Jump to content

Talk:Immigration to Sweden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

unnamed

The reference (note 22) to the statement "A government study in 2006 estimated that 39% of the Muslim population harbor strong and consistent antisemitic views" leads to a newspaper article which no makes no claim supporting the aforementioned quote. Either said study should be correctly referenced to, or the statement should be removed (if not corrected within a week, I will make a quick search for the study and if not found remove the statement). Sidospår (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Content Removal

Just taking a quick look at the edits tab, and it shows that data from several sections (such as 'Population of immigrants and their descendants' and 'Country of Origin' have been removed.

Several sections are blank and should be fixed.

Could you consider reverting the edits? I can see one that took away over 4000 characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.10.98 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

POV-section

I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö with regards to antisemitism. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do Swedish Muslims really hate themselves?

The article states: " 39% of adult Muslims "harbour systematic antisemitic views"".

Should that not read something more on the lines of "39% of adult Muslims SUFFER from systematic antisemitism."? Presidentbalut (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Immigration to Scandinavia Page

Hi I am interested in creating a broader summary page about Immigration to Scandinavia and the specific details of the conflicts that rise regarding access to the social services offered within welfare states and issues of recent cultural and racial diversity in nations that have historically been very heterogeneous. I am also considering adding a page on Immigration to Denmark since one has not been created yet.

Have any of you considered creating a broader page about trends in Scandinavian immigration and the similarities and differences in country policies? Do you foresee any issues in creating either of these pages?

Thank you Rloftis5672 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immigration to Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

kurdish

here is wrote, kurdish people more than 83,000. why here is very more lettle ? Ibrahim aziz (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Self published source?

This seems like a self-published source. Secondly, it doesn't really talk about immigration to Sweden. Swedish Muslims aren't necessarily foreigners, some were born in the country (including converts).VR talk 00:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fredrik Sieradzki

Who exactly is Fredrik Sieradzki? This article just presents the opinion of one person. It's not a study or the opinion of a scholar.VR talk 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yeah, I removed that whole section. Not only is it WP:UNDUE, it's complete WP:OR seeing as nowhere in the linked articles does it state that immigration has led to an increase in antisemitism. Only that some people harbor antisemitic views. We don't know if they are immigrants or not and to assume that they are simply based on ethnicity or religion is original research and POV-pushing. It belongs in Antisemitism in Europe, and it was just copy+pasted from there in the first place. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Also I just noticed if you look higher up the talk page, multiple other people have made the same claim. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not "Original Research" and "POV-pushing". As can be clearly seen in the articles I linked to earlier, all Muslims in Sweden came here from 1975 and onwards. Attempting to censor valid statistics based on flimsy claims, and personal preferences, is completely unacceptable. David A (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In any case, there are currently recurrent reports in the news of Jews being threatened, feeling extremely unsafe, emigrating, not being able to show signs of being Jewish in public without being assaulted in the immigration-heavy suburbs, etcetera, so it is certainly an extremely relevant issue, that has turned considerably worse since the time of these statistics, and should not be systematically swept under the carpet. David A (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
David A, you're right that threats against Jews are serious, relevant and must be covered. It is very unfortunate that is happening. So I think some of the material could belong at Antisemitism in Sweden.VR talk 04:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@David A, Vice regent: Yes, and it's not being "swept under the rug." Literally everything in that section on this page is on the Antisemitism in Sweden page. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that it is being censored and swept under the carpet. Again, I have provided proof that virtually all Muslims in Sweden came here after the 1975 immigration reform. The people who exhibit these sentiments are either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants. It is a direct consequence of that Sweden has had open borders for a very long time, and should be publicly displayed for easy overview. David A (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc and Factchecker atyourservice: David A (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Regardless that you dislike the organisation itself, you can also check out the various links to valid reports and news articles linked to in this Gatestone article. David A (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This academic report may be of particular interest. David A (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The ping to Jason and Factchecker is blatant canvassing (Wikipedia:Canvassing).VR talk 05:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that not allowed? I have seen others ping each other as well, and thought that I should try it.David A (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
"either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants." Well everyone is an nth generation immigrant. Even the ancestors of the native Swedes migrated at some point. Most of the stats, at least on crime, only distinguish between those born in Sweden and those not. So the 2nd and 3rd generation would be regarded as Swedish born. A source here suggests that as many as a third of Swedish Muslims were already second generation in the year 2000 (I haven't yet verified that source myself). Further, there seems to be at least some converts to Islam in Sweden (Islam_in_Sweden#Conversion). So it does seem like original research to say Muslims = Immigrants.VR talk 05:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is that this is a direct consequence of Sweden's immigration policies since 1975, and would not have happened without it, and as such should be referenced within the page. Sweden's Jews live in constant fear. This is certainly relevant. David A (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Are all foreign born people necessarily immigrants? Often a country's citizens have kids while abroad. For example, in the US, Ted Cruz tried to run for US president, even though he was born abroad. Additionally, many foreigners must enter Sweden as tourists or on business. I'm not sure if they count as immigrants either.VR talk 04:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This seems like pointless hair-splitting. David A (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I saw that you censored out the statistics of the 2005 study from the Swedish Crime Prevention Bureau as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_to_Sweden&type=revision&diff=775639168&oldid=775638399 The problem here is that replacing them with references to slanted opinions, with an interest of hiding the truth, and blaming everything on socioeconomic factors, despite the extremely generous Swedish welfare policies for everybody in the country, rather than presenting the data as is, leaves Wikipedia open for simply advancing the bias of sources, which counts as POV-pushing. David A (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't censor the stats. I quoted them from the website of the Government of Sweden. That's a reliable secondary source. I also framed them in the context of socio-economic factors, which is also discussed by academics.VR talk 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Socio-economic factors may play in more heavily in countries that do not generously provide everything for immigrants for free, education, welfare, housing, etcetera, but it seems like a convenient go-to excuse in Sweden's case. Regardless, you did remove several valid statistics from the study, so I reinserted them, while keeping your new sources. David A (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The study you cite is from 2005. While it does have its place in the article, it is WP:UNDUE to give this study grossly more space than other studies. Doing that essentially pushes a POV. Also, greater precedence should be given to newer studies and sources. Further, opinion from academics and the Swedish govt, that summarizes the situation, should be at the top of the section. We can't start off the section with raw data. Secondly, I found a source, the government of Sweden that discussed the 2005 study in a neutral manner. So we should use that instead. I'm going to go back to my version and insert some new stuff.VR talk 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@David A: The claim that a rise in antisemitism is "a direct consequence of Sweden's immigration policies since 1975" is WP:OR. Not every Muslim in Sweden is an immigrant as stated before and you'd need a reputable source to say that it was indeed immigration that caused a rise in antisemitism. I agree with Vice regent on the second point that you should use a source that takes outside factors into account on immigration and crime. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have cited a research report above that states that the rise in antisemitism is due to the constantly increasing conservative Muslim community within the country. And the 2005 crime study is the only available statistics source for the difference between immigrant and Swedish crime statistics, since the political parties have systematically voted down all suggestions for new studies, as they might benefit the Sweden Democrats. Personally, I am far more concerned with that the truth of reality is accurately reported, rather than swept under the carpet for political reasons, here or elsewhere. David A (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@David A: Can you relink that specific source? I'd like to see it and, nonetheless, "rise in antisemitism is due to the constantly increasing conservative Muslim community" does not equal "rise in antisemitism is specifically due to immigration." For one thing, not all Muslims are immigrants. For another, not all immigrants are Muslim. Also, stop saying that this is being "swept under the rug" when all this information is already on the Antisemitism in Sweden page where it rightly belongs. For the second point, the 2005 study did not adjust for things like income, unemployment, discrimination, etc. which is why the newer statements by the Swedish government and elsewhere that do adjust for these outside factors is more reliable. Regardless, the 2005 study is already in the article so what more do you want? Kamalthebest (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Here.
Regardless, again, in Sweden the government provides free welfare, health care, education, and housing for the immigrants. It is patent nonsense to claim that the number of highly criminal areas in the country have grown from 3 to at least 186, in 27 years, due to poverty, rather than clashes in culture, as a pretext to censor politically inconvenient valid information. Also, the government's chief advisor, and the main quoted individual for your claims, Jerzy Sarnecki, has stated himself in interviews that he is dyslexic, and incapable of reading statistics reports, which explains a lot. David A (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
David please quote the part of the source, in English, that you think backs up your claim. In the meanwhile, I have no choice to believe that the whole antisemitism thing is your own original research.VR talk 04:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here, but the report is in English, so you can read it yourself:

"In all of the participating countries, except for Hungary and Italy, the perpetrators of threatening antisemitic physical attacks are mostly identified as persons or groups with Muslim extremist views. In Hungary the group most frequently associated with antisemitic violence is the right-wing activists, and in Italy both right-wing and left-wing activists are seen more often as perpetrators of antisemitic violence than are Muslim extremists. However it should also be noted that in all the other countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, UK and not least Sweden, persons with Muslim extremist views are seen as perpetrators of antisemitic violence much more than any other of the groups we focused on."

"On the contrary, physical attacks and threats are much more often attributed to those with Muslim extremist views than to any of the other groups we have discussed here. Hence, even if such attacks and threats do not occur frequently, the fact that such acts, if and when they occur, are perceived as caused by Muslim extremists, might constitute a much higher level of fear among Jews in areas where people with Muslim extremist views live (such as e.g. the city of Malmö in Sweden), than in areas where antisemitic comments are ubiquitous but where no significant number of people with Muslim extremist views live (such as in Hungary)."

