Talk:Swedish emigration to the United States

Major expansion

I have moved an expanded, sourced, and cited version that I have been working on in userspace over the original stub, and am boldly removing the WikiProject Sweden rating template as not relevant to this version. I hope you'll like it and edit it to add improvements. Please try to keep all additions properly sourced. Regards, Bishonen | talk 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Wow, that's one major expansion you've made. Really nice work. But you didn't have to remove the template, you could've changed the rating or request that someone else did it for you. --Krm500 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Emigrate/Immigrate

I have a question on the use of the word "emigration". I was under the impression that "emigration" meant to leave a country and "immigration" meant to arrive and stay in a country. I was thinking that the page title and several uses of "emigration" should actually be "immigration". I could easily be wrong. Awadewit | talk 06:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to use "emigration" for leaving and "immigration" for arriving/settling. There's one or two instances of "migration", too, where that seemed to fit. The focus of the narrative and analysis is on Swedish history, the leaving and how it affected the whole of Swedish society, that's why the title is "Emigration". I'm sure you're right that there are dubious instances of the use of "emigration" (and I think probably of "immigration" as well), in contexts where the leaving and the arriving are simultaneously in question, or are quite vague. How about you change it where you think it's wrong, and/or rewrite the context around the word to focus it better? If I should disagree with any instance, per my sources, I could then try rephrasing yet again. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Excellent! We agree on the definitions. I changed two as I was editing. Here are two others that I wanted to discuss.

• Title: "Swedish emigration to the United States"
• During the Swedish emigration to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries (basically the title again)
• Large-scale European emigration to the United States

I do understand your point about how the page is about Swedish society as a whole, but because these all say "to the United States", I think they have to be "immigration". Let me know your interpretation. Awadewit | talk 08:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the logic of your proposed move to "immigration". Trying to figure out why it still feels so wrong... See, the usage isn't logical. Emigration means moving out and immigration means moving in, yes. Sweden had an "Emigration Commission" for discouraging emigration, while Minnesota had an "Immigration Board" for encouraging immigration, yes. But in my secondary sources, and in their primary 19th-century sources, "emigration to" is—in my impression—much more common than "immigration to", whether spoken from a Swedish or a U.S. standpoint. Now, that may not be the case in discourse about today's migration movements. It's not the case if you ask Google—but I think that comes about because there are such masses of, for instance, government websites about moving in/settling, and so few about moving out. So many Immigration Boards, so few Emigration Commissions, so to speak. So much advice to immigrants, which isn't really relevant to this page. No, I don't agree with moving it. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

I think there are arguments for both; I can just tell you that I immediately started wondering when I saw the title. Do you at least have a redirect from "Swedish immigration to the United States"? The other consideration, of course, is what users are most likely to type in. Awadewit | talk 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My two cents; This is the correct title since we are talking about swedes who leave their country, they emigrate. --Krm500 19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But they are coming into the United States. This page does not discuss Swedish emigration in the nineteenth century, for example (certainly, some Swedes emigrated other places than the US). It only discusses Swedish immigration to the United States. Awadewit | talk 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're valuing mere logic over real usage in this instance, Awadewit. Also, yet another consideration is that the corresponding articles in Danish and Swedish use "emigration" in their names. The Swedish article is the oldest, and seems to have been originally the pattern for this one (before I rewrote and expanded it). And moving it is rather a momentous change IMO. Immediately after the page has become Featured doesn't seem the best point in time for such changes. The putative move would automatically have been more widely discussed if you'd raised it on FAC, where indeed nobody else raised it either—so the likelihood is surely that the present title seemed ok to the supporters. But they'll hardly be watching this talkpage. Perhaps you'd like to invite a wider discussion through an article RFC or something like that? Bishonen | talk 21:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

I didn't want to bring it up at the FAC because I felt that it had the potential to derail an FAC that was about to pass. Also, I don't think it is worthy of an RFC, nor do those ever turn out particularly well (in my opinion). I didn't want this to spiral out of control. I just wanted to voice my concern. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, from "I could easily be wrong" to suggesting your objection would have derailed the FAC ? That was quick. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you are misinterpreting me? I meant that such a tiny thing could be blown out of proportion at FAC and even if the article was perfect in every way, if there was dispute about the title, I felt that "some people" might feel that was a reason to fail or oppose it (that not being me, obviously). I have seen tiny things blow up and I saw no reason to even hint at that. By the way, I do happen to think I am right in my definition and usage, of course, but I am not willing to debate it for days on end. :) Awadewit | talk 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are, but (I have a hard time formulate my self here...) when talking about immigration I personally see a larger context. Immigration is all migration to one specific country, but when talking about people from one country moving to the specific country it is emigration. --Krm500 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we disagree on the definition there. (see above) Awadewit | talk 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Small points

Here are some small suggestions for improvement in the prose:

• By contrast, reports from early Swedish emigrants painted the American Midwest as an earthly paradise, and praised American religious and political freedom and undreamed-of opportunities to better one's condition. - too many "and's" in a row
• Most immigrants became classic pioneers, clearing and cultivating the prairie, but some forces pushed the new immigrants towards the cities, particularly Chicago. - the change in subject is awkward - people to abstract forces; "most immigrants...while others" perhaps?
  • Yes. It wasn't good, and isn't so hot now, either... maybe somebody will improve it.
• 'Their admiration for America was combined with the notion of a past Swedish Golden Age, whose ancient Nordic ideals had supposedly been corrupted by foreign influences. Recovering the purity of these timeless values in the New World was a fundamental theme of Swedish, and later Swedish American, discussion of America. - What about combining the the "corrupted by foreign influences" bit with the next sentence? I think it would fit better there.
  • I totally agree. I've given the paragraph a bit of a rewrite.
• many citizens of the hierarchic Swedish class society looked with admiration to the American republican government and to the American respect for honest toil - which members? is "honest toil" perhaps a bit too poetic?
  • Fixed.
• By contrast, the United States became later in the 20th century the symbol and dream of unfettered individualism. - I'm pretty sure that the US was the symbol of "unfettered individualism" well before the end of the 20th century.
  • Yeah, I guess so. Fixed.
• Sweden got underway in the early 1840s, and had the third-highest rate in all of Europe - "got" is an imprecise verb.
  • [ /me demurs. ] I like it.. If you take the verb as not "get" but "get underway", it's pretty precise, isn't it?
• The first European emigrants travelled in the holds of sailing cargo ships. With the age of steam, an efficient transatlantic passenger transport mechanism was built up at the end of the 1860s. - A bit awkward - how about something like "With the advent of the age of steam, however, an efficient transatlantic passenger transport mechanism was established at the end of the 1860s."
  • "However"..? Hmm. I don't see a contradiction, just the march of history. I'll see what I can do.
• It was based on huge, dedicated emigrant ocean liners - Do you mean "huge ocean liners dedicated to the ferrying of emigrants"?
  • I do. It may be a little exaggerated. All these ships carried first-class passengers as well, i. e. non-emigrants. (The Titanic was one of them.) Ferrying emigrants was the financial basis of agencies like the White Star Line, but I guess it's not proportionate to go into details like that. I think I'll just lose the "dedicated emigrant" part.
• Brattne and Åkerman have examined the advertising campaigns and the ticket prices as a possible third force between "push" and "pull". They conclude that neither of these had any decisive influence on Swedish emigration. - I think that this is the first time you mention these scholars - could you give their full names and identify them?; it is not entirely clear to me what "neither" is referring to.
  • It's not? I was afraid it might not be.. I just wrote that sentence. OK, fixing. So you don't think it's enough that Brattne and Åkerman are set out in the References section? I don't really have any more to say about them than what's there.
• the leaflets sent out to prospective emigrants would not so much celebrate conditions in the New World, as simply emphasize the comforts and advantages of the particular shipping line paying for the material. - does "material" refer to the "leaflets"? this was not clear to me.
  • That passage is so difficult to wrest into shape! (plaintively). I'll have a go at clarifying.
• Göteborgs Handels-och Sjöfartstidning - is the dash supposed to be there?
  • Yes. Well, it's a hyphen. Swedish is like that. (There's a space after the hyphen. You don't believe me? I'll explain it if you're not careful! ;-P )
• Large numbers even of those who had been farmers in the old country made straight for American cities and towns - "made straight" is a little informal.
  • Hmm. I take the point. Thinking about alternatives.
• Their style was more familiar: "They are not peddlers, nor organ grinders, nor beggars; they do not sell ready-made clothing nor keep pawn shops … they do not seek the shelter of the American flag merely to introduce and foster among us … socialism, nihilism, communism … they are more like Americans than are any other foreign peoples." - I would make it absolutely clear that this is a nineteenth-century quotation.
  • Ah, ok, good thought. (Cool quote, isn't it? :-))
• # Languages of the United States#Swedish - Can we be more elegant with this link name?
  • Well, I hope so. I don't know who added it. It's a delicate business to revert people's copy-edits and additions, especially while an article is on FAC. Last time I tried anything like that, I got yelled at for being "territorial". See, you can remove the link (HINT HINT), but I'm not supposed to. (It's the same with some prose points at the top of your post—it would really help if you fixed them yourself.)

This was really a very enjoyable article to read - please don't be offended by my quibbles. That I am peering so closely means that the article is excellent. Awadewit | talk 08:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much for your useful comments! Bishonen | talk 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations and some adjusting

First of all to all the editors of this article, congratulations. It was informative, and a pleasure to read. Second I will change just a paragrapher that can be better. But again, congratulations on the Main Page. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. On the same area I edit it can be read Franklin D. Scott argues in an influential essay. I think I reference to said essay is necessary. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Virgin land

Is the second sentence "The virgin land of the US frontier..." really appropriate for an encyclopedia article?

Yes, of course it is. Indirect discourse. This is a characterization of the image. I don't know what kinds of encyclopedias would reject the line, but I can only assume they're not useful. Geogre (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an entirely apt and accurate description for land to which agriculture is being introduced for the first time.MarkVolundNYC (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)