text:
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

Petrified Palms?
I had once read that there are petrified forests of palm trees in Spitzberger? Is this true, and if so, wouldn't it be worth mentioning in the article?Hi There 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spitzbergen
The spelling with a "z" gets over a million google hits, and is a redirect here. Yet it is not mentioned as an alternative spelling. What is the difference between the "s" and "z" spellings? Is one a traditional English form, and the other the Norwegian form? TheGrappler 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

William Barents named it Spitsbergen ("sharp mountains") in 1596, and it has simply been mispelled over and over again. The correct spelling is Spitsbergen. Jonas Poole 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Spitzbergen" is the German spelling. "Spitz" is German for "pointed". BTW the guy who discovered it is correctly spelled Willem Barentsz. 80.218.217.188 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Spitzbergen" is the Norwegian spelling, too. The z-spelling gets nearly twice as many google hits as the s-spelling, and I think the title of the article should be changed to reflect that. This Conway guy who is mentioned in the references was writing at a particularly anti-German point in British history, and before the Svalbard Treaty was signed (acknowledging, internationally, that the islands are Norwegian). So, Jonas Poole, "Spitsbergen" is not the "correct" spelling, it is simply the English language (and, possibly, Dutch) spelling. BTW you have also misspelled "mispelled".--JO 24 (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, no. The Norwegian spelling, like the English spelling, is Spitsbergen. See here, among many other places. And please don't mistake Google-hits for an accurate reflection of correct spelling. A reflection of the frequency with which a mistake is made, perhaps. Snalwibma (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right and I was wrong, the Norwegian spelling is "Spitsbergen", though that name is rarely used. Google hits is a reflection of usage, it has nothing to do with what you call "correct" spelling, which in this context does not exist. "Spitzbergen" is not incorrect, it is simply not used in English. --JO 24 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed so - and of course this is the English-language Wikipedia! One reason you don't see "Spitsbergen" all that often in Norwegian is that they normally talk of Svalbard (the archipelago) rather than Spitsbergen (one island in the archipelago). Snalwibma (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * All the same, I think it is a pity to remove half the 100-year-old quote from Conway, as you did here. Quoting his words about the S-spelling being the "only correct" version, and that the Z-spelling is a "relatively modern blunder" adds value to the quote while not necessarily agreeing with him. Anyway, he is in fact right - the S spelling is correct in English! I am inclined to revert (though I am not going to squabble). Snalwibma (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I got called away half way through chopping that quote without having "saved" my explanation. Sorry. What I meant to say is that this article is part of WikiProject Norway. Their guidelines say, "For...geographical entities, the official Norwegian name is used for the article, with redirects for English names when known". It is the Norwegian spelling that takes precedence not the English. In this case the spelling is the same, but it means that however the English spelling was derived, and whether it is "correctly" spelled, is immaterial to the article. I was therefore chopping the old boy on "correctness". I agree with you that this isn't worth a squabble, though!--JO 24 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * No problem. I rather liked the phrase "relatively modern blunder", but I am happy to accept your reasons, and to see it slip away quietly. Snalwibma (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, now you've made me feel guilty, so I'm putting it back. I have revised the seed vault paragraph instead.--JO 24 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I revised the Spits/Spitz parenthesis because it generated some confusion as to which spelling was derived from Dutch. The account of the origin of the name, in the next section, covers this in sufficient detail; there's no need to bring Dutch origins into the first sentence of the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Spitzbergen" is just the German spelling. It is misleading to call it a "misspelling", although I agree there is no reason to use it outside a German language context. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No its not. If you are writing in English and you spell Spitsbergen with a "z" you would be MISSPELLING it. It was discovered by the Dutch, so when writing in English it should be spelled with an "s." I don't know how else to explain it. If you spell Spitsbergen any other way other than the correct spelling while writing in English you would be MISSPELLING it. Its that simple. You're not writing in German, so it wouldn't be correct to spell it with a "z." The end. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The german Name for the Archipel, and also the Island "Spitsbergen" was, and still is "Spitzbergen".
 * The word "spits" (which means "sharp") is de facto a loanword from the german (spitz), therefore it makes sense to use "spitz" in german.
 * Conway was indeed wrong when he said that this is a new form, "Spitzbergen" is simply the retranslation!
 * "Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling; Spitzbergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second S asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer."
 * Conways cite is completely misleading, and therefore should be removed. Neither the is writing "spitz" newer, nor is the dicoverer a danish. (the most likely order is: vikings(12 cenury),russians(16 century),danish(1596); for more information read the well written russian page about Spitsbergen or consider a history book)
 * I personally dislike the way Conway says that any other writing then "Spitsbergen" is wrong, because what is with the French "Spitzberg", or Špicbergenas, Spicbergo and however it is called in other languages..
 * It's kind of stupid to say all these writings are "blunder"!
 * btw. in an article by the NYTimes 1897 the island was spelled after the german, Spitzbergen:
 * http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D01EED91230E333A2575AC1A9609C94669ED7CF
 * so it seems that both forms, Spitsbergen and Spitzbergen once been popular in the english language, and Spitzbergen became less popular in :England (and later also in the USA) because of anti-german views before and during the first World War.
 * When i removed the ref i thought that it's absolutely clear that someone put it in the article just to be offensive, and i removed it therefore without a look in the discussion, but i hope now i made my point clear and understandable.
 * Truthlobby (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * What Conway said is not at all "kind of stupid" - it's a historical quote that provides a useful context to the spelling variation. Perhaps what is in fact needed is a bit more text in the article about spelling variations, and how both the S and the Z spellings have been used in English, and how/when/why the "correct" usage (i.e. the fashion) changed. I'll have a think about it. But I assure you that the addition of the quote was in now way intended to be offensive - I thought it was an interesting historical viewpoint that deserved to be represented, especially as there is (still) some confusion and uncertainty about how to spell the name. I am not interested in an edit-war, but I will work on an expansion that reinstates Conway and explains it a bit better. Snalwibma (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * True, i see your point. Would be a good source to explain the whole spelling thing! I hope to bring in some constructive pieces, I'll also think about that. Because actually it would be sad to loose the quote just because it was in a "misleading" context. Truthlobby (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? I know of no evidence of the Vikings discovering Svalbard (what they called Svalbard was most likely Jan Mayen, and not modern Svalbard, see Jan Mayen page), the Pomors aren't mentioned until the late 17th century, and it was discovered by the Dutch (not the Danish) in 1596. And why are you citing some random NY Times article that used the incorrect spelling of Spitsbergen? I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here. Ok, its this simple. In 1596 Barentsz called his discovery Spitsbergen, which is the only correct spelling in English, seeing as how he wasn't German. It is that simple. I don't understand why this is even a debate. One last time to finally end this debate. It was discovered by the Dutch, so when writing in the English language (not German, French, or any other language that spells the name differently) it should be spelled SPITSBERGEN. Really, this is the end. Geeze. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm serious. I meant Dutch, that should be clear out of the context, if you had read the whole thing. It's a bit sad that you change the article without arguments, that's not really constructive! So you say "this is the end" and that makes your way of sight the right one? Truthlobby (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So "Spitzbergen" is simply a "retranslation"? Sure it is. That makes no sense! I'm sorry. I honestly thought you were joking when you said that. I can't believe this is even an arguement. There is no other side. It should be spelled Spitsbergen (when writing in English, Danish, Dutch, or Norwegian), and that's it. I read your whole rant several times, because I was having trouble understanding your arguement. It doesn't make any sense. And when did Conway ever say it was a "newer" form? All he said is that writers from Martens (1671) down had misspelled Spitsbergen with a "z". Have you even read No Man's Land (1906)? I doubt it. Like I've said several times now, this debate (non-debate) is over. There is no issue. Its not offensive (only to you maybe). The end. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, Spitzbergen is the GERMAN 'retranslation'! I meant this in a language-historical background, however. Even if Spitsbergen is the only correct form in english, Spitzbergen is not a misspelling, it's still the widely used german variation. And If you really prefer to see Spitzbergen as a completely wrong spelling, it would still make sense to refer to the german version, otherwise someone could think that the 700.000 hits on google are all just mistakes. I hope that was more understandable. The internet has no end. Truthlobby (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article is misleading in the current form, since it suggests that Spitzbergen with a z is wrong under all circumstances, which is not true since it is the correct spelling in German. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Spitzbergen" redirect
Seeing as how this isn't the correct spelling in English, and to discourage those who keep linking Spitsbergen with a "z", I suggest we make it where "Spitzbergen" doesn't redirect to anything, but merely comes to a search page that says "did you mean Spitsbergen?" So someone who knows how to do that go do it. Thank You. It's very annoying to be changing all these redirects. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The link to storfjord under ecology is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luresau (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. --Berland (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC
The issue of the spelling of Spit(s/z)bergen is being discussed at Talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18. This is because discussion of the issue has already taken place there, and in order to keep the discussion in one place.