You can also check the statistical graphs provided within the survey. In 51% of the cases in Sweden antisemitic comments were given by Muslims, and 51% of physical threats, the perpetrators were also Muslim. David A (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I note that no where in the above text do I see the word "immigrant", "migrant", "immigration" or even "foreigner" or "visitor". So then, we are right in assuming that this text has nothing to do with immigration.VR talk 04:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Much like all of the resources I have linked to earlier, it has everything to do with changing demographics due to immigration.
Considering that my country is currently rapidly completely falling apart, social institution by social institution, it is naturally extremely frustrating for me that any statistics I might wish to insert into the article would likely be stonewalled and removed. David A (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry about your perceptions. However, they have little weight when it comes to this article. (Sorry wikipedia coldly demands reliable sources)
You need to find a source that actually discusses immigration or immigrants.VR talk 03:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Various statistics that I have found

Here are various statistics that I have found. Do with them as you wish:

Malmö, in Sweden, is the second most unsafe, and crime-infested city in Europe (Possibly unreliable information):

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/region_rankings.jsp?title=2017&region=150

It was decided to open Sweden for massive immigration from the 3rd world in 1975:

http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/regeringens-proposition-om-riktlinjer-for_FY0326

The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/nytt-fran-bra/arkiv/press/2016-11-03-utsatthet-for-sexualbrott-har-okat-bland-kvinnor.html

There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:

http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf

In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:

https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2008-11-21-brottsutvecklingen-i-sverige-fram-till-ar-2007.html

To compare with 5920 the year 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html

According to statistics assembled by the Swedish party Folkpartiet with data from the official statistics institution "Statistiska Centralbyrån" there were 155 criminal areas in the country in 2012, to compare with only 3 in 1990, and according to data assembled by the economist Tino Sanandaji, there were 186 in 2014. The standards were apparently later changed to only include 55 such areas according to the Swedish police department:

https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf

http://c1845.cloudnet.se/nyheter/utanforskapets-karta/attachment/23270-utanforskapets-karta-2014-05-27/

http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/

According to the leader of the ambulance drivers' union, Gordon Grattidge, the police, and other rescue workers, cannot enter such areas without being subjected to violent assaults:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071

http://www.weeklystandard.com/video-head-of-ambulance-union-confirms-no-go-zones-in-sweden/article/2007000

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/773310/Swedish-medics-military-equipment-enter-no-go-zones-Ambulance-Drivers-Union

The number of immigrants expected to apply for asylum to Sweden 2016-2020:

https://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.2d998ffc151ac38715917594/1485556216677/Migrationsverkets+prognos+oktober+2016.pdf

11% of youths (non-Muslims were included in the survey) in the suburbs of Gothenburg admit to supporting Jihadism:

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/g%C3%B6teborg/studie-var-tionde-elev-st%C3%B6ttar-religi%C3%B6sa-extremister-1.3908356

80% of Muslim women in Gothenburg admit to live under the threat of honour culture:

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/utbrett-hedersförtryck-mot-flickor-i-göteborg-1.3908432

A comparative study of criminal tendencies between people born in Sweden and abroad from 2005:

https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2005-12-14-brottslighet-bland-personer-fodda-i-sverige-och-i-utlandet.html

Further information about the vastly increased violent criminal activity in society since 1975:

https://www.morpheusblogg.se/2015/11/12/kriminaliteten-okar-visst/

According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war:

https://www.svd.se/svenska-attacker-med-granater-sticker-ut-i-varlden

At least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by those with at least one immigrant parent:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/vanligt-med-utlandsk-bakgrund-bland-unga-man-som-skjuter/

A study about the extremely increasing antisemitism in Sweden:

http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/PP%203%20Antisemitisms%20160608.pdf

David A (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All right, so you are a extreme-right troll, who is able to collate links. So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.194.217 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am neither extreme right, nor a troll. I am a centrist who has read up on an awful lot of reliable facts and statistics, and has turned extremely concerned about Islamism, and the proven practical consequences of open borders. Also, Ad hominem personal attacks do not change the facts of reality. David A (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have now updated the list above with corrections and new fact-sources. David A (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immigration to Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted sections, WP:OR

David A, regarding your revert [here], you need to read WP:OR WP:SYNTH. You can't add sources unrelated to the topic because of your own original research. The article is Immigration to Sweden. Find better sources for these sections, or they will be removed again per policy. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not original research. Sweden is not an isolated island. These official very reliable statements address the immigration crisis in Europe as a whole, of which Sweden is a part. As such, they are entirely valid, and should stay in the page. Feel free to move them to a more appropriate section if you wish, but you have no right to remove them entirely. David A (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, if the sections and sources aren't about immigration to Sweden, they don't belong here, in any section. You need to read WP:SYNTH. Please do so, and then provide proper sources or remove them. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
They are about the nature of the current immigration to Sweden and all of the other European countries. It is perfectly valid and extremely important information. David A (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, this has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH. All of the cited statements/conclusions are repeated the way that they were presented within the referenced articles. It seems more like you wish to remove them because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. David A (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If the information isn't about immigration to Sweden, it's WP:OR. It's simple enough. Not to mention it has no place in the lead. I'll remove those statements from there now per WP:LEAD. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, all of them are about the nature of the immigrant wave coming to Europe, especially Sweden, as we are taking in the by far greatest amount. You are trying to remove the information based on a rhetorical technicality. If you wish for the articles to be somewhere else than the lead, move them. David A (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
In an effort to compromise, I have now created a separate section near the end of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_to_Sweden&type=revision&diff=810187269&oldid=810182987 David A (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Still WP:OR, still WP:SYNTH. Now it's just even more clear. Yes, there could and should be mentions of the 2015 migrant crisis in this article, but that doesn't mean that every fact that can be dug up about it belongs here. Not unless it actually touches on the topic of this article. Again, I will remove the section unless you can provide a reason for it within this topic. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It is neither OR nor SYNTH. Those are irrational false accusations, and you likely know it. They are blatant directly cited very important statements from reliable sources about the nature of the immigration wave that is hitting Sweden and the rest of Europe, in two of the cases from as reliable authorities as it is possible to get in this instance, the European Union itself, and the person in charge of immigration for Europe's most powerful country, Germany. As such, you still have no right to remove them. David A (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That said, I agree that the 2015 migrant crisis section should ideally be expanded, and you should feel free to do so, but the current references are definitely sufficiently relevant to be included. David A (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Look, for someone as quick to throw aspersions as you are, perhaps consider stones and glass houses? This isn't about WP:RS, so it's pointless to bring that up. You want to write about the 2015 migrant crisis? Do so in its own article. You want to write about immigration to Sweden? Do so here. But a section about the crisis does not belong in this article unless that section is explicitly about immigration to Sweden, and you likely know it. I have no desire to edit war, so unless you remove the section, I will try to get other eyes on this. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I will likely add references to that page eventually, but these official statements from the EU and Germany relate to the nature of the migrant stream that Sweden is directly affected by. As such, I genuinely do believe that the information is very relevant for this page, and still do not understand why you keep calling it original research or synthesis/misrepresentation of sources.
Also, I am admittedly a paranoid sort from being used to that lots of people are either not basing their conclusions or opinions on empirical facts, or even outright want to censor them from public view and destroy the lives of anybody who mention reliable statistics and the nature of reality. My apologies if I let my general frustration go out over you when not warranted.
I can add a RFC tag to this discussion if you wish. David A (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have now done so. David A (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Express is not a reliable source for discussing immigration. It's the newspaper in the UK for old people with memory loss, and it takes a overtly biased view on immigration -- one of their repeated topics along with Princess Diana, a cure for cancer/Alzheimer's, BIG WINTER CHILL COMING SOON (and other headlines predicting other extreme weather). My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 11:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if only one of the articles is allowed to remain, I suppose that it is better to move it to the related original section of the page instead. David A (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Since it was decided that only one of the three articles could stay, I have now removed the RFC tag. David A (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
You may do what you please, as long it won't get you topic banned or blocked or whatever. I've given my reasons for removal. Apologies, I didn't know you were undergoing an RfC. But I note above about your acceptance of the Daily Express as 'reliable' -- the bottom line is that this is a tabloid which uses sensationalism to get people to buy it. The front page of the newspaper on its Wikipedia article is the sort of thing that they like to publish. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. David A (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

An updated list regarding the situation in Sweden

I need help with evaluating which of the following information that should be incorporated into the article:

It was decided to open Sweden for mass-immigration from the 3rd world in 1975:

http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/regeringens-proposition-om-riktlinjer-for_FY0326

In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:

https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2008-11-21-brottsutvecklingen-i-sverige-fram-till-ar-2007.html

To compare with 5920 the year 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html

The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/nytt-fran-bra/arkiv/press/2016-11-03-utsatthet-for-sexualbrott-har-okat-bland-kvinnor.html

There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:

http://www.bt.se/sverige-varlden/480-000-sexbrott-mot-kvinnor-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar/

http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf

At least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by either immigrants or those with at least one immigrant parent:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/vanligt-med-utlandsk-bakgrund-bland-unga-man-som-skjuter/

94.5% of all career criminals in Stockholm, Sweden, are either immigrants or have at least one immigrant parent:

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/gangen-inifran/brotten-skulderna-bakgrunden--sanningen-om-de-gangkriminella-i-stockholm/

According to the Swedish police department, there are 53 areas in the country where the police has lost control of crime and religious extremism/Islamism. 23 of them are extremely criminal. There are at least 186 social alienation areas in sum total. In 1990 there were only 3 of them:

https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf

http://www.westmonster.com/8-new-areas-added-to-swedish-police-no-go-zone-list/

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hemliga-listan-23-omraden-ar-nu-sarskilt-utsatta/

http://c1845.cloudnet.se/nyheter/utanforskapets-karta/attachment/23270-utanforskapets-karta-2014-05-27/

http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/

According to the leader of the ambulance drivers' union, Gordon Grattidge, the police, and other rescue workers, cannot enter such areas without being subjected to severe violent assaults, such as stone-throwing lynch mobs:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071

http://www.weeklystandard.com/video-head-of-ambulance-union-confirms-no-go-zones-in-sweden/article/2007000

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/773310/Swedish-medics-military-equipment-enter-no-go-zones-Ambulance-Drivers-Union

According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war:

https://www.svd.se/svenska-attacker-med-granater-sticker-ut-i-varlden

There is a floating distinction between the jihadists and extremely violent criminals in Sweden:

https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/kronika/flytande-graens-mellan-gaengen-och-jihadisterna-33125

The number of physical assaults against boys between the ages of 15 and 17 in Sweden have increased by 68% during the last two years:

http://www.tv4.se/nyheterna/klipp/ungdomar-tappar-f%C3%B6rtroendet-f%C3%B6r-r%C3%A4ttsv%C3%A4sendet-3911550

The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year, right after taking in 203000 immigrants in 2015:

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/brottscentralen/tjejer-ofredas-pa-grona-lund-helt-oacceptabelt-/

The police of Sweden reports that: "Society is not equipped to deal with this great a number of criminal actors (...) Police and other social actors lack the ability to handle the problem."

