetsmarknadsnytt.se/forskare-lattast-fa-nyanlanda-i-arbete-med-subventionerade-anstallningar

According to research from "Expertgruppen för Studier i Offentlig ekonomi", ESO, an independent committee under the Swedish department of finance, an average asylum seeker to Sweden causes a cost of 74000 SEK per year and 3 million SEK over their lifetime for the country:

https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/

https://www.svd.se/tre-miljoner-kronor-per-flykting

Sweden is the least bigoted country in Europe, according to the Eurobarometer for April 2018, as 87% of all Swedes are willing to have an immigrant as a friend:

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82537

David A (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The article as it now stands should be alright without the addition of this information, but thank you for providing it.  .  spinten do    17:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)