The RFC concerned directly with this article is the statement that the spelling "Spitzbergen" is incorrect, backed up by a source that is over 100 years old. The English language is somewhat fluid. Words change their spellings over time, and acquire different meanings. I have no objection to the article being at the "Spitsbergen" title, with a redirect from "Spitzbergen". Therefore I request comment from other editors on this question -

 * Should the bracketed text "(formerly known as West Spitsbergen; the German spelling Spitzbergen is often (incorrectly)  used in English)" be amended to read "(formerly known as West Spitsbergen).

Please let's keep the discussion civil. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The spelling Spitsbergen is the correct English spelling, and should therefore be used throughout the English-language WP, but in this article it would be a pity to delete the reference to the Spitz– spelling, and thereby to lose the footnote quoting Conway on the subject. Mind you, there may well be a more elegant way to express it than by means of nested parentheses. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * If you don't believe that it's as clear-cut as I say, check (a) Webster's Dictionary, (b) Collins Dictionary, (c) Times Atlas, none of which even lists Spitz– as an alternative. And the Oxford Dictionary for Writers & Editors notes that it is "Spitsbergen ... not Spitz–." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's not that clear cut re the spelling. A Yahoo search for Spitsbergen gives 3,300,000 results, whilst a Yahoo search for Spitzbergen gives 4,580,000 results. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that's a reflection of the fact that a lot of people get it wrong! In a matter of spelling, surely dictionaries and atlases are the reliable sources that should be used. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * “The spelling Spitsbergen is the correct spelling “: Well that sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?
 * And “a lot of people get it wrong”: maybe the more people who are “wrong”, as you put it, the less wrong they actually are.
 * I’ve argued on the other page that Spitzbergen has been the British spelling historically, (despite Conway’s opinion) and was so up until at least the 1990’s (it seems US English changed in the 20’s) and there is also evidence there that it still in use in British English today (I’m sure you’ve seen it)
 * And the point at issue here isn’t that we should stop using “Spitsbergen”; it is that this article has the statement “the German spelling Spitzbergen is often (incorrectly)  used in English)" which is highly POV and should be changed. An etymology section explaining the name, and spellings, would be better.
 * Also, the contention here seems to be that the s spelling is to be preferred because it is Dutch; and that Dutch usage (using the s for both the island and the archipelago) should be followed; is that what you are saying? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Apologies for not making it clear enough that my reference to people "getting it wrong" was in jest. (b) The quote from Conway actually shows that he was well aware that Spitzbergen was used as a British spelling - in fact, he seems to be suggesting that 100 years ago it was the commoner spelling. (c) But the issue is how the name is spelt in English today, not then. I agree that the sentence mentioning the "German" spelling is very clumsy and should be better worded - but it's hardly POV, given that the best sources say the -z- spelling is incorrect. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I hope I can take a joke. But it touches on a serious point: WP favours the usual over the correct; if enough people use a term it doesn’t matter how “wrong” they are.
 * As for POV, it's certainly “in yer face”: The very first thing being said on this page is that all those people using the z (roughly half the sites the google search turned up) are wrong.
 * And “the best sources say z is incorrect”; the sources you gave use the s, which isn’t quite the same thing.
 * But I suggested having an etymology section instead; do you have any thoughts on that? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * A section discussing etymology, spelling variants, etc. sounds like an excellent idea, and that would be the best place to put the issues of Dutch vs. German, S vs. Z, and the Conway quote. I agree that at present it is too "in yer face". But I do strongly think that the spelling used by WP should reflect that used in current dictionaries, atlases, gazeteers etc., and should not be deteremined by unfiltered googling. (Do you want to spell accommodation wih only one M, on the grounds that many people do so?) My quick survey told me that such sources are 100% in favour of -S-. If anyone cares to carry out a more extensive survey, and comes up with a different answer, I will happily concede that the -Z- spelling is the one to use. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I’ve had a bit of a search today. I had wondered if it was a British /American thing, your sources (Webster, Times Atlas at least) being American, (as is the Encyc Britannica!) but it seems you’re right, it does look as if "Spitsbergen" is standard in British English now. The pattern, though, seems to be "Spitsbergen" for the island, and "Svalbard" for the archipelago: Is that what you find?
 * Jonas (I think) reckoned the z spelling came into English from a translation of a German text (?Pell, in 1743; I can’t find the comment now); he might well be right. Haven, who went there in 1613 refers to it as Greenland, and in 1799 it was "Spitfbergen", (with the long s) (though Bacstrom also calls it Greenland!). The sources I put here still lead me to think "Spitzbergen" was standard in British English till the 80’s ; the FO in 1908, RIIA (1928),  Parliament (1977), for example; but American usage seems to have changed in the 1920’s  Time (1925), Mirsky (1927)  (and this, from 1941 - another word that’s changed a couple of times!)
 * As for the etymology section; I’ve done a rough draft (here) but if you prefer to do it, I’m OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * No time to look at your draft just now - but I can confirm that Svalbard is the archipelago and Spitsbergen is the main island in that archipelago. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean Fotherby went there in 1613? Yes, the English, as well as the Danish (Grønland), French (Terre Verte), and Spanish (something akin to Groenlandia), referred to it as "Greenland"; the first throughout the 17th century, while the Danish later (briefly) referred to it as Christiansbergen. Only the Dutch consistently referred to the island as Spitsbergen, and only after 1613 (when its sovereignity was in dispute!). And the mistaken use of the German form came up in the last decade or so of the 17th century, when Frederich Martens' 1671 voyage (pub. 1675) was translated into English. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Fotherby; you’re right, I misread the title page (Havens wrote the 1860 introduction, didn't he). And Martens: that was it; I can’t remember where I saw it (who was Pell; was there one? Am I confusing this with something else? )
 * But details aside, the suggestion here is to replace the comment in the first sentence with something neutral (as at the top of this section), and add an Etymology section explaining the evolution of the name(s).
 * What is your thinking on that? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit break)
This seems to have petered out a bit;
 * Can I ask, then, are we agreed that we should change the headline sentence, as outlined above, and add an Etymology section?
 * If so, is this an acceptable first draft, or does anyone else want to write it? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I would say no, the RFC has not produced a consensus to alter the article, and your persistence in ignoring what reliable sources have to say on the matter, even to the point of wishing to eliminate them from the opening paragraph if they show dissent with your original research, is distressing, yet not unexpected. Weakopedia (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Hello Wp, welcome to the discussion.
 * So, what reliable sources am I “ignoring”, here?
 * And what is this “original research” you are accusing me of?
 * As for consensus, the discussion has been open for 3 weeks, which had some agreement prior to your arrival, so the assumption is not unreasonable. This article would benefit from an Etymology section, whatever the verdict is on the first sentence; I’ve posted a draft below; Kindly point out there what parts of it you object to/claim are OR and we can discuss it. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen is the dictionary spelling, that is what should be used here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what is being used here. The issue currently is whether the first sentence ("former known....used in English", and the Conway quote) is too aggressive/POV, and whether there are any problems with the proposed Etymology section (below).Xyl 54 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Can we please remember that this RFC is about the POV statement in the lede? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * That very statement is POV which should bar you from participating in this discussion. Also your use of Yahoo search statistics only aids in muddying the waters - unless those 4,580,000 search results were all unique reliable sources those statistics show nothing. Less than nothing in fact, as they were a response to someone who actually did some research and presented some specific examples. Weakopedia (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new section
I propose to add an "Etymology" section to this article; "Spitsbergen was named by its discoverer Willem Barentsz in 1596, the name meaning “pointed mountains” (from the German Spitz - "pointed", Bergen-"mountains"), the name being applied to both the main island and the island group as a whole.

The islands were known as "Greenland" in English during the 17th Century Haven, p45. They were referred to as Spitzbergen in a translation of a text by Martens, in 1671, and this became the English name thereafter. (cite)

The Arctic explorer WM Conway, in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect (ref "Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling; Spitzbergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second S asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer." – Sir Martin Conway, No Man’s Land, 1906.</ref but though this had little effect on British practice <refNature 1896 (refers to Conway expedition to Spitzbergen)/ref ref British Foreign Office 1908/ref

However in 1920 the treaty determining the fate of the islands was entitled the "Spitsbergen Treaty", and the islands were referred to in the USA as "Spitsbergen" from that time.

Under Norwegian governance the islands were named "Svalbard" in 1925, the main island becoming "Spitsbergen", and by the end of the 20th century this usage had become general."