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/rikspolischefen-har-tappat-kontrollen/

The number of genital-mutilated women in Sweden are several times higher than 38000:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mangdubbelt-fler-konsstympade-kvinnor-an-man-trott

Sweden will take in 374000 relatives to previous immigrants during the next 4 years:

http://www.svd.se/i-asylkrisens-spar-374-000-anhoriga-vantas

The number of immigrants that will apply for asylum to Sweden 2016-2020 in sum total:

https://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.2d998ffc151ac38715917594/1485556216677/Migrationsverkets+prognos+oktober+2016.pdf

10000 immigrants arrive in Italy every week, and mostly want to go to northern Europe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/italy-calls-european-countries-take-migrant-ships-country-struggles/

355000 Swedish elderly live below the poverty line: http://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/355-000-lever-under-gransen-for-fattigdom/

11% of the youths in the suburbs of Gothenburg admit to supporting Jihadism (non-Muslims were included in the survey):

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/g%C3%B6teborg/studie-var-tionde-elev-st%C3%B6ttar-religi%C3%B6sa-extremister-1.3908356

80% of Muslim women in Gothenburg admit to live under the threat of honour culture:

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/utbrett-hedersförtryck-mot-flickor-i-göteborg-1.3908432

There are thousands of Jihadists in Sweden:

https://www.svd.se/sapo-tusentals-radikala-islamister-i-sverige/om/hotet-mot-sverige

https://www.thelocal.se/20170616/thousands-of-violent-extremists-in-sweden-security-police/

The EU admits that extremely few of the immigrants to Europe have been actual refugees, and are rather there for economic reasons:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/819670/Migrant-crisis-EU-admits-hardly-any-people-arriving-Italy-refugees-deportations/

Germany admits that most of the immigrants almost completely lack education and work skills:

https://amp.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

82% of immigrants to Sweden who claim to be underage are really adults:

https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/det-visar-tre-manader-av-medicinska-aldersbedomningar/

Over 90% of the young 3rd world immigrants are men, not women:

http://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.7c00d8e6143101d166d1aab/1446451028489/Inkomna+ans%C3%B6kningar+om+asyl+2015+-+Applications+for+asylum+received+2015.pdf

A report about the intense antisemitism in the Muslim communities of Sweden and Europe:

http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/PP%203%20Antisemitisms%20160608.pdf

A study about antisemitic violence in Europe. The Muslims and the far left are the by far greatest perpetrators:

http://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/news-and-events/news/2017/antisemitic-violence-in-europe.html

The Muslim Brotherhood has a very strong foothold and influence in Sweden:

https://www.msb.se/Upload/Kunskapsbank/Studier/Muslimska_Brodraskapet_i_Sverige_DNR_2107-1287.pdf

It is also considering to move its international headquarters to Sweden:

https://ledarsidorna.se/2017/03/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-moving-to-sweden/

David A (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a cherrypicked list to advance the theory that immigration is harmful to the country. What really is harmful is the mudslinging in a country that is one of the most tolerant and peaceful countries in the world. This can even be seen as borderline antimuslim racism. Resident Patient (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Facts about the nature of reality do not confirm to any preconceived bias or prejudice. In addition, Islam is not a race, it is an ideology, and given that I have extremely limited mental information filters, I do not form any conclusions until long after I have investigated all the statistics and other reliable information that I can find. I do not work the other way around. I also do not believe in censoring facts, or rejecting them out of dogmatic fundamentalism.
Regardless, this is the entirely wrong place to engage in a mudslinging argument. David A (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This has not to do with "censoring facts". Rather, equally valid sources can be found that show just how beneficial immigration is to Sweden: [1]. - Resident Patient (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not by strictly following the most recent statistics, no, at least not going by the research that I have read by Tino Sanandaji, but you use an entirely new account, so it is probably used to attempt to lure me into a pointless heated argument that is rightly not perceived with mild eyes by the local administrators, and I am extremely busy elsewhere. Hence, I am going to end this now. David A (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is hardly a valid argument. I am not a "entirely new account" as you claim, rather, I'm a user since January this year. I'd appreciate if you were a bit more polite. - Resident Patient (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A reliable reference from the Financial Times

Is the following reference citing a reliable source describing the nature of the 2015 European migrant crisis relevant for inclusion in a page about immigration to Sweden, which has been more affected by the crisis than any other European country? Two other editors are both removing it: [2] [3] David A (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I just googled the name of the article, and found a copy here. It seems like the description/summary that I read at some point was misleading, and as such I will remove the RFC. I may be very anxious about the situation in the world, but I am not a deliberate liar. David A (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statistics disagreement

@AadaamS:@Soupforone: Since you do not seem to agree regarding which statistics to include in the page, perhaps you should discuss the matter here? David A (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the user adding material has the WP:BURDEN to avoid violating WP:UNDUE weight. Since Finns are the largest group and have migrated to Sweden for 200 years, sections for recent groups should be shorter. AadaamS (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems user Soupforone edits away without answering the summons. The edits are not useful as they focus only on recent statistics and nothing else. The user is also very active with many a day without seeking consensus. AadaamS (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
That opinion of yours above was not addressed to me, so it is unreasonable to expect me to reply to it. There was also certainly no consensus for your removal of current government statistics, so that is a moot point. Anyway, please see below. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Update

There is no wikipedia policy that indicates that older figures should be prioritized over current figures. On the contrary, Template:Update exists specifically to prioritize the up-to-date figures. Please remember this if tempted to blank up-to-date government statistics. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

5000 Euros

Given that Dagens Nyheter has retracted the following article, that claims that immigrant on average give a 5000 Euro net financial benefit, I clicked the link to the OECD research article, in order to replace the link with the original source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170305001158/https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/invandrare-betalar-mer-till-samhallet-an-de-far-tillbaka/

However, when I copied the link, and removed the Wayback Machine part of it, I received an error message:

http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/imo2013.htm

So it seems like OECD has also retracted the information. As such, both sources seem to now consider this research sufficiently unreliable to not stand by it anymore, so should this really be kept within the page, or can somebody find the original research in some other official location?

David A (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@AadaamS:@Soupforone:@Liftarn: Input would be appreciated. David A (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Googling the title "International Migration Outlook 2013" of the report yielded some results. As far as I can tell, the chart at the bottom of page 147 (see this link) lists net fiscal contribution (taxes paid minus social transfers) in for the 2007-2009 period in Figure 3.2. For households with "only immigrant household head", the net contribution is about 1000 euro, for "only native household heads" about 7500 euro and "mixed" about 14 000 euro. Note that even in the 2013 report, they were using figures from 4 years earlier. Page 300 specifically about Sweden does not mention 5000 euro, either. Anyone has a more recent or stronger source? Is the informtion in other pages, I have not read the entire report. We need consensus before the 5 000 euro figure is entered into the article again. AadaamS (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@AadaamS: The report is still listed within this page. As I mentioned earlier, my main concern is that both listed sources have deleted their article, and as such no longer stand for the information. David A (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@David A: you are mistaken (see this link), it is better if basic research is done before stating that OECD has "withdrawn" the report when they are hosting their documentation with an external service. As things are, there is no consensus yet that 5K euro figure is valid, so it may be deleted until consensus is reached. AadaamS (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: It's not retracted, it's simply behind a paywall. // Liftarn (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. My mistake then. David A (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
What paywall? I could read the document fine at the keepeek.com site. AadaamS (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a paywall at https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/invandrare-betalar-mer-till-samhallet-an-de-far-tillbaka/ (and it also appears to be an adblock blocker). // Liftarn (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liftarn: Since the DN.se article references OECD, it might be preferable to reference the OECD report directly. AadaamS (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. David A (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem here currently seems to be that the original report does not mention any 5000 Euros figure for Sweden, and that Dagens Nyheter is here either misunderstanding, misquoting, misremembering, or making things up: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2013_migr_outlook-2013-en#page300 David A (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable source for your claim about Dagens Nyheter? // Liftarn (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Other mainstream media taking it up about this specific case, you mean? I haven't checked the Google news search service yet. However, if the original report directly contradicts their claim, those are the only possibilities that I can think of. David A (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, do you have anything (any reliable source that is, not your own feelings) to show that Dagens Nyheter is wrong? // Liftarn (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I am referring to the following references linked to by AadaamS above, which did not mention any 5000 Euro number: [4] [5] David A (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Dagens Nyheter references the OECD report themselves, that's how that report is relevant to this discussion. How does the report support the Dagens Nyheter claims? AadaamS (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The source for that figure is the Dagens Nyheter article. How Dagens Nyheter got that number is not specified. FYI Dagens Nyheter is a major national newspaper so I doubt they just invented it. // Liftarn (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liftarn: I found an archived version of the page before it was moved behind the paywall. It's clear that if you click the link named "undersökning" in the archived DN page, it links to http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/imo2013.htm. That page is invalid, but it has been archived and it's clear that Dagens Nyheter refers to the OECD report named "International Migration Outlook 2013". So how does that report support the statements by DN.se? AadaamS (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
That is something you will have to talk with DN about. // Liftarn (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not have to talk to DN. The WP:BURDEN is upon the editor who wishes to add something to a WP article and as things are, the 5K figure is disputed as it should be perfectly traceable to OECD, but is not. AadaamS (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The source is the Dagens Nyheter article and thus the need of sourcing is fulfilled. If you want to claim DN is not reliable I think that burden is on you. // Liftarn (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a RFC would be the best solution here? David A (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liftarn: Dagens Nyheter are generally reliable, but since DN are referring to OECD and not the other way around, clearly OECD is the stronger source of the two. How does the OECD report support the statements by Dagens Nyheter? AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
DN also does their own work. For instance they did a series of in depth articles (full spread) on the economy of immigration. // Liftarn (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

using Google Translate appropriately

An over-reliance on Google Translate introduces subtle distortions when we aim for "encyclopedic text in English" in this article. There is something called kanslisvenska which can be loosely translated to "administration Swedish text". Using Google Translation, at best (unrealistic), will only result in "adminstration English text" while we aim for Encyclopedic English. A second point is that the purpose of Swedish government reports & investigations aren't exactly the same as that of an encyclopedia (simply describe a subject in the past & present). A report may highlight suitable areas for change/improvement as is the case in the EBO discussion above, but there is no telling what quantified impact the EBO system has on the prevalence of organised crime in migration. AadaamS (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

EBO phrasing

Here is a line-by-line juxtaposition of what the Swedish Police Authority actually indicates [6], the Google Translate presentation of that [goo.gl/eB7K17], and the Wikipedia presentation:
Phrase #1:

SPA: "Enligt uppgifter använder smugglingsnätverken de asylsökandes möjlighet att ordna egna boenden (EBO) i stället för boende anordnat av Migrationsverket."
Google Translate: "According to data, the smuggling networks use the asylum seekers' ability to organize their own housing (EBO) instead of accommodation organized by the Swedish Migration Board."
Wikipedia: "Data indicates that the smuggling networks would capitalize on the right of asylum seekers to establish their own housing (EBO) instead of accommodation organized by the Swedish Migration Agency."

