Talk:Spitsbergen

Svalbard and Spitsbergen

As far as some maps go, they note the archipelago as being the Spitsbergan archipelago, with the largest island being Svalbard.

Is this incorrect?

A recent BBC news article also seemed to have the two names that way round.

Is the information here and on Svalbard correct?

zoney ♣ talk 12:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes the articles here on wikipedia are correct. Spitsbergen is the name of the largest Island in the Svalbard archi

pelago.

Here are a few external links confirming it , and . Shanes 12:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names...

Svalbard is the Norwegian name. The international name is Spitsbergen. It is just modern Norwegian policy to replace the name Spitsbergen for Svalbard, because that's what they like to hear. Because they claimed Spitsbergen first found by Norwegians. And the name Svalbard is the only thing they ever found to prove it. No other Remains or signs are found.(it's most likely that the russian Pomors were first)

Just note that in the official Spitsbergen Treaty the name Svalbard is not mentioned at all. Even not in the official Norwegian translation.

Svalbard is now the official international name for it. Spitsbergen is the old name, and now the name of the westernmost and only inhabited island is Spitsbergen. Dbreagornks (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Dbreagornks

OTHER DETAILS

Is Spitsbergen inhabited? Judging from all the towns on the map, it is, yet the article says nothing about the population. Is it by the dozens, or hundreds, or thousands? Is there any industry or farming? Etc. 71.178.242.140 (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is over 2000 people in Longyearbyen alone. Mining and fishing are major industries. Dbreagornks (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Dbreagornks

Missing a point re the naming

You chaps are all missing a point. Prior to Dr Johnson the correct British English spelling for words like this would have been with either an S or a Z. Both were used interchangeably in words such as "recognise/recognize". Johnson chose to standardise with an S - reputedly to indicate french influence in the language. In the USA this never happened and "Z" became the standard form. (Possibly due to Webster's influence when he wrote his dictionary - which had an anti-British stance). An exception of course is Ireland where the Z remained - e.g. names such as FitzPatrick (confusingly of french derivation of course). My point? That standard current English English would render this Spits, but historically Spits OR Spitz. Current USA English should render it Spitz. That is irrespective of the origins of who named what - its a reflection of varying standards of English. As for Dutch/German comparisons - thats a joke as again standardization (or standardisation) of those is only relatively recent. At the time the island was found Dutch / German would have just been regional dialects of High / Low German Basically what you're arguing over is what is the correct use of S or Z in the English language. And the answer depends on where you are in history, and which side of the pond you live Olddemdike (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Olddemdike, congratulations, that is a very nice and acceptable explanation. May you can move some to the article?Taksen (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I'm qualified to do that as I know little of the actual subject - I'd probably make a bigger balls-up than it already is. Something else to remember is that this statement " The "Spitzbergen" spelling was used in English during the 19th century, for instance by Beechey,[6] Laing,[7]" is misleading. BOTH of those men were Scots, and would have been brought up to speak lowland Scots, not "English" English. Laings book was even published in Edinburgh. The standardisation of English led by Johnson happened much later in Scotland so use of the "Z" rather than "S" is quite likely and should not be taken as a guide to correct useage. Olddemdike (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As a postscript to that it should be noticed that the Royal Society reference is equally fallable as a source, as it was written by a Dr Otto Torrell, of the University of Lund in Sweden - who can hardly be expected to be an authority on the various use of S or Z in English. More likely he rendered it as he knew it in Swedish! I would also suggest that the reference to Martin Conway is also potentially false as he - being a Cambridge graduate - would be expected to favour "correct" spelling forms irrespective of actual useage. His view of "correctness" was probably based on Johnson's standards - not on historic accuracy. Olddemdike (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to push my neck out even further on this. Checking the other references further, none of them appear to hold up. The "Nature" references are all out of context and cannot be seen in their entirity: its impossible to see who actually wrote them, Nature would have published using the names given in the original submitted documents without editing - the spelling would have followed the usage of whoever wrote them - who were quite possibly non-English. Likewise the UK government documents cannot be seen in context, but what what little is visible its clear that at least some are referring to meetings in Norway - and those reports can be expected to follow the spelling used at the original Nordic meeting. In short - NOTHING in the etymology section stands up to scrutiny. You'd do better just simply to say that the place has been variously know as Spitsbergen or Spitzbergen, with a statement as to what the current accepting spelling (by the Norwegians) is. Olddemdike (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK heres something for you to all thing on. From George Crabb's "Universal Historical Dictionary" of 1833: "Spitzbergen. The most northerly country in Europe, consisting of a group of dreary islands. It was first discovered by Sir Hugh Willoughby in 1559, who took it for a part of Greenland; and being visited again in 1595 by William Barentz and John Cornelius, two Dutchmen, they pretended to be the first discovers and gave it its present name......" Note Barents name is rendered as Barentz - and Spitzbergen is used. But how correct is the claim? Also note this more recently from The geology of Svalbard By Walter Brian Harland, Lester M. Anderson, Daoud Manasrah, Nicholas J. Butterfield "The name Spitsbergen was given by the Dutch captain Barents.........Barents did not know that the name Svalbard (Cool Coast) was mentioned in the Islandske Annaler in 1194 and in the Landnamabok (apporximately AD1230) from Viking exploration....." Based on these two books theres a big question over who actually discovered the place anyway - let alone what it should be called Olddemdike (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, me again. the best way you could phrase it would be so say something like "Barents named the island as Spitsbergen. However in English use this was often rendered as Spitzbergen. In common with many English words, the use of Z has been standardised and substituted by S and Spitsberegen is now the accepted correct form." Don't try citing any of those references: they don't hold up to scrutiny. I'm not going to make the change in case I alter some other factual point: my knowledge of this subject is minimal. Only reason I'm posting is that I hate to see an argument based on false facts and positions. Back to you lot to sort out now.Olddemdike (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Willoughby came no where near Spitsbergen in 1553. His farthest north was only 72 degrees north, a full four degrees south of Spitsbergen's southern point. He either sighted Novaya Zemlya or Kolguyev Island. There is absolutely no evidence that the historical Svalbard refers to modern Spitsbergen. Barentsz' 1596 sighting of Spitsbergen is the first documented European discovery of the island. Also, Conway referred to the Dutch spelling Spitsbergen (the only correct spelling in English) as the correct version seeing as how it was a Dutchman (not a German) who had actually discovered the island. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We have had multiple RFCs, the article has suffered various stages of protection, and Mr Poole has been repeatedly blocked for disruption to this article. Rather than start all that up again, please only add sourced statements concerning the naming of the island. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually reread my comments above - and understand them - you will see that NONE of your existing "sourced statements" are valid regarding historic spelling of the name in English, or of "correctness". Every one of those references has been taken out of context. As to citing Comway - he was applying 20th century conventions to a 17th century question,and the english language had shifted a lot in use in those 250 years or so, not least because of Dr Johnson's dictionary. As to Jonas Poole's view of what is correct english - I get the strong impression that he's not a native english speasker anyway, so what does he know about correct english spelling? Olddemdike (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. It's called a poor American education. Conway (not Comway) wasn't applying 20th century conventions to anything. Of course you wouldn't know that, seeing as how you haven't even read his book (which is the standard work on Spitsbergen's early history in English) and know absolutely nothing about the subject. With that said, perhaps you aren't qualified to be debating about this topic period. I'm only one of two people on this talk page that knows anything about the topic at hand, which would make my informed opinion (as opposed to talking out your a**, as everyone else, including you, is doing) the only correct one. Once again, Conway was referring to the Dutch spelling as being the only correct version seeing as how it was a darn Dutch expedition that discovered and named it! Not a German one, as I've said countless times. When you actually learn a single thing about this subject, you can comment on it. Until then, keep your mouth shut. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about "german"? No-one in the UK would give a damn about how the germans would spell it. Theres been no significant "german" input into the English language since the Saxon invasion. And since when has what the locals or dicoverers call it made any difference to what the English call something. You only have to think of Peking/Bejing, or closer to home Caen/Cannes or London/Londres to figure that one out. When you say "correct" spelling in English, do you mean correct by common use? Or correct by 17th Century accepted standard english (which in itself is an invalid concept), or by 20th Century standard english? Just because someone (irrespective of how notable) decreed that HE felt something was correct, does not make it so Olddemdike (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Have you not read anything that has been said about this above? Read above about Martens, etc. Please stop debating a subject you obviously have no knowledge of. None. Seriously, stop now. It's getting extremely annoying. The Dutch spelling is and has been correct. Period. The German spelling Spitzbergen (see Martens above, who I imagine you've never heard of, seeing as how you know nothing about this topic) was a mistake made by countless authors (the vast majority ignorant and or lazy British authors) over the years. One lazy British author would repeat the mistake made by an earlier British author again and again. It's that simple.