Please suggest improvements, highlight problems, etc. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 * This has been here a week, and there have been no objections ( and no substantiation of the charge of OR) so I’ve posted it in the article.
 * I also propose to move the Conway quote to the section and change the first sentence in line with the original proposal, unless there are any objections. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Looking at this again, I’m not even sure the statement "formerly known as West Spitsbergen" is correct.
 * The Dutch name Spitsbergen applied without distinction to the island group and to its main island; the “English”, for whatever reason, used Spitzbergen in the same way. The Norwegian practice, which is what we currently follow, is to use Svalbard for the islands and Spitsbergen for the island. I don’t know that anyone has referred to the island as West Spitsbergen.
 * So I suggest the article should start “Spitsbergen is a Norwegian island…” without further qualification. The rest is explained more fully in the section on naming anyway. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 * There’s been no reply to this, but as the statement itself is dubious, and the references are repeated in the naming section, I’ve removed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why remove the reference to its name formerly being West Spitsbergen when you know NOTHING about the subject. Why even comment on this when you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the island or its history? This is something I've known for years, yet you can't spend a couple seconds googling to figure out you're completely wrong? Maybe you should actually learn something about a topic before discussing it. It's worth a try. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) Ignoring the heated nature of some recent comments here ... I have moved the reference to "West Spitsbergen" to the etymology section, which seems a far more appropriate place for it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... And I have just done it again. I see no reason to give "West Spitsbergen" privileged treatement above all the other (sometimes slight) variations on the name. Put it all in the etymology section. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was perfectly fine that even before the reference of the German spelling being put there. EVERY OTHER ARTICLE has their former name right behind their present name. Please do not revert again. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Spitsbergen was the island and the archipelago's name for a long while. Then it was the Spitsbergen archipelago, and the main island became West Spitsbergen to distinguish it from the archipelago. The German spelling Spitzbergen was never a variant, just a mistake (I've said a thousand times) by authors who didn't or don't know any Dutch and/or know/knew little to nothing about the island's history. Greenland, Groenland, etc. were names that should only be referenced in a historical context, as they were also based on a misconception, and need not be mentioned in the lead. West Spitsbergen, as it was once known, should be mentioned in the lead, like any other standard name (not a "variant", or a mistake like Spitzbergen/Greenland/Groenland). Again, every other single article on wiki has the former standard name of a place/region just after its present standard name. Again, do not revert. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I'll not revert it again, not least because I respect WP:3RR - but I cannot see the logic of your position. You are simply wrong to claim that "every other article" gives such prominence to former names and name variants. See Tasmania, for example. "West Spitsbergen" is certainly one of the former names, but now that the discussion of former names and variant spellings has been developed into a full section, rather than just appearing as a footnote (as formerly), surely it makes sense to put all that sort of information in the one place. Why is the fact that some sources use the adjective "West" more important than the fact that the name Spits/zbergen used to be applied to the whole archipelago, and more important than the spelling variations? But if we do accept that the name "West Spitsbergen" deserves greater prominence (which I don't), then you would surely also want to mention it in the "Etymology" section. So why not put the bare fact in the lead, and leave fuller discussion, complete with references, for the detailed discussion under "Etymology"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just type in "formerly called" and you will get a boatload of hits on wiki. The etymology section shouldn't even exist. "Hey, guys. Let's make a section on all the authors too stupid to get the name right. Yeah, let's do that! Wait, none of us know anything about the subject. Doesn't matter! It's wiki. We can do whatever we want!" It was there forever before all this, and per JUST ABOUT every other article (which don't have unnecessary sections on authors screwing up the name countless times), it will stay in the lead. Thank you. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and again. Spitsbergen: present name. West Spitsbergen: former name. Spitzbergen: mistake. Greenland/Groenland: misconception. Only the first two names should be mentioned (unless you want to reference the last names in the HISTORY section, put only in a historical context). Jonas Poole (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One more time. Spitsbergen and West Spitsbergen are/were the island's actual standard names. Spitzbergen and Greenland/Groenland, a mistake and a misconception, which shouldn't be mentioned, unless one is pointing out that they are a MISTAKE and a MISCONCEPTION. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it's a pity to clog up the opening sentence with a series of parentheses (and parentheses within parentheses!) when there is a perfectly good place to put all that sort of information. Perhaps "etymology" isn't the best or most accurate title for the section, but it's surely a good principle to relegate this sort of subsidiary information to somewhere other than the lead sentence. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * West Spitsbergen shouldn't be relegated to the land of mistakes and misconceptions created by editors with little to no knowledge of the subject (with the acception of Taksen, who at least is familiar with Spitsbergen's early history, unlike anyone else here). Jonas Poole (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Wow, this became heated, huh? People are getting blocked. Perhaps not the time to drop into the debate, but I cannot resist: In Cappelens World Atlas from the 30's (sadly, the year of publishing is not where you would expect to find it, but it seems like it was printed around 1935 - at least does this year appear in subscripts in the statistical section), -well, in "Tekst- og billedavdeling" by Fritjof Isachsen, p25, Svalbard is mentioned: in a long chapter where it is stated it is finally awarded to Norway, in the "Spitsbergentraktaten" (Spitsbergen Treaty), and given back the old name Svalbard, as this is believed (and they, or he, is clear about this is just belief by "some scientists") to be the land found in 1194 and given this name... Very interestingly, here they write about Vest-Spitsbergen (with a hyphen) as the largest island. However, this is inconsistent in the maps, the larger (in section I, p5) has it, and without a hyphen - as VESTSPITSBERGEN. And the smaller map (S1, p 37) has only Spitsbergen - but the latter is in scale 1:30 000 000. To jump to my conclusion: I do get the impression "West Spitsbergen" should be mentioned as an actually used name. The article as it is now seems to get this right. My personal opinion is also the Z-issue should be pushed late and at the most given little weight in the articles, as it is now (and there are no Z-s in my book.) It is impossible to use a lot of space on alternative spellings at the most prominent places in an article. The fact some Englishman has used the Z a lot, is entirely bypassable - but the fact Spitsbergen was referred to as Vest-Spitsbergen on Norwegian maps before WW2, just when the ownership-issue was finally dealt with, I think should be important. With the hopes of not stirring up world war 3, and noting the issue seems to have been settled the way I think it should have been settled already, ;-) Greswik (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, Greswik, there are a whole bunch of issues here.