Phrase #2:

SPA: "Genom sina kontakter i de särskilt utsatta områdena ordnar nätverken bostäder åt de personer som har smugglats."
Google Translate: "Through its contacts in the particularly vulnerable areas, the networks make homes for those who have been smuggled."
Wikipedia: "The smuggling networks would thereby organize accommodation for the smuggled in especially vulnerable areas, where the traffickers already had contacts in place."

Phrase #3:

SPA: "Det innebär att EBO kan innebära en utsatt situation för den asylsökande. Asylsökande kan till exempel utnyttjas som billig alternativt gratis arbetskraft och tvingas arbeta svart. En annan risk är 0,04 att de på pappret får en avtalsenlig lön men att de i praktiken får behålla en mycket låg andel av lönen och anordnaren tar 0,00 resten. Det finns även uppgifter om att asylsökande tvingas betala av skulden genom att lämna över ersättningarna de erhåller från välfärdssystemet till smugglarna."
Google Translate: "This means that the EBO may involve an exposed situation for the asylum seeker. For example, asylum seekers can be used as cheap or free labor and forced to work black. Another risk is 0.04 that they get a contractual salary on the paper but that in practice they can maintain a very low proportion of the salary and the organizer takes the 0.00 rest. There is also evidence that asylum seekers are forced to pay off the debt by handing over the remuneration they receive from the welfare system to the smugglers."
Wikipedia: "The EBO could thus potentially expose the asylum seeker to exploitation by traffickers through free labor, under-the-table work, and extorted welfare benefits."

As can be seen above, the wikitext is a faithful representation of what the government actually indicates. The government specifically links EBO housing with asylum seeker vulnerability to exploitation by traffickers, and it only indicates vulnerable areas rather than high-crime areas. Soupforone (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that you're putting the cart before the horse. The text in the first two sentences above indicate that the smugglers use the EBO to their advantage, not that asylum seekers who use EBO are exploited by smugglers. Sjö (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sjö, yes, the text appears to indicate that the smugglers are using EBO to their advantage. However, the wikiphrase asserting that "traffickers thus exploit asylum seekers by using them as free labor, under-the-table work, and siphoned off welfare benefits" is ungrammatical and needs to be rephrased. The government indicates cheap labor, so I suggest-- "The traffickers thus exploit asylum seekers by using them as cheap or free labor, coercing them into under-the-table work, and siphoning off their welfare benefits." Also, "high-crime areas" in the phrase above it should be worded to "vulnerable areas" per the government text and the common name for these areas. Soupforone (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Much better. Sjö (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Soupforone (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sjö: My objections were due to the text appearing to blame EBO for the exploitation, which reverses the causality process. It is very likely that organised criminals would have done the exploitation would have happened by other means, had EBO never existed. The phrase "Vulnerable area" is only the term used by the Swedish government, but is not used anywhere else in the English-speaking world and may not be meaningful to the English-speaking international layman reader (the intended audience of Wikipedia). ENWP is not intended for those who happen to understand kanslisvenska and kansliengelska. Also there's a legal distinction between cheap labour and black labour where the latter pay no taxes or social security fees. The former is legal, whereas the latter is criminal. AadaamS (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
In Phrase #2 it appears the Wikipedia text is not sourced properly. // Liftarn (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The official name in English for the areas is "vulnerable areas"; "no-go zones" was preferred by the right-wing press, but apparently not by the government/police-- "These areas are sometimes carelessly called 'no-go zones'. While the Police Authority has stated that working in these vulnerable areas is often difficult, it is not the case that police do not go to them or that Swedish law does not apply there." [7] ; "Police refer to these as "vulnerable areas." In the past, the Swedish right-wing press have referred to them as "no-go zones," but the police have repeatedly rejected the term." [8]). Soupforone (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Liftarn, the phrase is on page 16 ("Genom sina kontakter i de särskilt utsatta områdena ordnar nätverken bostäder åt de personer som har smugglats" [9]). Soupforone (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! But Wikipedia writes "accommodation /../ in especially vulnerable areas" and that is not supported by the source. The source don't say where the accommodation is. // Liftarn (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That the housing was established for the asylum seekers in vulnerable areas is implied by the two first phrases. This is because only two housing options are indicated therein, own housing/EBO or migration agency housing. It is the EBO housing which the smugglers are using to their advantage. This is more cogently explained in a later phrase-- "I flera av de särskilt utsatta områdena finns ett stort antal personer som vistas illegalt i landet." // "In many of the vulnerable areas there are a large number persons staying illegally in the country." Asylum seekers living in public housing via the migration agency are instead legal residents. Soupforone (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Own housing is not necessarily in vulnerable areas. That claim is unsourced. // Liftarn (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Own housing/EBO is indeed not necessarily in vulnerable areas. However, according to the government, the proportion of asylum seekers with EBO housing is relatively high in various vulnerable areas, where the traffickers have ties-- "I förhållande till antalet boende är andelen asylsökande med EBO förhållandevis stor i flera av de särskilt utsatta områdena." // "In relation to the number of residents, the proportion of asylum seekers with EBO is relatively high in several of the particularly vulnerable areas." Perhaps, then, the wikiphrase "the smuggling networks would thereby organize accommodation for the smuggled through the traffickers' contacts in the particularly vulnerable areas"? It is closer to the government's phrasing-- "Genom sina kontakter i de särskilt utsatta områdena ordnar nätverken bostäder åt de personer som har smugglats." // "Through its contacts in the particularly vulnerable areas, the networks make homes for those who have been smuggled." Soupforone (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like WP:SYN trying to connect two different facts like that. // Liftarn (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Which exact phrases are you alluding to? Soupforone (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the report, the root cause of welfare fraud and exploitation is organised crime organised by the compatriots of the migrants. It does not even say what fraction of fraud is partially facilitated by abusing EBO rules. AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The wikiphrase that "data indicates that the smuggling networks would capitalize on the right of asylum seekers to establish their own housing (EBO) instead of accommodation organized by the Swedish Migration Agency" stipulates nothing about what fraction of fraud is partially facilitated by abusing EBO rules. As Sjö wrote above, what it does actually indicate is that the smugglers use the EBO to their advantage. There is no mention of compatriots in the government line either ("Enligt uppgifter använder smugglingsnätverken de asylsökandes möjlighet att ordna egna boenden (EBO) i stället för boende anordnat av Migrationsverket."). It's the government phrase below that which may need rewording, not that first phrase. Anyway, please do not alter the agreed to phrasing while discussion is ongoing. Soupforone (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There are only 2 short paragraphs on on migrants being targeted by organised crime, one of them is about EBO. That would, in itself, indicate that 50% of the reason for organised crime is EBO. Even if a phrase is agreed to, it can still "need rewording" and not one single editor has the mandate to ban any part of the article from further improvement or discussion. Please remember that. AadaamS (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that other users simply giving up because they can't patrol articles several times a day is not agreement in any shape or form. AadaamS (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the agreement was Sjö's comment above (04:25, 13 December 2017) that my proposed phrasing was much better. The actual government passages italicized above also do not indicate a 50% figure. Soupforone (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning the article

I think this article requires a bit of cleaning to improve. I suggest two major edits that I think will make the article more clear.

1. Why do we have the nationalities and regions both in text and in table? Can we just keep the table? 2. Should we really have a separate section for politics or should we include it in history and as a subsection to contemporary immigration?

--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The population table would be better, as there are many immigrant groups. Since the politics pertains to the contemporary migration, it should probably go with the latter. Soupforone (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
So now we are two :). I discovered that the situation is worse than I thought as the article has many things overlapping with Demographics of Sweden which I now linked to as a main article for the demographics section. I wrote about this on Talk:Demographics_of_Sweden#Conflict_with_Immigration_to_Sweden_Demographic. Do you think that there is a demand for page Ethnic groups in Sweden (that does not redirect to Demographics of Sweden? We have Category:Ethnic groups in Sweden.
3. I am also thinking that we maybe should merge the sections about Education of immigrants and Effect on Education and similarly with Employment-> Unemployment and move disease. Is this a good idea? The reason is that I think it is difficult to separate them. A merged section could both include description of disease within the immigrant community and its effect on the general population
--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Overlap isn't much of an issue with respect to factual accuracy, it's only an issue of maintenance. Overlap is natural one piece of information may belong both within the scope of both Immigration and Demographics. So one piece of information may turn up in several articles, if relevant to all. AadaamS (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Immigration is summarized on the demographics page because it is a subset of the national demographics. The overlap imo is primarily on this page; the two education passages, for example, are indeed quite confusing. Another thing is the generally cynical tone. It's weird how many of the claimed effects of immigration resemble what the Swedish government actually dismisses as misrepresentations/distortions of its official data [10]. Soupforone (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I mostly agree about the overlap. I would like to add that the overlap is also an issue for the readers wanting to know about a topic. It is better to have a long version and a short version than two similar but not identical version of History. As for the ethnicity. The problem is maybe not as much of overlap as it is of the article becoming bloated. We already have main article Immigration to Sweden for the whole section, but is there a way to clarify even further that the history part is also on this article? I am planning to expand the history section here.
Good! I'll do the merge then. I think language issues are secondary at the moment, but eventually we have to solve this issue as well. "Facts about migration and crime in Sweden" is a controversial site, but it goes in the other way as well with "In Sweden an immigrant on average gives a net contribution to public finances.", which is not what the consensus is. Furthermore there is a lot of sloppy one liners and a general lack of full paragraphs.
--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I now see why the sections are placed under Demographics. I think it actually makes sense to keep Education and Employment under demographics as it is a part of this. The employment will reappear as an effect in public finances--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's see if it survives, but I created the page List of ethnic groups in Sweden. Here those who want can promote their articles without bloating this one. If it survives I will link to it in the article--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself done for now this article. Before we can fix the politics section if it should be fixed, the history section needs to expand and this will take a while. The article is a lot better now in my opinion at least.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, government.se is "the common website of the Government and the Government Offices." [11] Soupforone (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Immunmotbluescreen

In the last hour, Immunmotbluescreen has on four occasions mass-removed reliably sourced text (dozens of sources, half of them scholarly publications and the rest high-quality news sources). The user has provided zero substantive reasons for this mass-removal, even spuriously accusing me of WP:VANDALISM for importing this long-standing text from Immigration and crime. This is the text[12].

