Talk:Swedish Americans

George W. Bush
The addition of George W. Bush to the list by Swedenman was not entirely out of the blue. See this,this and this – I do not know how reliable the "Swedish Colonial Society" is. And another thing, we do not need another List of Swedish Americans, so I have removed the one on this page. --Ezeu 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Surprise! Assumed vandalism based on non-inclusion in Category:Swedish-Americans. Nonetheless, I agree with your ultimate action. //Jugander 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Andover?
Andover is a place in Wiltshire, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.176.121 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2006
 * There are many Andovers. See the Andover disambiguation page. --Ezeu 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposing merge
I propose merging this article with the stub Swedish emigration to North America, which I've just started adding content to. Swedish emigration to North America is going to need a rename in any case, since Canada doesn't come into it: it's purely about emigration to the US, and that is also the type of materian that I'm adding to it. There's a lot of such material out there, mostly academic and some of it even in English. I've ordered a couple of books. Any thoughts, objections? Snow 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * No, bad idea. Then we will have Norwegian American, Danish American, Icelandic American, but no longer any Swedish American. Wiki users should be able to search for a well-established concept and have a focused, relevant article on the subject pop up, without having to plow through an entire article of related stuff. Merging the mentioned articles into a Nordic emigration to North America article would also be a bad idea. My preference is that Swedish emigration to North America stays a self-sufficient article that does not have to use the two articles Swedish American and Swedish Canadian for its content but adds a deeper dimension by expanding on the general concept, for example by showing the common denominators, such as the conditions in Sweden that led to the major waves of emigration, etc, etc. There is a lot of ground to cover. Swedish emigration to North America can easily be an umbrella article without actually merging the articles Swedish American and Swedish Canadian into one mega article. Pia 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pia L has a good point. The migration process is one thing, and the community they built in the USA is a different topic, with different themes, famous people, sources, etc. For example, the migration was small after 1900, but the community in its 2nd and 3rd and later generations became even more complex. Rjensen 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The photograph
The photograph is showing a pair of children wearing traditional Laponian clothes. I have some questions about the photo; Are Laponians really ethinc Swedes? This article is about an ethnic group, not citizenship. Is the photograph really representative for the Swedish American people? How do we know that the children on the photograph really are from Swedish Lapland and not Finnish, Norwegian or Russian? Aaker 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image illustrates immigrants arriving from Scandinavia at Ellis Island Immigration Station, where most Swedes came through according to the article. It was not meant to illustrate some sort of ethnicity, just the wave of immigration from Sweden (although the photographer seems to have been inclined to categorize them as Swedish immigrants at the time - perhaps based on their citizenship. It was chosen for upload from the NY Public Library archives based on the library's categorization and filing of it under "Swedish immigration"). You can exchange the image if you want to, or move it down, make it smaller and have another image that shows something you think represents more "ethnically pure Swedishness" then, as the main picture. No problems. :) Best, Pia 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good solution! Aaker 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion
Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion
Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Americans
To Whom It May Concern;

I have a simple question pertaining to your history of Swedish Americans. In paragraph two, you mention the different religions of the Swedes / Swedish Americans, but I did not see any mention of the Swedish Baptists.

My Great-Grandfather (Erik Wingren) came to Chicago in 1880 per the request of the Swedish Baptist Church / Ministry in Chicago. My Great-Grandfather formed the first class at the Betal Seminary in Stockholm in 1866, along with Anders W. Lindblom, Lars J. Larsson and Per Johannes E. Palmquist.* My Great-Grandfather practiced his religion in southern Sweden until 1880.

Plus if you check "History of the Swedes in Illinois" by E. Olson & M. Engberg, published in Chicago, Illinois in 1908, you will find that there were quite a few Swedish Baptists in the Chicago / Illinois area along with New York and other cities on the east coast.

I would appreciate a reply to this inquiry if possible. Was it in error or just left out do to the fact that the Baptist were a forbidden religion in Sweden?