 * But as far as the argument (above) about whether or not the island's former name was “West Spitsbergen” in English; the Times online archive has about 20 hits for the term “West Spitsbergen” in the whole 200 year archive (compared to about 1100 for “Spitsbergen”itself ) so there is little provenance for the term in English at all. OTOH one of the hits is for a letter from the Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs (18 Feb 1976) saying the islands name in Norwegian was “West Spitsbergen” up until 1969; so I can’t help thinking if that had been mentioned, instead of the usual “it’s Dutch”, “it’s German”, “it’s a mistake” mantra it would have produced more light than heat.
 * I’ve also restored the agreed text in the Etymology section; principally I’ve deleted the “German” adjective, as it sort of begs the question we’ve been arguing about over the past few months. If the British spelling is the same as the German one there’s only ever been a post hoc argument that they are connected (ie that a 17th century book by a German author determined the 19th century British spelling practice). So I've taken it out again. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Actual English usage would suggest that actual usage of Spitzbergen was more common than Spitsbergen in English usage between 1850 and 1950.  The 'Z' spelling outnumbers the 'S' spelling more than 2 to 1 in Australian newspaper articles (sourced mainly from British news sources) during that era.  Both variants are widely used. More details on the Svalbard talk page.Eregli bob (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 * On the question of "West Spit/z/s/bergen",  there are multiple newspaper references to this island, particularly during reportage of the key Arctic exploration era prior to World War I,  and it seems clear that this was the commonly understood English name at the time.Eregli bob (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
I see the Etymology section has been unilaterally deleted by Jonas, with the edit summary "No reason what so ever why that should be there. The lead explains it perfectly fine". I've restored it because a)the section has been discussed here already, b)Jonas has failed to offer any opinion here on it, despite being asked, and c) the lead does not "explain anything perfectly fine" at all, it is a POV statement based on an out-of context quotation, and is also incorrect. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to User:95.96.191.125; Your change to the etymology section was reverted, because AFAIK Spits is not Dutch for pointed at all; the Dutch word is wees (or wys); if the term occurs in Dutch at all it will be as a borrowed term (Holland not being noted for its pointed mountains). If anyone has a Dutch dictionary to chck tis I would be interested to hear about it.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Using my own Dutch dictionary I can tell you spits means "pointed" or "sharp". Jonas Poole (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK Jonas, so what exactly is the definition in this dictionary of yours? And what’s the derivation of word; where does it come from? Can we have a citation? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * OK, I’ve changed this to the “Dutch” explanation, in anticipation of your dictionary citation. You aren’t the only person to say this, so it’s likely to be a source of confusion if it isn’t changed.Xyl 54 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jonas; I can see the value of Conway's quote as a stick to beat people with, from some partisan position, but it is wrong in almost every respect. Spitzbergen is not "incorrect"; it was the standard English spelling up to and after Conway's time. And Conway also spelled the explorers name as "Barends", and the Russian islands further east as "Novaja Zemblja", so hes not the best guide in this respect. It was not "a modern blunder"; if the 1671 date is correct, it had been that way for over 200 years. And as for being a "blunder", what makes it so? It is as likely (more likely) it was chosen from anti-Dutch sentiment; 1671 was just 4 years after the 2nd Dutch War (and the humiliating raid on Medway) and the year before the 3rd Dutch War started. Or maybe it was a correction of an original Dutch mistake (see above). "The name is Dutch, not German"; well, in the Netherlands maybe; at the time, where else? As far as I can see, the quote is less than reliable; it is certainly open  to argument. The correct course on WP is to have a section on the controversy, with sources for both sides; that is what we now have. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're completely talking out of your ass. First off, the voyage was in 1671, it was published in German in 1675, and English in the 1690s. There was no Dutch mistake (as I said above, spits is Dutch for "pointed" or "sharp"), and it doesn't come from anti-Dutch sentiment. It was a mistake, plain and simple. There is no controversy at all. Its extremely obvious which is the correct spelling: the DUTCH one. No reason at all to use a mistake repeated again and again by ignorant authors and laymen like yourself. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the English authors would have known Spitsbergen by the earlier appellation of "Greenland". They probably thought "Spitzbergen" was the German term for the island(s). This is why we don't talk out of our asses, you see? Jonas Poole (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the discussion Jonas, and to the the realm of reasoned debate.
 * As far as the 1671 date goes, I got it from you. If you have a different date now, that’s fair enough; it doesn’t invalidate the point. Your opinion why the "Spitzbergen" spelling was adopted in English is entirely speculative (as is “they probably thought …” ) and your continually referring to it as a mistake doesn’t make it so; what have you got to back it up?
 * As far as "spits being the Dutch for pointed" (and "sharp" is scherp AFAIK) that’s not what I found; and if it is the term in use, it's unlikely to be indigenous ( unless the Netherlands has a mountain range hidden away somewhere). But it’s easily settled; are you Dutch by any chance? Do you have a Dutch language dictionary? Can you give us some definitions and a citation?
 * And none of this invalidates the point that "Spitzbergen" was the standard English spelling up to and after Conway’s time, and that his opinion on the subject is unreliable Xyl 54 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Barentsz and the island's naming
I can't believe this is even a debate. Barentsz was Dutch, every name he gave to the island's features are Dutch, and the name he allegedly gave the island (the term "Spitsbergen" was first mentioned by the Dutch cartographer Hessel Gerritsz. in 1613) is obviously Dutch. You would have to be very stupid not to understand this. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Jonas, it doesn’t matter a tinkers damn whether Barents was Dutch or not, or whether the name of the place is Dutch. This is the English language WP and what matters here is what the place was called in English.
 * That I do understand: Do you? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as your changes are concerned:
 * The two citations in the section are to put Conway’s comment in context; that despite his comment in 1906 the scientific community (reporting his expedition) and the British government preferred the “Spitzbergen” spelling; that's more than enough. So don’t be removing citations to reliable sources just because you don’t like them. I don’t like your Conway quote, but I haven’t deleted it; so I expect the same courtesy.
 * And don’t be removing citation requests unless you are providing the citations. In this case it’s the Dutch dictionary definition you said you had; all you’ve got to do is put the title and page number in, it shouldn’t be hard.
 * As for "provide sufficient evidence that "Spitzbergen" became the common English term after 1694; I put that in as a concession to your point of view. AFAIK the Brits called the place “Greenland” up until they started calling it “Spitfbergen” (long s ) and when the long s went out of fashion changed it to “Spitzbergen”. If you don't like what's there we can put that in, instead. As for citations of this, there are any number of citations of them floating around the interminable debates about this; have you really not seen them? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