Also, in the last 24 hours, Immunmotbluescreen has on six occasions restored Tino Sanandaji's self-published book. Sanandaji's self-published books or op-eds in Nyheter Idag are not RS. If the user believes that these are RS, he/she should go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard to get confirmation. There is at the very least no justification for six reverts within 24 hrs to keep this crap in the article.

I encourage the user to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted on behalf of Immunmotbluescreen who is having difficulties of the WP:NOTGETTINGIT variety. Policies and guidelines have been pointed out to you as to why the content you are trying to reinsert are inappropriate for an encyclopaedic article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
When do you stop assuming good faith and call out the troll?
What is established is that there is an overreprenstation and that violent crime is increasing, not why. If you even suggest it, you can't be taken seriously. Eventhough you have posted your wall of text and effectively set the article back weeks, the section hasn't mentioned other perspectives than sociology. It is of highest importance that the article does not take a side and give a fair view to both perspectives.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The ones who are not getting it are you. Many books today are self published as there is no need for a publisher thanks to technology Self-publishing. You never complained when I did all my other edits based on this book, you only complain when it goes against your view. I am trying to not take a view and as you have seen I have presented several perspectives in all my edits. You are pushing one view. The argument is stated in a book, a radio show by SR and in a news paper. Think for yourself instead of thinking self-published = false. Sanandaji is not claiming anything there, he is just reasoning.
Edit wars does not apply as we're having a civilised discussion about this topic and you want to blank out the entire section.
--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It's impossible to respond to these delusional ramblings that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Well if you can't argue your case, maybe you should be an editor in the first place?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(1) If you want to change WP:SPS, our policy on self-published sources, make a suggestion on its talk page.
(2) In the meantime, while self-publishing may be more prevalent than it was, it does not make the source any more reliable. Self-published sources are good only for the opinions of the writer, and not as sources for unbiased fact, as there is no publisher involved to fact-check the source
(3) Please read WP:BRD for the proper relationship between editing and discussion. Edit-warring is not excused by the existence of a discussion, and, in fact, should stop until there is a consensus reached in the discussion. The article should stay in the status quo ante during the discussion.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not throw in a comment in a discussion you do not know what it is about. 1 I don't want to change the policy, we are discussing its interpretation. 2. It is the opinion of the writer and as such the book is enough (eventhough I also provided third party sources including the largest news organisation in Sweden Sveriges Radio). The rule however does not say only opinion (which is the case here), it says use with caution 3. I am waiting until the discussion has been settled in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, however I don't think edit wars apply if you delete the entire section and insert a low quality biased version instead. We were discussing this peacefully before the trolls came here--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Immunmotbluescreen: WP:NPA. You have jumped in and started on editing several articles, as well as taking the Sanandaji issue to a noticeboard and are treating editing Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You are edit warring content on these articles and have not actually spent any time getting to understand the policies and guidelines you've been pointed to over and over and are, rather, misconstruing them in order to favour your own arguments. Please step back, take a deep breath, and spend some time familiarising yourself with these policies. It's time to WP:LISTEN. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You are not serious in your comments so I have nothing to learn from you. First you blame me for every issue with the article eventhough I have mostly moved sections around, not written them. Then you make preposterous claims about using sources. Maybe you need to WP:Stop making false accusations and learn the basics of using sources, which you seem to struggle with. No one complained about my editing until you and Snooganssnoogans started with your troll edits. Go ahead and point out a single policy that I have not followed. Even here you are factually incorrect in your accusation. I am editing two articles now, no one thinks this is extreme. How can I be responsible for both edit wars if you claim the one first reverting the edit is responsible here and claim the one making the reversed edit is responsible over there? Your interpretation of the rules changes depending on how it benefits you. Do you think you are fooling anyone when all your edits are public? Lying about users is not allowed.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Government