Thank you - W. P. Gager


 * "Betelseminariets Elever 1866", pages 34 & 35, circa: unknown

--Wpgager (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Greta Garbo!?
The very first line in this article states, 'Swedish Americans are Americans of Swedish descent'. So, please tell me how Greta Gustafsson, born and raised in Stockholm, Sweden, fits into this cathegory? While I will agree that she was a famous actress in films made in Hollywood, that doesn't really make her an Swedish American. Explain this, or remove the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.42.20 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are naturalized US citizens considered "Americans"? If so, Garbo qualifies as an American of Swedish descent.  Per Greta Garbo and other internet sources (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3808.html, for one), Garbo became a naturalized citizen on 2/9/1951 161.225.129.111 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "hyphenated American" sense that "Swedish-American" has traditionally been used in the US, an adult Swede who emigrated to a non-Swedish community in the US would not be considered a "Swedish-American." Garbo didn't come to the US speaking little or no English, and settle in a largely Swedish community in Minnesota, Kansas or the Dakotas.  She came as an English-speaking adult who had no significant contact with Swedish-American communities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.57.175 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Walter Johnson
A simple look at his page informs one that he is not Swedish at all - that is a misconception. As such, I'm removing his picture. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You did mean to say "he is not of Swedish descent" - right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. Bull dog123 09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Swede Hollow
Deleted the lines about Swede Hollow in the assimilation section. The source for the deleted part is an article in a Swedish tabloid. To present the condition, and presumed reputation, of a small group of Swedish immigrants in a city slum like Swede Hollow in the 1880s, as the general condition and reputation of the great majority of Swedish-Americans is preposterous to say the least.

And the claim about Swedes not considered “white” is absurd. The only source in the article for this stance is the sole opinion of a Minnesotan lumberjack. Facts: in the new field of race studies in the late 19th century Swedes and other Northern European nationalities were often postulated as the foremost and purest example of "Aryans"; a racist notion so widespread in the States that it later inspired the “Immigration Act of 1924”, a law which limited immigration from non-Northern European countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeen (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, dear "unsigned" - the "tabloid" was the arts section of the respected daily Dagens Nyheter. The quote about "whiteness" in the article was from the respected immigrant historian Rudolph Vecoli, quoted from the academic publication "Swedes in the twin cities" (ed. Blanck & Anderson)and also quoted was the professor of Geography at Macalester College, St Paul, mr David Lanegran. The article was attacked by swedish white suprematicists, very much along the same lines as you follow here. Furthermore, the whiteness discussion concerned the 1880s to 1890s, and immigration laws from the 1920s dos not apply. I sense that you have an ideological problem here? I think the lines about Swede Hollow should be reinstated, but I await comments from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.83.201 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I re-inserted some of the paragraphs about Swede Hollow, as they seem relevant and there are reliable academic sources, mainly in the anthology by Dag Blanck and Philip Anderson, "Swedes in the twin cities" (Minnesota Historical Press, 2001.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerberg (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, people start to check your sources before making claims. 1) David Lanegren never writes about high child mortality, drunkenness or wife-beating among the Swedes in Swede Hollow in his text "Swedish Neighborhoods of Twin Cities", 2) Rudolph J. Vecoli never writes that the Swedish immigrants of the 1880s and 1890s weren't perceived as "whites" in the Anglo-Saxons sense in his text "Immigrants and the Twin Cities". Argo: the reinserted lines about Swede Hollow should be deleted. They have no reliable sources. Pilvinge (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that the constant deletions of the section about the poorest swedish immigrants and Swede Hollow is bordering on vandalism. Considering your criticism of the sources: 1) David Lanegran do talk about these things in the quoted newspaper interview as well as in the academic anthology by Anderson & Blanck, see below. 2) Rudolph Vecoli writes, in the quoted piece from the anthology: "(...)not even  Scandinavians were exempt from from the prevailing racial bigotry..."[he then goes on to quote in length a "yankee" writing home, complaining about being one of few "whites" among the swedes where he is working]. Vecoli continues: "No immigrant group, it appears, has been spared its share of prejudice and discrimination." (Anderson & Blanck, "Swedes in the twin cities, p. 17). Vecoli goes on to discuss exactly the high child mortality, alcoholism and so on that Lanegran discusses in the newspaper interview, on page 21. Lanegran himself in his essay states, explicitly about Swede Hollow, on p. 45, "it was a slum." Lanegran writes, on p 46, again about Swede Hollow "public health workers who visited the area remembered the numerous cases of whooping cough, undernourishsment, and other childhood diseases."