XYL has consistently sought to apply his original research to this article, to it's detriment. The phrase They were referred to as Spitzbergen in a translation of a text by Martens, in 1694, and this became the English name thereafter is a prime example, as several people have provided many examples of SpitSbergen being used. I have removed the latter half of this statement and left the part that is actually verifiable.
 * (reply):This is Jonas’ contention, not mine; I suggest you take it up with him

The next is The Arctic explorer WM Conway, in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect [3] though this had little effect on British practice and XYL gives two examples of this - despite that several editors have provided many examples of quite the opposite. Try reading the WP:OR page XYL, in particular the part about WP:SYN where it says you cannot synthesise unpublished material by cherrypicking from all the available sources. Once again, removed.
 * (reply):"cherrypicking"? I’ve given two sources from the same period as your one; how is that cherrypicking? Would you care to provide another source from 1906 (or 10 years either way is fine), to make it 2:2?

The phrase though "Spitzbergen" remained the common British spelling throughout the 20th century. has one source, showing one person using the Z version, once. And, despite several editors providing many English and British sources saying quite the opposite XYL is using this one utterance as evidence that throughout Britain Z was used - false, and the most obvious example of OR yet. Removed.
 * (reply):The “one person” you are referring to is the official record for the British Parliament; you have heard of Hansard, haven’t you?
 * and "several editors"? "many sources"? Who? What? When?
 * On the other hand, you have already been given sources to back this up, here and here. So what have you got in the way of British sources that says different?