Many of the claimed effects of immigration herein parallel what the Swedish government dismisses as misrepresentations/distortions of its official data [13]. Soupforone (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As somewhat of an hobby expert in the subject, I am afraid it is not that easy. The site has been found to be misleading in it's claims. Tino Sanandaji and others has written about this topic. Search for Ullenhag and sanandaji (in Swedish). It was Ullenhag who initiated the website.
But you are right in that we have to work on the claims. They are missing references to the most important academic studies in many cases. Some of the claims are misquoted as well. For example migration was not a cost until 1980, but is today according to the studies. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
It has become apparent that, over the last few days, this article is becoming more and more of a WP:COATRACK for the 'ills' of migration from those pesky third world countries. HIV graphs have been introduced (where the 'health' issues section was already WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE), and WP:RECENTISM plus WP:NOTNEWS content is being expanded. This is a broad scope article on immigration to Sweden, not a hard-line, blow-by-blow political narrative of public spending, unemployment, and other synth issues. Very recent immigration to Sweden takes up half the article with the content belonging to articles specifically looking at issues per WP:TITLE. The article is in desperate need of a hard pruning as it is rambling WP:OFFTOPIC to the subject: a general, balanced look at the history of immigration to Sweden with content on more contemporary immigration being presented in proportion to the rest of its history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "migration was not cost" means. Anyway, I Googled the above and didn't find any such discussion of the government.se website. I only found blogs and forum posts of that nature. Odd thing was that many appeared to have been written by people of foreign origin - almost as though these individuals were overcompensating for not being ethnically Swedish or even European. Soupforone (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The government.se site a WP:PRIMARY source because the government of Sweden is ultimately responsible for the immigration policies of Sweden, hence not WP:RS. It's also WP:SPS. It could be used as a source on what the government says, not what established academics think. Of course employment/unemployment/integration/health/education with regards to immigration is relevant to the article. How can they not be?
It is an unfortunate notion that opinions of Swedish bloggers with foreign origins can't be taken at face value due to their background, such notions are unfortunately common in Identity politics. Which opinions should foreign-origin bloggers in Sweden have? In my opinion, they can have whichever opinion they want and the opinion ought to be judged on its merit. AadaamS (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
On topic: @Soupforone I meant to say that immigration overall has gone from a net positive to a net negative in later years. I edited this in the article yesterday. I think tino.us is a great source, better than news papers. Tino is an economist at the Stockholm School of Economics which is widely regarded as the leading institution in economics in Sweden and has written the best selling book Massutmaning on the subject (which I base most on my edits on). But maybe the website has a point. What does it say that contradicts the Wikipedia article in your opinion? I agree with AadaamS on this.
Off topic @Iryna Harpy since I did most of the edits I will that this is directed towards me. I'm afraid don't share your view. My biggest contribution so far has been removing certain sections, moving certain sections and expanding history. Then I have also fixed the public finances section (with the help of Soupforone). Most of the problems you mention were there before and I don't think I should be blamed for this. Take a look at the version history of this article.
If you look at a similar article such as Immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration should be included. I don't think we should aim at presenting immigration to Sweden as a neutral subject. If the effects are negative, we should state that without taking side. We should not remove information just to balance the article. What we should do is to include more of the general views as I did in history and in public finance. The crime section contain many anecdotes, but fails to mention that crime overall is going down, although violent crime is going up. Immigration is not the only factor here, but a major one.
As of contemporary immigration, do you think it would help to split that section into sections such as public opinion and international media coverage. International media coverage was previously named media coverage, then removed by Soupforone after I expanded it for some reason. I think the contemporary section also miss the most important parts and the policy of Reinfeldt government. Feel free to also answer the question in the talk section above, where the history ends and contemporary begins--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone You seemed to have removed the sentence about OECD, as you saw in the previous version many are confused by this report so I thought it was important to clarify. Maybe if we instead state it as what it came up with and then clarify what the misinterpretations say? A search for "invandring lönsamt" links to these articles--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, blogs are unreliable regardless of background per WP:SPS and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Trying to substitute partisan opinion with the government's official data is also not neutral. Anyway, if by sentence about OECD you mean the one claiming that the OECD paper "has sometimes been misquoted to have shown that immigrants on average are net contributors", that is almost the exact opposite of what the urls stipulate. They indicate that immigration drove economic gains, not deficits [14] [15]. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are never WP:RS for ENWP - precisely not the issue. It is better to think that Swedish bloggers with foreign origin can have any opinion they like, not the opposite where foreign-origin bloggers are by some conspiracy theory claimed to be "overcompensating", as if getting a good education and working hard must be "suspicious" only if born outside Sweden. AadaamS (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I never wrote that getting a good education and working hard must be suspicious only if born outside Sweden. That is a straw man fallacy. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
"Actually, blogs are unreliable regardless of background per WP:SPS and WP:NOTADVOCATE." You have a bad habit of referring to rules that does not say what you claim they say. Verifiability says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This is the exact case here. But forget about the rules for a while, it is just common sense that you can't dismiss all blogs. Some blogs are reliable, some are not. It depends on the situation. But back to question, which source in the article do you think is incorrectly cited?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a bracketed caveat right after that phrase above on WP:SPS, which indicates "please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." The Tino fellow's claims are exceptional, but his blog and self-published book certainly are not. This is in part because "self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content" (also bracketed). Soupforone (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How can you claim that his claims are exceptional? You can verify what he says by reading the actual report. [16] [17] Look for table 3.7 in the report. Ideally we would link to the report maybe, but you can only get in from a third party which we should avoid?
This is difficult for you to know if you don't have the book or read Swedish news, but while there is no middle man that makes a profit on Massutmaning, the book has been verified by Assar Lindbeck, Magnus Henrekson and others. This is stated on the first page of the book, would it help if I send you a picture of it? The book has also been reviewed afterwards and verified again. In some cases I have gone straight to sources in his book if you prefer that. I don't think that a simple logic argument is an unexceptional claim so I reinsert that, but even if it was the book would be good enough to cover it. Notice I didn't write Sarnecki is wrong, I wrote Sanandaji argues that Sarnecki is wrong. Thus we get both parts of the picture. Amir Sarislan at Karolinska Institute has also established that there is no evidence for low status and crime, but it does not target Sarnecki specifically.
You also seem to start questioning sources in sections I have touched, but not edited. I hope you don't mix the judgment of these sources with my judgment. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by the template? What links are missing? How can the reference to the journal article be improved? You can easily find the article with in a journal database, but I don't think you will ever find it online as the report is from 97--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, an exceptional claim comprises "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources". That includes Sanandaji's self-published blog and book. It also stipulates that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." You claim above that one Amir Sarislan has published something similar. If this is in an independent reliable publication (not a self-published, news blurb or partisan source), then perhaps it would be suitable next to Sarnecki. By the way, claiming that Sarislan established rather than suggested that there was no correlation between low status and crime is taking a side. Editors should strive instead to remain neutral and avoid partisan language, opinions and sources per WP:LABEL, WP:NOTADVOCATE and Template:Partisan sources. As to Tonry (1997), the paper lacks a direct url. Please as a courtesy either provide a direct link so that I may verify its contents per Template:unlinked references, or a quote from its indicated page 24 per WP:VER ("when there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy"). If you are unable to do this, then the passage is unverifiable and should be removed per WP:VER. Soupforone (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A logic argument is not a claim and if "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." ever is used it is here. As I also linked to a third party source Nyheter Idag where they repeats his argument for him, it is not even a question of a self published source. You can just ignore what it says in the documentation and think for yourself. Is a book by one of the most famous economists on the topic, peer reviewed by virtually all other important economists and praised for it's accuracy by critics a good enough source for verifying that an argument has been made?
I did not introduce that source, I just wanted to remove the template. It seems I can't access the source either, the database results were just summaries. Feel free to remove it. I don't think it adds anything and it is probably outdated. I think there is a Wikipedia community request for reviewing things like that.
Also I reintroduced, public opinion and trust sections. Public surveys are a method of investigating a topic, not to a topic by itself. I think both sections are necessary--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I explained that the WP:SPS passage (phrase+bracketed caveat) actually indicates "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[...] please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Sanandaji's self-published book is not an exceptional source. Also, public surveys is a more neutral title than public opinion per WP:NOTOPINION. Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your mature way of resolving an issue and civility. Some times you take adult behavior for granted until you are reminded that not everyone acts this way. I will now add SR as well although that is in spoken Swedish without transcript. Now there are two sources besides the self-published book. You still haven't answered what is so exceptional about claiming Sanandaji has made a logical argument against Sarnecki? Take a look at his Facebook page and he makes such arguments all the time.
Public surveys are something different than public opinion. Yes, public surveys are prone to errors and maybe not capture the public opinion correctly, but that should in that case be stated along with the surveys. Public surveys are also used to capture falling willingness to report crimes, extremism and segregation. Public opinion is a section in immigration to United States
--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The reason why I have assumed you are not following Swedish news, is because you seem to be unaware of the high lights of the debate. Maybe this article will introduce you to why I think it is important to include Sanandaji's perspective in this article[18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunmotbluescreen (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not particularly convinced by the public survey/public opinion dichotimization, but okay; just as long as it is understood that the passage is earmarked for official surveys of public opinion, not random soapboxing per WP:NOTOPINION. With that said, per WP:SPS, "self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". This is the problem with Sanandaji's self-published book. Yes, his work has apparently sometimes been characterized as based on official data, but it has also been characterized as distorting/misrepresenting that same official data [19]. If as you suggested something similar has been published in an independent reliable publication (not a self-published, news blurb or partisan source), then perhaps it would be suitable next to Sarnecki. Anyway, this would have to be individually evaluated here on the talkpage through civilized discussion and agreement, not through edit warring. Soupforone (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing for a random soap box, I just think it would be nice if contemporary immigration focused on describing contemporary immigration and that public opinion should be included in at a proper place. The Sanandaji part is now discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. That criticism is one of a 4 part exchange. Overall (due weight ;) ) the book was well received. I don't do edit warring, but I do stand who remove entire sections without first discussing it on the talk page.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Dubious indicates that "if you believe that a statement is both unverifiable and probably wrong, then you should consider removing it from the article (and perhaps copying it to the talk page with an explanation) instead of tagging it." With that established, what I see is that Sanandaji's self-published book is (a) at most notable as a political argument rather than as a work of scholarship, (b) his views can be mentioned in this context along with the criticisms of them, and (c) they must be kept as short as possible and not be given equal weight to more authoritative academic works. That is very different from what you wrote above. Anyway, those caveats sound reasonable to me; please suggest appropriate phrasing for this. Soupforone (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how on earth can this be your interpretation? The consensus is that Sanandaji is just as qualified if not more qualified to make a judgement on statistical methods as Sarnecki. The rest is most an offtopic discussion about the choice of words. Again think for yourself. Sanandaji has just proven that Sarnecki and his peers suck at statistical methods and should be disregarded, this is also argued by [20][21]. There is nothing more political about Sanandaji than Sarnecki. There are academic journals that claim that everything is a social and nothing is inherited. You have to think for yourself and not the simplied and fixed self-published=bad, journal=infallible. No one has pointed out a fallacy in Sanandaji in his argument. Sarnecki doesn't even deny that Sanandaji is wrong, but continues to add that there could be other explaination that he is still is right.You can't bring the KTH economists debate about the use of certain specific sources (which Sanandaji does not agree about) to counter this argument.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This is his five page argument about Sarnecki [22]. It is in Swedish, but maybe you can understand some of it (brott = crime)--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was paraphrasing what an editor wrote-- "I would treat it like any other highly controversial but notable polemic: mention his views, and mention the criticisms, but keep it as short as possible and don't give equal weight to more authoritative academic works. AFAICT it looks to be notable as a political argument, not as scholarship, and should be treated accordingly." Per Snooganssnoogans and Stephan Schulz, the only real consensus appears to be that Sanandaji's self-published book was not scholarly peer-reviewed, and that a book review of a publication is obviously not the same thing as a scholarly peer review of a publication. Also, while Sanandaji indeed may be well-versed in statistical methods, his specialization as an economist is on financial statistics rather than on criminal statistics like the criminologist Sarnecki. Your link above doesn't dispute that (the other is a wordpress blog). It just complains that "Sweden has since 1994 not included in its crime statistics[...] any regular statistics on criminals' nationality or country of birth", so Sarnecki's claims are ultimately unverifiable [23]. Of course, the corollary to that is that Sanandaji's claims are for the same reason unverifiable too. Soupforone (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never claimed sno is unsuccessful in side tracking conversations or preventing improvements, just that it seems to be a pattern with him. I suppose it's difficult to see the real consensus with there is essentially just three answers and some sidetrack conversations about nothing, you can also take the view of death talk. It is either case an improvement in terms of NPOV that we agree it is relevant to include his views. I still feel that you are stuck in the fixed thinking about types of source and titles without considering the argument that is made. This alone proves Sanandaji is more competent. Another view to see it is the fact that even tough Sweden is dominated by criminology views, all signs show that crime is rising rapidly, which is as clear sign as you can get of their incompetence. In Germany where statistics are not kept secret this just came up [24]. But lets leave this discussion for now.
I think we should start the crime section from scrach with information from this version together with the old version and what we have discussed here. I suggest we do that under a new section so that more people can join without having to read this wall of text. Do you agree that the current crime section is a mess? Too long without mentioning the most important part? That is lacks all form of structure and is embarrassingly biased?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing by Snooganssnoogans and Iryna Harpy looks more neutral to me. I support that since it is much closer to what the Swedish government indicates is the actual situation [25]. Also, please bear in mind WP:MAINSTREAM-- "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship. However it does not mean that Wikipedia content is based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia simply depends on the most reliable sources to verify content. Thus, what is considered "mainstream" for Wikipedia may be the minority view in society." Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream has nothing to do with the subject. Both the University of Chicago and Stockholm School of Economics is widely regarded as prime institutions and you keep avoiding the argument again and again. If Sarnecki is so great, why does he makes such beginner mistakes in his research and why does the crime keep increasing? Sanandaji's views are going to be included in some form which is the consensus of the discussion. Then we are also going to include that the government has stopped research in this area by denying access. This is non-negotiable in terms of NPOV, but the form can be discussed.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect, you clearly do not understand the consensus process and how Wikipedia actually works. Soupforone (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected for 3 days

Which will stop the editwarring. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The history section

I'm planning to expand the history section with the history from 1991 to current years. I am however not sure where the current years begin and history ends. From the main article is called History of Sweden (1991–present), but I am thinking it is to much and too different to include all of this in the contemporary section. Where should we make a break? With 2006 and the election of Reinfeldt? The current section seem to start at 2008 unofficially. Maybe better to set it to 2006 officially?

Also is there a reason why we use semicolon instead of equal signs when dividing into sub sections? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: start with whichever period you have WP:RS sources for. There is no consensus that I am aware of for when "current section" starts. The sections can always be restructured later. AadaamS (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing missing section

Since I not fully sure in what to write in the history sections nor the on topic contemporary section, why don't we try to crowdsource events, trends and policy that should be mentioned? Feel free to add things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunmotbluescreen (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

1991-2006
  • Revokal of the decision of Saint Lucy day. Westerberg threatened to leave the government otherwise
  • Apathic immigrant children
  • Immigration from Yugoslavia
  • Immigration from Iraq
  • Graph showing the share of immigrants of the total population over time.
Contemporary
  • Policy of Reinfeldt, both work force immigration and deal with green party on refugee immigration and welfare
  • Sweden Democrats in parliament
  • Discussion about "Ensamkommande flyktingbarn"
  • This statistcs from the european migration crisis [26]

Comment

Sourcing

There's an overview by a researcher at Malmö University by Swedish Radio here at this link. Events from the 60s and 70s are mentioned. Technically Sweden has existed as a kingdom since the 16th century, there's no reason historical events should not be covered in this article, provided WPRS exist. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

People smuggling

Also, BRÅ has release a report that has a section about people smuggling (sv: Människosmuggling) : https://www.bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2016-08-23-kriminella-natverk-och-grupperingar.html AadaamS (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Migrant Integration Policy Index

According to the Swedish government, Sweden tops the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The MIPEX compares integration policy in 38 nations [27]. Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Last time I looked the MIPEX measured policy effort "the intentions", not policy outcome "what are the practical results". Please provide a link to the MIPEX source, the government.se text does not have a name attached to it, unlike SOU reports hosted on government.se. In general, I think govt the results of policy efforts as well as the efforts themselves (expenditure, number of staff etc) those are relevant to this article. AadaamS (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It must be pointed out that the government.se link posted by Souforone does not include the latest figures, for instance while the corresponding figure in 2015 was 33. whereas as per the graph rendered above from Police statistics, the figure for 2017 is 43. It is a useful site in that it provides links to reliable information but it's better to rely on the links it provides. AadaamS (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The government webpage was posted in February, so most of its figures are likely up-to-date. Soupforone (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MIPEX is a European Union-run global index [28]. It measures integration policies for migrants in 38 countries, including all EU member states. Sweden apparently topped the current index, with a score of 78 out of a possible 100 [29]. Soupforone (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-migration stuff

There's currently a lot of non-migration stuff. I've removed this, for example, because no where in the source does it attribute the increase in extremism to immigration. It attributes it to the Syrian war, social media, poverty etc - but not to immigration.VR talk 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a big problem on immigration-related subs. I've done similar clean-up on other Wikipedia pages on immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The Swedish Defence University also notes that while there are thousands of foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, most of the militants are natives. The stuff on emigration abroad therefore appears to be both undue and irrelevant to this page on immigration to Sweden. However, the estimated number of returned foreign fighters (~106) would perhaps be relevant since they are return immigrants. Soupforone (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Restarting the crime section

I fixed the crime section on this page, but then other users deleted everything and replaced it with an even worse section. The current section is both NPOV and off topic. Why should it include Trump? His statements wasn't even on the crime exclusively, but on the situation in total. The quote was in the lines "they have problems they couldn't even dream up" or something in that fashion.