 * I can't see the point in denying this. The book is there to read, isn't it? That certain aspects of swedish immigrant history are respulsive or unflattering doesn't mean that they should not be discussed. Historic reality is as always a many-faceted thing, don't you think? - Hammerberg, 15 feb. 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerberg (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, stop distorting the sources. 1) Lanegren does not write about high child mortality, drunkenness or wife-beating in the cited academic work. (What Lanegren may have said in a tabloid interview is of no relevance here, it's not an academic source.) 2) Vecoli, in "Immigrants and the Twin Cities", only states that the Swedish immigrants in Minnesota at one point was the subject to racial prejudices. The only source Vecolis musters up to support this claim is a single letter from a Minnesotan lumberjack, dated to 1901. In said letter the lumberjack makes a difference between "Swedish" and "white", here meaning "Yankee" workers. You, not Vecoli, makes the assumption, based on this sole letter, that the Swedes "initially" was not consider white in the "Anglo-Saxon" or "Teutonic" sense. I think this assumption it's faulty. First, the letter is written in 1901, and not during the "initially" period of the Swedish immigration. Second, the opinions voiced in the letter is - as the user Apeen so eloquent pointed out above - the opinions of one single lumberjack; to make them, as you do, to the general opinions of the greater American public is dishonest to say the least. With all that said; I think the article should have some lines about Swede Hollow and the small Swedish immigrant community there, so long as those lines have reliable academic sources backing them up. But hey, that's just me... Pilvinge (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Pilvinge, why do you call it "distorting the sources"? That you don't agree with the interpretation is obvious - but "distortion" is, really, saying that someone is lying. I understand that not everyone has got the Anderson & Blanck anthology at hand. But if someone wants to take the trouble, it is easy to see that they yankee lumberjack is not the only quote that Vecoli uses to underline the "racial bigotry", as he himself calls it, swedes and scandinavians too were exposed to. In note 5, p. 25, he give another examples of how swedes in were considered to give off an "offensive" smell. ("leather, salt, onions, herring and perspiration".) Swedes are considerd "excellent" but also "the most troublesome and  patience-exhausting fellow creatures". You do find a number of racial/ethnic stereotypes at work when it comes to describing these newcomers, somthing you also find in the press of the times - like in this "slum journalism"-piece from the St Paul Globe, 1886:
 * http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90059522/1886-03-21/ed-1/seq-13/#date1=1886&index=0&rows=20&words=hollow+Hollow+Swede&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=Minnesota&date2=1886&proxtext=swede+hollows&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
 * There were swedes living in dire circumstances here and there in the emigrant districts - like on Manhattan's lower east side (in 1900, there were roughly 30,000 swedes living in NY alone, some in Brooklyn and a then well-to-do Harlem, but also a number in the area around Five points, numbers from Vilhelm Bergers 1918 book "Svenskarne i New York": https://archive.org/details/svenskarneinewyo00berg )
 * In a a rather new thesis by Jimmy Engren, "Railroad and Labor Migration" (Växjö University Press, 2007) you can find further discussions concerning ethnicity and class among working class swedes in the US during the period 1880-1920, who sometimes were living under rather harsh conditions. Wikipedia should be open to new research, as long as it is academically documented, even if it would clash with a more one-sided perspective one happens to favor. And a historian like Vecoli (he died in 2008) was one of the most respected ones when it comes to immigrant research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerberg (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Swedish American Ethnicity?