And really, if XYL wants to state that a Dutch person, looking to name an island he just found, would pick a German name, even though the name he picked was Dutch, then he is the one who needs a source for that, not the other way around.
 * (reply):What I said, if you look, is that I would be surprised if the Dutch had an indigenous word for "pointed mountains", and that I thought it’d be a borrowed term. I’m happy to see a citation that disproves this, but it hasn’t been forthcoming yet; If Jonas can’t be bothered to do it, why don’t you check your Dutch dictionary for one?

XYL, your crusade in this matter is rather tiresome, and the way that you are abusing Wikipedia and it's extremely clear policies is disheartening. I would encourage you to find something more productive to do with your time. Weakopedia (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! The other member of the tag team!
 * This patronizing “more in sorrow than in anger” tone makes a change from Jonas’ line in personal abuse, but it is insulting, none the less.
 * And what, exactly, is your point?
 * You yourself found the BBC quote which shows that even today there is no clear preference. The plethora of 20th century sources must hint to you that the z spelling was commonplace in British English, even if the s spelling was in use as well; the only OR is your trying to suggest otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * (no reply)
 * There’s been no reply to this, though the section has been changed again, with the edit summary “i think we shall let the original research noticeboard determine that”.
 * There was nothing at WP:NOR/N, so I have filed it, here.
 * In the meantime, I suggest you stop edit-warring on the subject and respect the status quo ante until the matter is reported upon. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A proposal
Following some discussion in userspace (here) it is proposed to resolve the OR issues in the Etymology section by making the following changes, from "Spitsbergen was named by its discoverer Willem Barentsz in 1596, the name meaning “pointed mountains” (from the Dutch Spits - "pointed", Bergen-"mountains")), the name being applied to both the main island and the island group as a whole.  The islands were known as "Greenland" in English during the 17th Century (ref Fotherby, (1613) P45 They were referred to as Spitzbergen in a translation of a text by Martens, in 1694, and this became the English name thereafter. The Arctic explorer WM Conway, in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect (ref though this had little effect on British practice (ref Lockyer, Nature  (ref British Foreign Office (1908) In 1920 the treaty determining the fate of the islands was entitled the "Spitsbergen Treaty", and the islands were referred to in the USA as "Spitsbergen" from that time,(ref Time though "Spitzbergen" remained the common British spelling throughout the 20th century.(ref[ Hansard] (1977) Under Norwegian governance the islands were named "Svalbard" in 1925, the main island becoming "Spitsbergen", and by the end of the 20th century this usage had become general." To "Spitsbergen was named by its discoverer Willem Barentsz in 1596, the name meaning “pointed mountains” (from the Dutch Spits - "pointed", Bergen-"mountains")), the name being applied to both the main island and the island group as a whole. The islands were referred to in English as Greenland by Fotherby in 1613, (ref. a practice still followed in 1780 and criticized by Bacstrom at that time (ref . The "Spitzbergen" spelling was used in English during the 19th century, for instance by Beechey (1818)ref, Laing (1822)ref and the Royal Society (1860)ref. The Arctic explorer WM Conway, in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect (ref Conway though the report on his expedition used "Spitzbergen",(ref Nature as did the British Foreign Office in 1908 (ref FO In 1920 the treaty determining the fate of the islands was entitled the "Spitsbergen Treaty", and the islands were referred to in the USA as "Spitsbergen" from that time, (ref Time though "Spitzbergen" remained a common British spelling for much of the 20th century, for example by Parliament in 1977 (ref [Hansard] (1977) Under Norwegian governance the islands were named "Svalbard" in 1925, the main island becoming "Spitsbergen", and by the end of the 20th century this usage had become general." Any comments? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The ultimate aim is to include the information we have without making too many conclusions of our own. It is difficult to find a source that says during X period the spelling Z (or S) was the more common so instead we have a few sources from different time periods and the challenge is to present those without it seeming like a list, and also without us using specific examples to support a conclusion that none of the individual sources have reached.
 * We do have two sources that say that SpitSbergen is the "correct" spelling, however both of those sources seem to suggest that the common spelling at the time may have been SpitZbergen. Conway seems to suggest, as does TIME, that although S is correct, Z was at the time a common spelling, if not the more common.
 * By the way I can add a book source for the Dutch etymology if necessary. In the meantime I will take another look at this text and see if I can make any suggestions - hopefully we can be all agreed by the time the article is unprotected. Weakopedia (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I can live with the sources that suggest the S is correct, if we can agree the Z was a common (or the common) spelling then. And a source for the Dutch meaning would resolve that point. If there are any other tweaks you think necessary, bring them along...Xyl 54 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be an etymology section. What was originally in the lead explained concisely that the German spelling is mistakenly used by authors up to the present date. Nothing else needs to be said. Period. I'll remove it the first chance I get. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The need, which you don't accept, is that what was originally in the lead was wrong in just about every respect, which why there needs to be a section to explain it all.
 * And your continually referring to it “the german spelling”, and your opinion that it is used “mistakenly”, is also part of the problem.
 * Also your threat to continue edit warring to get your own way is hardly constructive. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Seeing as how the Dutch spelling is the only correct spelling in English, yes, what was originally there was and is correct; (2) So it's not German? Than what the hell spelling is it?! You make no damn sense!; and (3) I've stated my position too many damn times and I'm sorry you're too stupid to see you're completely wrong. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks Mr Poole for openly stating your position - that you are prepared to edit war against consensus to get what you want. Meanwhile the rest of us are trying to reach a compromise, and if you are unable to do that you also don't have to be a part of the compromise.

After several months of research there is now potential for quite an interesting etymology section - that you, Mr Poole, wish it to be removed at all costs says more about you than it does about the work that has gone into this article. Your continued insults are also unwelcome - if you cannot contribute without resorting to insult then you should not try to contribute at all. Let this serve as a warning for your breach of civility. If you continue in this vein, and continue in your efforts to edit war over your preferred version, then your career here is likely to be rather short.