What is know is that although crime is falling in total in all of Europe, violent and sexual crime is rising in Sweden. It is also know that immigrants are overrepresented in these crimes. What is not know is the explanation. On one side Sarnecki and others who argue that it is not immigration that is causing the crime, it is poverty and socioeconomic factors, and on the other side there is people like Tino Sanandaji and others who argue that accounting for socioeconomic factors does not change the fact that immigration has led to more crime since it has caused inequality. They also point out other flaws in Sarnecki's reasoning and use of sources. Both these views needs a representation.

Immigration to Sweden is a interesting subject it seems because the page views sometimes even surpass immigration to Canada which is a larger country and surpass immigration Australia. So it is important for all of Wikipedia that we get this right. Some have argued that because a perspective is from the right, it shouldn't be included. However Wikipedia should not take sides and include all important perspectives.

I suggest the ideal crime section should contain the following and in this order (not as a subsection but as paragraph). Please give feed back and contribute. I might have forgotten important sections, but in general I think the section needs to be more on topic.

  • A summary of the general trend of crime in Sweden (crime overall is falling as in the rest of Europe, but violent crime and sexual crime is increasing) Sweden is also becoming relative more crime ridden compared to other Nordic countries with less immigration
    • Maybe a small discussion of how reporting crime and change in law might be a factor in this
  • Immigrant are overrepresented in crime statiscs with the latest offical studies 1997 and 2005, but since then the government has forbidden now research to take place (imporant point as of NPOV).
    • Sociology explaination of crime (Sarnecki view)
    • Critics of this view

Do you seem this as a fair plan on fixing the articles NPOV. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The section is fine as it is. You present zero substantive reasons for changing the section and you seem also to misunderstand the text itself. You for instance seem convinced (this is all you talk about) that the whole section presents Sarnecki's views or that it represents the "Sarnecki view" when Sarnecki is only mentioned twice. There are dozens of sources, half of the scholarly publications and the rest are high-quality news outlets, and numerous scholars have statements attributed to them. You seem obsessed with turning the whole section into an op-ed page style debate between two scholars (Sarnecki and Sanandaji) for some bizarre reason. The changes you propose above are also WP:OR (such as your contention that we should link a crime increase in Sweden to an immigration increase). We go with reliable sources. If you have scholarly publications to share with us, do so - otherwise it's a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE to try to propose critiques of existing scholarly publications with low-quality sources (such as self-published books and reports released by far-right political parties). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It is the complete opposite of fine, it is useless. It is both too long, without mentioning the relevant parts. It is longer than any other section in the article and the longest section about crime and immigration on entire Wikipedia. You have already lost your case about Sanandaji at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There will be no further discussion whether or not to include his view or similar views. Once again you try to side track the discussion, by Sarnecki it was obvious to everyone that read the sentence that I am mean the proven incorrect view that it has nothing to do with immigration. By Sanandaji, I mean the thus far unchallenged view that their argument is wrong and that they are incompetent. Sarnecki and Sanandaji is just the sources for this argument. You on the other hand have not provided a single argument for deleting the entire section without first discussing it on the talk page.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no consensus on the RS noticeboard for turning this section into a bizarre "here's Sarnecki's view and here's Sanandaji's view" section (as far as I can observe, your whole understanding of the immigration-crime debate in Sweden seems to revolve around op-eds by Sarnecki and Sanandaji - note that the crime section in this article is largely about peer-reviewed scholarly publications, not random op-eds). To what extent that anyone (besides you) on the RS noticeboard argued for the inclusion of Sanandaji's views it was as a short attributed statement, and there was even pushback on that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
If you think WP:NPOV is bizarre policy, maybe you should consider permanently deleting your account before it gets banned? Since you tried to side track the conversation about nothing, the consensus is less clear, however the consensus was if Sanandaji's views are relevant (which no serious editor can deny as he is the most famous academic on the subject) then the book is enough to include it. To not mention Sanandaji and similar views would be like not disputing Flat Earth. Or to remove the biological view from gender because no sociology paper acknowledge them. You have provided 0 (ZERO) arguments why Sanandaji is not 100 % right and the sociology view is 100 % wrong. Yet I am not even arguing that we should not include the amateur sociology view that have no basis in real science or logic. I think both views should be stated without interruption and let the reader decide what to think. The reason why you are against this is because if the views are presented fairly you know that people will dismiss sociology view, and rightly so.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
He is the most famous academic on this subject, yet has zero peer-reviewed publications on it? You're also confused about how WP:RS. It doesn't matter is Sanandaji is right (which he isn't) and the whole scientific literature is wrong. That has zero bearing on whether things are included on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we follow reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Immunmotbluescreen: as far as I know, BRÅ has not published reliable statistics on immigrant crime since 2005 and the current and the previous government have chosen not to make these statistics avilable. So BRÅ and probably also Statistics Sweden are politically stopped from publishing the kind of statistics that have been published in Norway. If statistics were published in Sweden, very little indicates those statistics (over-representation remaining even after "adjusting" for socioeconomic factors) would be any different and that's why those statistics are politically unacceptable. There's also Antirasistiska Akademin, a network of Swedish university academics denying things like honor violence, which works to hinder statistical or critical research on immigration issues at Swedish universiteties. For these reasons, it is very unlikely that ENWP will have any solid sources for the foreseeable future. Those are the reasons that Sanandaji could not release his research as a publication of the Stockholm School of Economics. AadaamS (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
AadaamS, please stop using this talk page as a forum. This is not a venue for airing your personal opinion. Please familiarise yourself with WP:TPNO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@AadaamS thank you for sharing your view and exemplifying the nuance in the debate. Harpy usually goes around and target less active users that she disagrees with rules, that for the uninformed look scary. She has attacked me several times without basis and on Talk:Immigration to the United States she attacked a user that stood up for NPOV and specific language. Undeniable they have pattern of trying to enrage users so that they can get them banned for civility, but try to just stay calm.
The previous version had a source that they didn't want to release this data (look at version history) so that is established and not denied by anyone. As I wrote on Talk:Tino Sanandaji he has explicitly said that he avoids researching immigration and stick to official data and other research so that they won't question his research.
@Snooganssnoogans: The scientific method does not change between different fields. If logic doesn't apply in a field it is likely it's a soft science/pseudoscience. Sanandaji is an expert in scientific methodology and as said before neither Sanandaji or Sarnecki has done any research on immigration in particular. Sarnecki now said that he finds it reasonable that immigration leads to crime [[30]] and. But let me get back to you about this and Amir Sariaslan whose study show that crime and socioeconomic factors does not have a strong link in Sweden next week.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Sarnecki is alluding there to Germany in relation to its 2014-2015 spike in asylum seekers rather than to general immigration. As regards Sweden, there are no such published official statistics, nor apparently does he think that they are useful [31]. Soupforone (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a point to my previous post. While SnoogansSnoogans is correct that Sananandaji has not published any peer-reviewed study on immigration and crime in Sweden, this circumstance is also true for every academic in Sweden, including Sarnecki. From that perspective, it is doubtful that Sarnecki's views have any greater merit than those of Sanandaji. At least we have a source on why there are no official statistics - the government is blocking their release. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sananandaji has no formal education in the field either (i.e. he's a layman) and he presents a fringe view so it may be an idea to not give his views undue space. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sanandaji has an education in statistics & political science and is employed as a researcher at Stockholm School of Economics, how is that "layman"? Us editors are "layman". It's hardly a fringe view if it's similar to views held by academics and statistical offices in Denmark, Norway or other parts of the world. More important than whether it's "fringe" or not, is whether it's factual. Doesn't change the fact that Massutmaning is WP:SPS because no established intitution/publisher dared release it. Massutmaning likely has a list of references in the book and those which are WP:RS could be used for this section. AadaamS (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Just in the same way as Robert Faurisson (lit.prof) is a layman regarding WW2 history. Tino Sanandaji is probably a reliable source regarding questions about entrepreneurship and taxation, but not immigration and crime. // Liftarn (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Discrediting Sanandaji doesn't change the fact that no Swedish criminologist has published a study on immigration and crime. It gets strange when Sanandaji is the only one criticised for something that goes for all universities and state agencies in Sweden. If Sanandaji's qualifications really was the root cause, the people who are claimed to possess the know-how would have released a study by now - yet haven't. Going on about Sanandaji's qualifications is just a red herring. His qualifications is not the reason there's no study. AadaamS (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article links to a handful of peer-reviewed studies on immigration and crime.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not about 'discrediting' Sanandaji, but about whether he is a qualified (i.e.: WP:RS) source for content in this article. As editors, it is not our decision to include someone's opinion because we believe that reliable sources are not disclosing information for 'cloak and dagger' reasons. That is known as a breach of WP:NOR, and is WP:FRINGE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, what are those peer-reviewed studies based on, if the raw statistics by BRÅ have not been updated since 2005? Where did they get the raw data? Do they have data later than 2005? For which time periods are those reports valid? Iryna: a Swedish minister openly stating statistics should not be updated does not constitute "cloak-and-dagger", just publicly stated policy. <== run that link in Google Translate AadaamS (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tino Sanandaji does not appear to have degrees in the relevant field (criminology). According to his resume, he has an MSc in Economics and Business Administration, an MA in Economics, an MA in Public Policy, and a PhD in Public Policy. However, based on his PhD dissertation (entitled Essays in Entrepreneurship Policy) his public policy focus seems to be entrepreneurship rather than criminology, unlike the professional criminologist Jerzy Sarnecki. Virtually all of Sanandaji's professional experience, peer-reviewed journal publications and books appear instead to be finance-related [32]. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if we're not going to include Sanandaji or similar, which we will since this view is essential for the debate, the current section still lacks important information about the censoring of new research and the new types of crime such as honor killing and a small summary of the crime statistics in general. This section is however too long and the previous version was nearer an acceptable stage than this one. You have yourself said that the Trump discussion is irrelevant even for a media section, and it fits even worse here as the comment was about the situation in general. You didn't protest when contemporary immigration was called a long section, but this is even longer (1496 vs 980 words). It is also biased as the sociology view is pushed at every opportunity.
Further Sanandaji has written a book on the topic citing current research and is often interviewed as an expert on the subject. Immigration is a part of economics, but not really a part of criminology. We also know that Sarnecki is wrong and thus should improve the article accordingly to achieve the best outcome. The relationship between low socioeconomic status and violent crime has been questioned by more serious sciences than sociology[33] --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RSSELF, "self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The economist Sanandaji is not an established expert on criminology, nor has his work in this field been published by reliable third-party publications. As for the rest, see WP:CONSENSUS. Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of the other critical issues with the current version. You are also wrong here. Immigration is part of economics and he is considered an expert by most on the topic. It does not say: published own research, it says expert. Besides this we have had this on the noticeboard and the consensus was the source was reliable and the question was only if I was considered and expert which was another discussion. There are two against (and I think we can include the truth as a third member of this side) and three for keeping the status quo. Of these three, one has been found to be lying about other users to win the argument, one is actively seeking to provoke other users (and boasts about this on his user page) and the third is intellectually dishonest (inconsistent arguments (this article), misguiding edit summaries and dubious use of sources(Tino Sanandaji)). As you also know, NPOV overrides consensus. You can't form a legitimate consensus around avoiding NPOV.
I want us to continue to work together on improving this article. For the most part you bring interesting perspectives and your English is much better than mine, but sometimes it feels that you are not so flexible when it turns out you are wrong. I am also wrong quite often (as seen over this talk page about other issues for example), but I change my mind when I see the source. No one is all knowing and there is no shame in changing opinion. Since I have actually read books on the topic and followed the debate, it is expected that I have an information advantage on this subject.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we pause this infected discussion about Sanandaji and start fixing the issues the current version has that we can agree on. I'll continue with this later today or tomorrow.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans Either let us fix your mess or fix it yourself. The section can't be a 1500 word mess that leaves out crucial information--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
As this interview with Sarnecki about a German study on ethnicy and crime has already been referenced, Sarnecki does state that routine collection on crime data on ethnic origin is unuseful, but not why such data is unuseful. It is also clear that he thinks such data is not only unuseful, but also undesirable. Is an academic an expert in a field if he is opposed to conducting research in said field? AadaamS (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs in crime section