Why is Swedish Americans identified ethnically in this article?

The amount of Swedish Americans (Americans of Swedish ancestry/descent) in the US are based on the different ancestry censuses from the U.S Census Bureau. Ancestry and ethnicity is not the same thing. Ethnicity is a cultural group, ancestry is where a persons family camed from. The census source that the article uses speaks of ancestry, not ethnicity. Swedes (ethnic) that emigrated to the U.S in 19th-century and early 20th-century are since long ago assimilated into the American culture (and are therefore are Americans today, in an ethnic sense). Assimilation is the process when an ethnic group abandons (over generations, not over a night)their language, culture and identity. Americans with Swedish ancestry are assimilated (that's why we say that they have Swedish ancestry and that they are Americans and not Swedes). There is (as mentioned in the article) only a few small towns with a Swedish cultural life. So how can Americans with Swedish ancestry then form an ethnic group? Most Americans with Swedish ancestry doesn't live in these small towns and they also have ancestry from other ethnic groups. An ethnic group is not based on ancestry, it is based on the present identity. If Americans with Swedish ancestry is an ethnic group, then every American belongs to many differents ethnicities(ethnic groups are not made up by people of different ancestries). That doesn't reflect most Americans cultural life and identity. Most Americans (expect for foregin-born) probably identify only as American on the question on nationality and ethnicity, but as Swedish American on the question of ancesrty. Therefore I think that it is more appropriate to call Swedish Americans for an ancestry group and that Swedish Canadian and Norweigan American (as examples) should be called "related ancestry groups, instead of "related ethnic groups". I think this article and similar articles misuse that terms ancestry and ethnicity and creates a confusion on the meaning of the words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.141.131.22 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Especially" descendants only of early immigrants?
It is necessary for Wikipedia to substantiate the use of a word such as "especially" in the lede of this article. Who says that only "descendants of about 1.2 million immigrants from Sweden during 1885–1915" are particularly known as Swedish Americans? I am reinstating my citation request and asking that it not be removed again without comments here first, and consensus on the use of that word. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PS My question "why" was removed with this edit summary: Especially means to exclude the people married into Swedish community. That is a POV that is not at all clear in the text, needs to be clarified or reworded. I can't see how the word "especially" - referring only to certain years - is appropriate at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual terminology refers to Swedish Americans as the descendents of people from Sweden--People most of Whose ancestors came from Sweden. That leaves only a marginal role for people identified with other ethnic groups who intermarried with Swedes. Millions of people have less than majority Swedish ancestry and historically have not identified closely with the Swedish community. That is how the reliable sources handle it. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you discussing "other ethnic groups who intermarried" which is totally irrelevant to this discussion? This discussion is about years 1885–1915, not about other nationalities. Read the sentence we're discussing - please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just exactly what is your complaint? Are you asking a question for the purpose of getting information, or is it merely a rhetorical challenge? Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unable to comprehend the relevance my opponent's arguments or questions, leaving me with only an assumption to go by, I am rewording the sentence now in a manner that I assume will be acceptable to one and all, with no mention still of any intermarriage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

New book that may be relevant to the article
Pole Raising and Speech Making: Modalities of Swedish American Summer Celebration by Jennifer Eastman Attebery, 2015, Utah State University Press. "Documents how immigrants in the Rocky Mountain West combined Scandinavian seasonal celebrations with local civic celebrations of July 4 and Mormons' Pioneer Day from 1880 to 1917." per Chronicle book listJodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tabloid slant added
I reversed this because Expressen has long been a newspaper of tabloid quality, and particularly because it's worded in the present, as if revues still portray Swedes as stupid today. It's also inappropriate to let a gossip-ridden tabloid like that sling mud at Italians and others in this article. Reversing again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Expressen and Geo (from where the source is) are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Your reason to delete also is full of recentism. Historical views can certainly also be (and are) presented in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First we discuss, then we revert - that's fundamental WP behavior as soon as a discussion has begun on a talk page.