And everyone. Please stop spouting all this nonsense about the history of the English language. All this has to do with is a damned mistake made by countless lazy, British authors who either don't know a word of Dutch or German or who are simply too stupid to see if they were spelling the name right. The end. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

AN that, is just a load of browbeating rhetoric with no substance behind it. I don't think it was the "British authors" who were lazy or stupid.... Olddemdike (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of which is the "correct" English exonym for this place based on Dutch or German or Norwegian spelling of the 17th century is basically futile. The "correct" English exonym is the word that was actually most used, during the period where the name for this place, in English, was undoubtedly either Spitzbergen or Spitsbergen and definitely not Svalbard. For this purpose, the actual occurence of the word in official usage or newspapers of the era is going to be more informative than any google search. In all of the newspapers of Australia between 1819 and 1954, reproducing mainly english sources, on all manner of newsworthy stories about whaling, exploration, fishing, mining, political issues, Nazi weather stations, you name it, the occurence of the word Spitzbergen outnumbers the occurence of the word Spitsbergen by more than 2 to 1. Eregli bob (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you've already found it. Usage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with which name is correct. As I already stated, the original spelling was "Spitsbergen", the name given to it by the Dutch, who discovered the damned place. Priority should be given to its discoverers, not some German variant. Go home. You've added nothing. SomeGuy4545 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Geology?

I would like to see a section on the geology of the island, but am having trouble finding sources. Perhaps one of our Norwegian-speaking editors might be able to find something and add a paragraph or two? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is it?

Could we have a map that indicates its place with regard to other territories and countries? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Never mind; I finally noticed it. I am going to rewrite the caption to make it clearer. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)