Per this edit, I restored the chronological order which was undone. Please discuss an alternative, but consistent order of paragraphs for the Crime section. AadaamS (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The current order is fine as it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It is very unencyclopedic to replace a chronological order with a bewilderingly random one. The current order is bad presentation because years appear as 2014, 2015, 2013, 2005. It also starts off with the "viral falsehoods" - which isn't even part of the subsubject "crime ine Sweden due to immigration". It's part of the meta-subsubject (debate-about-the-subsubject). In what way is a randomly ordered section better than a chronologically order? AadaamS (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans Again, how are paragraphs in random order worthy of a wikipedia? It is not "fine" or used in any encyclopedia. AadaamS (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
A third opinion is called for. Nblund, what do you think about the ordering of paragraphs in the Crime section? Chronological, random or perhaps your own suggestion? AadaamS (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the section on viral falsehoods should probably go lower in the section. Regarding the other studies: I think they should be ordered by quality rather than chronology, but I think that is a stylistic issue. More importantly, I think there are too many studies mentioned, and very few of them seem to be particularly high-quality research. Trimming the some of the excess might make the whole discussion a moot point. Nblund talk 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Nblund thanks for contributing, that's an interesting suggestion. By what objective measure is quality determined in practice, so it can be applied consistently? A chronological order is more straightforward to apply. Any order is better than a situation where a single editor makes all the decisions on what's "fine", which is not a workable solution as that would make that one editor the WP:OWNER. AadaamS (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Nblund really got to improve my typing. Sry. AadaamS (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What objectively determines Wikipedia policy is actual Wikipedia policy. Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This thread is not about general Wikipedia policy, please respond constructively in the future. Thanks. AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

AadaamS, I'm definitely not a position to cast stones when it comes to typos. Chronological order isn't bad if no one can agree on a structure, but it isn't the most informative way to arrange a section - especially because older research is often lower quality than more recent research. Peer reviewed research and official statistics should probably rank ahead of ad hoc analyses by police departments and newspapers, I think those might be worth cutting since their core findings (immigrants tend to be over-represented in crime statistics) are consistent with what we already know from the academic literature. Nblund talk 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Nblund, I think reports by Police depts like Nationella operativa avdelningen are more than "ad hoc". We're in a bit of a bind, since police departments/BRÅ do not release the statistics to academics since 2005, so in this case more recent research is not likely to be of higher quality sicnce it's based on old data. A blanket statement such as "immigrants tend to be over-represented" would not be accurate, as some groups are under-represented (at least in countries where statistics are reported). When it comes to chronological order, I think in terms of "trend over time" (up, down, steady?), that's what I think serves the enwp audience. While I do agree that quality of sources should also be taken into account (as always), I think police reports are WP:RS. So far I think we have consensus that Trump controversy should be moved further down, should we go ahead and put it lower in the section? AadaamS (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies

Snooganssnoogans, could you please have a look at Figure 4.7 and confirm whether its data is attributed to the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)? Soupforone (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source of the data that is not disputed, it's the naming of the section. Naming the sction PIAAC would indicate that the subject of the section is about the PIAAC organisation. Instead, the section cites the Långtidsutredningen report, which in turn PIAAC data. Should every section which cites SCB.se data, be named "Statistics Sweden", simply because that's where the data came from? Or is this section extra special somehow, so that only this section be named for the data source but no others? AadaamS (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, could you please also have a look at the Figure 4.7? Here is what the wikitext indicates-- "Of the individuals who indicated that they had a high education level, 44% of those from the Arab states and 35% of those from Sub-Saharan Africa were assessed to have insufficient skills." This is linked to pages 202 & 205 of the Långtidsutredningen paper [34], which indicates therein that "I figur 4.7 redovisas PIAAC-data över genomsnittliga färdigheter i räkning för utrikes födda från olika regioner och med olika utbildningsbakgrund" ("Figure 4.7 presents PIAAC data on average skills on behalf of foreign born from different regions and with different educational backgrounds." [goo.gl/bdch1j]). Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The caption to Figure 4.7 says: "Källa: Egna beräkningar baserade på data från OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)." - bing translation: "Source: Own calculations based on data from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)." It is then apparent that Långtidsutredningen did not pull the analysis straight from PIAAC, but that they also did calculations of their own. That's why naming the section PIAAC is inapprpriate. There is still not a single argument that the section should be named for the data source, as other sections are not named "Statistics Sweden". AadaamS (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The authors caption Figur 4.7 in bold for emphasis "PIAAC-poäng i räkning" ("PIAAC score on account") [35]. They also indicate on the same page-- "I figur 4.7 redovisas PIAAC-data över genomsnittliga färdigheter i räkning för utrikes födda från olika regioner och med olika utbildningsbakgrund" ("Figure 4.7 presents PIAAC data on average skills on behalf of foreign born from different regions and with different educational backgrounds") [36]. Ergo, they indeed ultimately attribute the data to the PIAAC. Soupforone (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not disputed that the source data is PIAAC - nobody has addressed why this section but no others be named for the the data source, rather than what the source was used for by Långtidsutredninen - comparison of Swedish & immigrant education quality. Why are other sections not named "Statistics Sweden" or "Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention"? For precisely that reason. PIAAC is a very unwieldy section name and follows a naming convention of no other seciton in the article. Why is this section an exception? Why must it be? The section isn't about the report, it is about the comparison between Swedish & immigrant education quality. AadaamS (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Attribution to source isn't done by section name, it's done by citation to sources. AadaamS (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The other similar titles are actually also named after their respective data programs (i.e., the adult Swedish For Immigrants and the teenager Programme for International Student Assessment). This is for disambiguation, to ensure that they aren't confused with the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. Soupforone (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The name is unwieldy and you will never convince me otherwise, it's by far the longest section title. As you edit several times a day, your preference will prevail in any case. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources have titles that are deliberately anti-Trump. Even though I personally hate the man, should we use so many sources that might seem biased? Potential problem sources: references 69 through 86 minus 71, 80, 81, and 85. I'm sure there are more politically neutral sources that say the same thing assuming, of course, the information is accurate. I wouldn't care if it was just one or two, but it seems like the sources in the first half of the crime section just say "Trump's wrong on immigration" (though he is, we should be better than taking political stances). Again, I'm not against the inclusion of anti-Trump sources, but I am when it's exclusively those sources without representing the other side. If we are going to include politically inclined sources, it should be of both sides not just the one, or preferably none at all. SpartaN (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi SpartaN. The sources you're referring to appear to include outlets like Reuters and Factcheck.org. Those sources are non-partisan and are generally considered reliable for statements of fact. NPOV doesn't necessarily require that all points of view are made to look equally valid or prominent (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). The discussion above this one suggests there might be too much Trump material in that section, which may be true, but the sources themselves seem fine. Nblund talk 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite a few international and US news sources started printing stories about immigration in Sweden in response to Trump making some questionable comments on the subject, and several of them directly acknowledged that with titles like "Sweden - not perfect, but not Trump's immigrant-crime nightmare" or "Trump Exaggerates Swedish Crime". Essentially, he said a lot of bullshit, and then various news sources reported on the facts in Sweden, and chose titles stating their conclusions about Trump's comments. Trump is never actually mentioned in the article itself that I can see, so it doesn't seem to be an issue of balance when it comes to content. The source could be entitled "Trump is a Dog-Fucker" but otherwise be a reliable source for immigration statistics, and I don't see how the title would relevant. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
As I have written above, Trump is not in the govt of Sweden, he is not directly involved in immigration to Sweden, he is not an established expert on Immigration to Sweden (the subject of this article) and therefore his comments are WP:IRRELEVANT. His comments belong in the Sweden-bashing article. AadaamS (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. However, as far as I can tell he's never mentioned once in the body of this article, so why are you even bringing this up? This discussion is about the names of sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Because Trump is mentioned in the comment thread - if Trump is irrelevant to the article, then he is also irrelevant to the talk page. AadaamS (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit silence for seven days broken ...

So the article hasn't been edited since 6 February ... now let's see what happens after I just did an edit. AadaamS (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_to_Sweden/Archive_1&oldid=1136814641"