 * What you added is worded in the present tense as if there still are revues (NOTE: today) that portray Swedes like that. That's my main objection, of which I will not let go. If you fix that, i might be willing to clean up the rest of the Swenglish for you. Until then, I am removing it again, since it gives a blatant falsehood as a fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you removed valid content because of a spelling error? Anyway it is now fixed. // Liftarn (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, since that grammatical/translation (not just "spelling") error gave a blatant falsehood as a fact. One would think you'd appreciate my help with it (?), rather than being personally argumentative. These pages are supposed to deal with article content, not with complaints about other editors. English Wikipedia is very different from Swedish Wikipedia in that way. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS In your cited source, I do not find anything that can be appropriately interpreted and given in a Wikipedia article as "The change in attitude came after Italians and Irish replaced Scandinavians as the bottom of the ladder." Personal interpretations/exaggerations of source text are not appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does says that, but in more words. "Det är just irländare och italienare som i allt snabbare takt börjar flytta in bland svenskarna i Swede Hollow när 1800-tal blir 1900-tal. I samma veva blir svenska arbetare och hembiträden allt mer populära att anställa. – Man kan säga att det alltid är ledigt i klassen längst ned och är du fattig, outbildad och nyanländ så hamnar du där, säger författaren Ola Larsmo." // Liftarn (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On timing, RS [Harvard Ency Am Ethnic Groups] agree that the Irish came earlier than the Swedes. Irish arrived in very large numbers in 1840s-1850s--at the lowest status--then they moved up fairly rapidly reaching the national average by 1900. Irish & Swedes overlapped geographically in relatively few places (like Chicago, St Paul, Worcester Mass.) Italians came in large numbers in 1890-1915 with a low status.  Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss the article's content, not the subject in general, please? The source says nothing whatsoever about a ladder. In English it says: "It is precisely the Irish and Italians who at an ever increasing pace start moving in among the Swedes in Swede Hollow when the 1800s become the 1900s. At the same time Swedish workers and household help get increasingly popular to employ. - One can say that there is always space in the class at the bottom, and if you are poor, uneducated and a newcomer you will end up there, says author Ola Larsmo." So it says nothing either specifically about Irish and Italians being at the bottom of anything. It may infer that, but a Wikipedia text cannot be worded as fact when it is not cleartly shown to be fact as specifically supported by a reliable source. That type of exaggerated rewording by users is inappropriate and unacceptable. I will keep removing this until it is worded as per source, and I will also have to report Liftarn for edit warring if h/s contunues to revert in the text without discussing and reaching consensus first on this page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop removing content because you disagree with spelling, grammar or wording. Improve instead of delete. // Liftarn (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We are suppose to remove falsely sourced text, and in your case, because of your totally unapppreciative behavior, I do not feel the slightest bit inspired to help you improve it. I don't work for you, and if I did, I'd quit very fast. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my stance, and am prepared to defend it, that Expressen is a tabloid which has been well-known for its change mainly to tabloid journalism, i.e. sensationalism, since the 1990s. The wording of the source used in this case is typical such, and it certainly does not need to be exaggerated in our article by a WP user for an even more sensationlist effect. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * After the addition of a more reliable source, I have reworded the sentence feasibly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The size of the paper does not change the reliability of a source and it is from Geo, not Expressen. Your "rewording" misrepresents the source. If you want we can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. // Liftarn (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Geo is a department of Expressen. I would have thought you knew that. My wording represents what the article says. Yours represented your own exaggerated interpretation. I'd rather do asn RfC on this right here, if you persist in wanting to publish your own misinterpretations in a Wikipedia article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you continue to use your own interpretations instead of what the sources say I think a RfC might be a good idea. // Liftarn (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This was recently added and made to look like it was a widespread phenomenon, the discrimination and ridicule of Swedes. However the addition is based on a recent book by a non-academic (no degree) Swedish writer only about a slum area in St. Paul Minnesota. I have tried, gradually, to adjust the information, first so that the source falsifications were removed and then to stick more closely to what the sources actually say about this. Besides harassing me 3 times on my talk page with paste-and-copy stuff from h own talk page, the user who wants to add these exaggerated misrepresentations of the sources has reverted me repeatedly and reinstated non-factual things. Latest edit calls the author of the book a "historian", which he is not, as per any normal meaning of that word, and also desires to remove the name of that slum, about which English Wikipedia has a whole article. This too should be reversed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel very strongly about the subject, but Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what you think. // Liftarn (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing "historian"
I am removing the allegation that a Swedish writer is a "historian". It's misleading. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to slum mentioned
I am reinstating the link to a slum area in St. Paul, Minnesota, which a new text addition about the bad reputation of Swedish immigrants is all about. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it as the articles are talking about the general demographics of the United States. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A photo of a Jew illustrating this article?