As to your main "point", it has been shown to be nonsensical. If you had done any of the research you would realise that in olden times an entirely different letter was used in place of either Z or S and that their use today is not an indication of Germanness, and the S spelling is not the only spelling used by English people. You have obviously misunderstood Wiki policy about naming also, but for now the important thing is that if you cannot contribute civilly, and if you fulfill your ambition to edit war, then you are likely to be blocked. Weakopedia (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I've already read everything you two dipshits have been saying on your talk page you fucking moron. It hasn't added anything new. Just more talking out of your asses, as usual. Really? They didn't use z? Now you're contradicting yourself, aren't you? Are you stupid? As I've said a thousand goddamn times, the 1694 translation of Martens' voyage uses "Spitzbergen", with a fucking z! Yes, you're completely fucking wrong asshole. As I've said time and time again, it's the fucking German spelling. It doesn't matter how many times English authors have mistakenly used this spelling, it's still a fucking mistake! The only correct spelling is the Dutch one. As the Dutch discovered it, not the Germans. Let's start using the German spelling of everything else in English, why don't we? That's your logic. A bunch of dumbasses use the wrong spelling over and over again, so your logic is to think, oh, its just a varient! I'm a fucking idiot with no fucking common sense. Exactly. All of you need to shut the fuck up and stop talking out of your asses. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note the same 1694 publication calls it "Spitsberg", with a normal s. Again, you're wrong. Shut the fuck up. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Just a brief note to add my voice to the consensus. The new section on etymology and spelling variations is a massive improvement on what was there before. It is indeed the case that the -s- seplling is the current correct English spelling, but it has not always been so, nor has it always been the commonest spelling in practice, and something does need to be said about this beyond simply dismissing the -z- spelling by means of a 100-year-old quotation from Conway. Keep up the good work on the etymology! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (reply to Jonas)
 * That’s an interesting book you’ve turned up there, Jonas; what exactly were you wanting to prove with it? Are you really saying the English have been calling the place Spitzbergen since they read it from Martens? And that they were making the same "mistake" for over two hundred years and never realized?
 * The thing that comes over strongly to me is that the English had their own names for places, regardless of who discovered them. The publisher here calls the islands "Greenland" (p xviii) “William Barents diſcovered Bear or Cherry Island, and went upon Greenland”); he also notes “afterwards the Dutch gave other names of their own to thefe places, which has bred fome confuion in maps and books” (p xxi). He also refers to Martens (“an Hamburger”) who “ undertook the Greenland voyage” (pxxvi) and says he published it in the High Dutch, a language little understood”,, but which was translated “with all poffible diligence” (p xxviii)
 * It seems from the sources I’ve seen that it was being called Greenland well into the 18th century, and was Spitzbergen pretty much throughout the 19th and well into the 20th (as noted here); have you anything that says otherwise?
 * The point you keep missing is that regardless of what Barents called the place, there is no obligation anyone else to use that name, and it seems pretty obvious the English didn’t do so. As this is the English WP what is relevant here is what the name is, or was, in English (as you have been told many times).
 * Now the fact that the Dutch discovered the place is in the article; the fact the name Spitsbergen derives from the Dutch is in also; but for you to insist that this has always been the name in English except for the occasional poor misguided soul who can’t tell German from Dutch is so far away from the mark as to be laughable, (though your insistence on verbally abusing anyone who tries to point this out to you is getting less funny all the time) and your insistence that the article should suggest this is plain wrong.
 * So, have you got anything constructive to say on the matter? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, it is time to stop feeding the troll. Mr Poole may have a point buried under all that pile of uncouth insult but it is not up to us to divine it - this is a site frequented by children, we don't need to empower such extremely bad language on a public talkpage. I have reported the matter here. Weakopedia (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, he has been blocked for incivility. Hopefully we can build a good chapter on the history of the naming of Spitsbergen that no-ne will wish to challenge in the future, even Mr Poole when he returns. Weakopedia (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 * So, where do we go from here? Does anyone want to suggest further amendments to the section, or should we post the corrections made so far and see what that produces? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Barentz came from a West Frisian speaking village, so presumably his native language was neither German nor Dutch but a language half way between Dutch and English. At the time of the discovery there was no unified Dutch language anyway. There was a continuum of dialects (which still exists), and part of that continuum had recently got a literary language – Early New High German – I think mostly due to the fact that after the invention of the printing press books suddenly became cheap and everybody wanted to read about the theological questions (reformation) of the time. The major breakthrough towards standardisation of Dutch (a popular bible translation that everybody in the Netherlands could read) didn't happen before 1637, almost a century after the discovery of Spitsbergen.

 * The Westfrisian dialect is a Dutch dialect, and has nothing to do with German or English. You are probably confused with the Frisian language is between Dutch and English!. Taksen (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the West Frisian language (or in Dutch nl:Westerlauwers Fries), not the West Frisian dialects of Dutch. It is of course not really between English and Dutch, but it seems to be at least as similar to both as these are to each other. Btw, I actually verified (well, by reading Wikipedia articles) that this language was still spoken in his original village at the time when he was born. Hans Adler 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this situation, and taking into account the enormous variation of orthography at the time the dispute about an s or z appears totally ridiculous to me. This is a non-issue. It should be enough to say that under the influence of modern German orthography the word used to be written with a z in English, but now it's written with an s, as in modern Dutch. The Conway quotation is not necessary, but could be put into a footnote. Hans Adler 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I’m not clear what point you are making. The compromise paragraph opens with the statement “Spitsbergen was named by its discoverer Willem Barentsz in 1596”; Are you saying that is not in fact the case?
 * And, a "non-issue": Hans, this the Wikipedia; the project is over-flowing with non-issues that groups of editors are prepared to go the full fifteen rounds over. Also it’s been a bone of contention for about three months now, so it's an issue to some people.
 * And your parting comments that the word used to be written with a z in English “under the influence of modern German orthography”, and that now it's written with an s, “as in modern Dutch”, are two of the points at issue.
 * We are trying to formulate a paragraph to explain the name thing better than the Conway quote did; are you unhappy with what we have so far?Xyl 54 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The problem is in the word "paragraph". That's a recurring problem of Wikipedia: We editors get into a dispute about some tiny detail. So it becomes immensely important for us, and we give it ridiculous weight in the article. No normal encyclopedia would say more than, perhaps(!), the following about the matter: "Spitsbergen (formerly spelled Spitzbergen) ...". We are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and therefore this article is about the island, not about its name. We only discuss the name to the extent that it is relevant to the island. Just like we only discuss the Svalbard Global Seal Vault only to the extent that it is relevant to the island. That's why it has a separate article: It's worth saying a lot about, but this is simply not the place. Since there is not (and I hope will never be) an article Spitsbergen/Spitzbergen orthography controversy, you can't put your paragraph there. That leaves you three options: (1) Ignore the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia and just dump everything into the article as if it was a school essay. (2) Leave it out. (3) Cram it into a footnote.
 * One of the hardest aspects of good authorship is to realise what not to write about. Sensible shortening is always harder than adding sentence after sentence. But our readers expect encyclopedia articles, not novels. Hans Adler 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