Wouldn't it be far-fetched to suggest that Hilmer Emmanuel Salomonsson was not a Swede but a Jew? Looks like one to me. Also, there was an image with the Lapp children in the past, now removed, could be a comparable case.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure Salomonsson is not a Jewish surname in Sweden, despite suggesting bearers are the sons of Solomon. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to elaborate on what Jewish people look like? Any stereotypical descriptions I'm aware of seem to be the opposite of the person in that photo. EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if he were Jewish, the fact that he immigrated from Sweden to the United States would still make him a Swedish American.--Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swedish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.swedishamericanhist.org/about/web-links.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310221321/http://www.augustana.edu/swenson/ to http://www.augustana.edu/swenson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Map
Any reason why Isle Royale is colored differently than the rest of Keweenaw County? I don't see any other instances where counties are subdivided, plus there aren't any permanent residents of Isle Royale anyway. Phizzy 02:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Inconceivable interpretation
Under the heading "Preserving Swedish cultural heritage (1940–present)" this sentence is very confusing: "However H. Arnold Barton have[sic] theorised[sic] that many Swedish American customs (folk dress, dances, and smörgåsbord) portrayed as rooted in Sweden are in fact modern elite customs invented in the US and promoted by social leaders to foster ethnic identity."

To me it is inconceivable, quite unbelievable, that a Sweden expert like Barton could have written anything that can be interpreted like that. Obviously, Barton must have known that Swedish "folk dress, dances, and smörgåsbord" were not invented in the United States, by an "elite" or by anyone else. The sentence is so glaringly wrong that I feel it should be removed, unless the citation quotes what Barton actually wrote about that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That does seem absurd, I am not opposed to removal. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also in favour of removing it as nonsensical. Obviously Swedish smörgåsbord and folk dresses were not invented in the US (neither by an elite nor by anyone else). Jeppiz (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Caption reversal
A link from grandfather to grandson has twice been removed, last here. The removing editor has complained about life years and surnames here in a way that is hard to understand (aside from the personal attacks). I will reinstate the relevant link unless someone can give us a better reason here not to do so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that you thought that they were the same person (and even with the LOOSE relation, the single sentence on him isn't enough to link). Thebrakeman2 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You argued differently on your talk page, then when you realized you were wrong about their name you argued link and then also removed the evidencial sentence from the grandson's article (now sourced), once you'd read it all. Let's not let this be about you or me here and hope someone not involved will chime in. I believe the link from grandfather to grandson is especially appropriate in the context where it was used in this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, I fixed it in a way where your not making it seem like he has a page, by making it clear that Stanley is his grandson in the caption. Thebrakeman2 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What amount of Swedish ancestry?
The lead of this article leaves out subsequent immigration after the years given and also leaves as an open question whether having only one Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent makes a Swedish American. I do not believe it is helpful to insist that the lead must remain misleading on those points, and I will try to correct them again unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. Someone who moved from Sweden and has been a U.S. citizen since the 1970s is as much of a Swedish American as someone who did so in 1875. The 1875 person's second and third generation descendants etc up until today are not Swedish Americans if they only have that one person as a Swedish ancestor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have sources for these changes you are making, or is it your WP:OR? Bombing the lead with tags is also not helpful, you could easily expand the lead to include more recent immigration without personally defining what a Swedish American is. TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added a citation directly to the lead, which hopefully is clarification enough. This includes later generations of descendants, not just the first of immigrants. TylerBurden (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The vital question posed here has not been answered. I will not leave this until someone answers it. The lead still specifically claims, in definitive English, that all descendants of the pre-1916 immigrants are Swedish Americans. We can't have that. They are not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @SergeWoodzing You just removed the citation that described Swedish Americans, I don't see what is so confusing, Swedish Americans are Swedish immigrants to the USA and their descendants. It does not at all specifically claim that, that is how you are interpreting it. Where are you reading ″all descendants″? TylerBurden (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict]I am reading "their descendants", not "some of their descendants", not "a generation or more of their mostly Swedish descendants in America". Why not give someone else a chance to comment? And why not stop personalizing the discussion? Guideline includes "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I am talking about you as a person, I am speaking about your edits, which are directly affecting the content on the article. I provided a source directly supporting the definition, and you removed it as ″off-topic″. At the same time, you are not providing any sources for your own more conservative definitions. TylerBurden (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jeppiz and @Svenskbygderna @Rjensen pinging other recent contributors for input. TylerBurden (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CAN says we are to wait for, or ask for input by, uninvolved editors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not an attempt to influence the outcome in a certain way, it is notifying other recently active editors on the article. They could all agree with everything you are saying for all I know. TylerBurden (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Who ever is thinking about commenting here might want to have a look first at our List of Swedish Americans with a vast amount of people listed, especially in sports and entertainment, whose Swedish ancestry is minuscule, but has been reported in tabloids and such. Being surnamed Anderson or Larson seems to be enough. I tried to clean it up for years, but it's now totally out of control and I've given up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I don't see what that has to do with anything, other than indicate further that you care more about your own personal definition of what constitues Swedish American than what actual sources say. TylerBurden (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Respect? Will you please stop personalizing this discussion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you making a big deal of? This is how you came at me on my talk page after I reverted your edits, so like you said, please focus on the content and policy, which WP:NOR is. TylerBurden (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comments of TylerBurden and am honestly a bit offended by the claim that you are "not Swedish American if [you] only have that one person as a Swedish ancestor". That sounds like you're "personalizing this discussion" a lot more than anyone else here is. I'm a 4th generation Swedish American but would still very much identify myself as such even though half my side is Swedish while other is a combination of Norwegian, Finnish, Polish, and Jewish. But many of my neighbors and friends with a similar ethnic composition would not call themselves Swedish Americans. I don't think it should be up to any one person to define for everyone else what being a "Hyphenated American" means. So let's stick to sources, consensus, and common sense. Svenskbygderna (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If half your side is Swedish and you are an American, you are definitely Swedish American. If only one grandparent is Swedish, you are not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to who? Svenskbygderna (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I dearly hope we can get some input here by uninvolved people whose neutral POV cannot be questioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the number of Swedish ancestors is not the question--it's how a person identifies or associates with the Swedish-American community. The single most famous "Irish American" was Al Smith--His four grandparents were Irish, German, Italian, and British, "but he identified with the Irish-American community and became its leading spokesman in the 1920s." Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet Smith's article does not name him as Irish American. Probably because genealogy usually determines such things. And possibly because anyone can call h-self anything ("identify oneself"), but that does not make it genuine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, SergeWoodzing, it has been some time now and the consensus seems to rather clearly be against you here. So unless you have some policy based arguments or references to support your POV I believe the tag you added should be removed, because it seems only you find it controversial or in need of clarification. I added an academic reference in an attempt to listen to your concerns and you removed it as "off topic", despite it referring to later generations as still being Swedish American, and you have offered nothing yourself other than WP:OR and accusations. To me it is not a strange concept that people descendant of Swedish immigrants would identify as Swedish American even in later generations, and I don't see any reason to gatekeep that on Wikipedia, it's not some exclusive club. TylerBurden (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on the article not on other editors. That's Wikipedia's clear guideline for article talk pages.
 * Nothing has been presented here that answers the tagged question. Thus the tag should not be removed until it is dealt with. If removed, I will reinstate it until the question has been answered. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can keep repeating that as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that no one here is commenting on you as a person, we are all discussing the content and your definition is blatant WP:OR, saying that is not a personal attack. You don't get to stonewall the article just because of your personal opinions, a source has been presented and you have not provided valid arguments to dismiss it. TylerBurden (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting our article-talk-page guideline once again for anyone who does not known it yet or refuses to adhere to it. It pertains to all of us: "Comment on content, not on the contributor ... Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Content? The only content you are advocating for here is your personal WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you question their "neutral POV"? They were not involved in the dispute, I requested their input because they have contributed to this article recently, but by all means start an RfC if that's what you want. You keep ignoring the question of sources for your POV, making your statements pure WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion status quo 25 October
It is not disputed that Swedish Americans are Americans who have Swedish descent. However, we have two opposing opinions about what that means, neither of which is supported by any source citation as yet:
 * 1) A Swedish American is by definition an American who has at least one Swedish parent (opinion supported by one user so far.)
 * 2) A Swedish American is an American who descends from one Swedish grandparent or less or who identifies with Swedish Americans without having any substantial Swedish descent (opinion supported one user plus two more called in by that user to  agree).

Until we get more input by uninvolved users the question has not been resolved. Perhaps an RfC will be needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ″opinion supported one user plus two more called in by that user to agree″ That is a dubious WP:ASPERSION, they were notified because they are all recent editors of the article. If you are not capable of handling a content dispute without derailing it with these accusations, I will raise the issue on WP:AN/I and we can see who is in the wrong from a policy standpoint. If they had all agreed with you, would you be making the same accusation? Your presentation here is highly biased, a source was presented and you rejected it because it doesn't fit your own preference (which you have provided absolutely no references to back up). TylerBurden (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The source presented does not answer the question about descent. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It clearly refers to descendants as Swedish Americans if you would actually read it, for example: ″Swedish America today overwhelmingly consists of descendants of Swedish immigrants, many of whom are by now in the third generation and beyond.″ If that is what reliable sources say, then that is what Wikipedia says, because that's what the encyclopedia is based upon, not our personal opinions. TylerBurden (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a quite a difference between "Swedish America" and "Swedish Americans". Thus, that source is not relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's beyond pedantic, where exactly is the source for your POV? You have been asked numerous times and have yet to provide anything at all. TylerBurden (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A source for the need of clarification of the phrase "as well as their descendants"? Seems unreasonable. Seems better that we try and get NPOV consensus as to whether or not an American with descent from only one Swedish grandparent or less should be able to be called a Swedish American. Mathematically. I am surprised that anyone would object to such clarification. The problem here is a wish to be able to define just about anyone as a Swedish American without mathematics & normal genealogy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, per WP:NOR, your definition should be supported by a reliable source. Content being referenced is arguably the most important Wikipedia policy, so I don't think "consensus" could even be achieved for something that is completely unreferenced. If you can find some kind of reference for your definition, I'd more than welcome it, but until you do, you're going against basic policy. At this point I honestly don't see how this can be settled without an RfC. TylerBurden (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article that can be described as my definition or anyone else's. There is a request for clarification. A request for clarification should not be removed until clarification has been achieved. It is important to this article that "descent" be clarified. Without reliable sources, clarification can be achieved by consensus. Right now, there are only two users left in this discussion. We need to wait for more input. No one is denying that Swedish America consists of descendants of Swedish immigrants. That does not mean, however, that an American with only one Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent by definition is a Swedish American, whether or not he/she calls h-self that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)