History and etymology
The Westfrisian dialect is a Dutch dialect, and has nothing to do with German or English. You are probably confused with the Frisian language which is between Dutch and English!. Taksen (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I left out the sentences to Greenland; too confusing. The history paragraph is very bad and needs more attention. The history of maps on Spitsbergen would be an interesting topic and could tell more? Because of the dispute between the Dutch and English whalers, the English preferred the German orthography? Taksen (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Why does this incorrect comment need repetition after I refuted it? I initially thought it was enough to link the term to the correct article (like this: "West Frisian"). Then, when you had apparently missed the link and been misled by the differences between English and Dutch terminology in this area, I replied to you, saying explicitly that I was talking about the West Frisian language, called [Westerlauwers] Fries in Dutch, not the West Frisian dialect of the Dutch language. Surely you don't want to sell Frisian as a Dutch dialect? Hans Adler 10:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "It Frysk, is in taal dy't heart ta de Noardwestgermaanske kloft fan 'e Westgermaanske talen. [...] Yn it bûtenlân stiet it ornaris bekend as Westfrysk, mar yn Nederlân is Westfrysk in Nederlânsk dialekt mei in protte Fryske syntaksis." Hans Adler 10:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the link, but i'm a native speaker.Taksen (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Your second point is original research. Even if this were true, it seems unlikely that any reliable source has written about it. And I really doubt that the English cared that much about the small differences between Dutch and German orthography at the relevant time. An influential English translation of a German book seems like much better explanation to me – no opinion whether it's the right one, though. I don't think it makes sense to write much about that. The fact that the English used to refer to Spitsbergen as "Greenland" (which you hid in a comment tag ) is a lot more significant. Hans Adler 10:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (reply to Taksen)
 * I’ve restored the sentence you commented out; “too confusing”? For whom? Anyone who doesn’t want to believe it?
 * And I’ve deleted your additions “known as "Greenland" to the English in order to attract settlers and “Later on, ...they only retained the name through habit". They are hardly NPOV, as well as being completely unsubstantiated.
 * And I've added the text from the discussion, above, which is the only bit that has any semblance of a consensus behind it...Xyl 54 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems clear enough (see above) that the English called the place "Greenland" for most of the 17th and 18th centuries, (for whatever reason, though it is as likely to be commercial rivalry with the Dutch as anything) and called it "Spitzbergen" throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century (again: it may have been the influence of Martens book; equally it may have been following the English orthography of the time, which used the z in a lot of words that now have an s ).
 * Who knows why? All we are entitled to do is record the facts; any speculation is OR.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the paragraph on etomology. Looks much better now.Taksen (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive details about name variants
I am worried that the discussion of variations of this island's names may be getting too detailed. If this continues, I consider starting an RfC on the question with the aim of removing most of it. It is of almost no interest at all which particular spelling a 17th century cartographer chose among all the equivalent (at the time) possibilities, which Grammatical case they chose for the map, or whether they latinised the term or not. This excruciating detail creates the impression that there is something special about the term, or that it is contentious, or that it has some other significance. IMO it violates WP:DUE. It's just not OK to fill articles with useless junk. Hans Adler 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It is not very scientific to call this useless junk. It is obvious you are not a geographer or interested in old maps. Maps help to explain and many people are interested in them. Why does everybody gets so upset on this topic? The article on Svalbard has excellent information (and a lot of additions by User:Jonas Poole). This article is weak and had a childish lay-out. Taksen (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 * OK, since I can't disprove your unverifiable claim that geographers are sufficiently interested in all these spelling variations to warrant inclusion in a general-purpose dictionary, let's get formal: You are engaging in original synthesis unless you can find a source that goes into similar detail. Sometimes we are forced to piece details together from various primary sources (in this case: sources using a variation of "Spitsbergen") to fill in gaps in our encyclopedic coverage. But you are not filling in a gap, you are building a heap. To prove otherwise you need a secondary source (in this case: a source that discusses the variations of "Spitsbergen") that covers much of what you are writing. Hans Adler 16:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (reply to Taksen)
 * I’ve deleted this “in ignorant good faith". That’s a bit of a cheek, isn’t it?
 * Also I notice you’ve changed some of the references, without an explanation, and this one (No Man's Land) says nothing about the statement it supports. And you’ve added things, then taken them out again, or chopped and changed your wording: I suggest if you want to make changes you (a) think things through and work it out beforehand,, either here or maybe here; and (b) I suggest that you discuss them first.
 * (reply to Hans)
 * You want a RfC on this? There already was a RfC, and the idea of having an Etymology section was the result of that. The issue then was  the persistent POV push on the subject of the name. (ie. that "Spitsbergen"  is Dutch, and right, while "Spitzbergen" is German, and wrong). If you want another RfC, or to reopen the old one, I suggest you‘ll need to find another remedy for the original problem. And, playing the English card once again, what is important about the name is what the place is, and was, called in English; if you reduce that to "Spitsbergen (formerly Spitzbergen, formerly Greenland)", that might need a bit of an explanation, don’t you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Maps from 17th century
Hello Jonas, it is nice to see you back, and it is nice you have so much knowledge on the topic, but again it seems, there is not something like just one and an absolute truth. Why would Hondius and Doncker call it Spitzbergen - [http://books.google.nl/books?id=Bt88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=Spitsbergen+1662+map&source=bl&ots=OOo6xaHTFE&sig=I5gGfNG0_2jvAoiLIyspdIG-Fa0&hl=nl&ei=m7qKTKq6DM7KOLP_tMcK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=Spitzbergen&f=false  No Man's land, page 344. ] - on their maps printed in 1637 and 1655, years before Dr Johnson? Is it because of the French/Basque harponeers, who would have referred to the islands as and pronounced it as Spitzbergen? Both versions seem acceptable. Taksen (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me the original maps. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When you come to Amsterdam, I will take you to these rare maps. They are stored in the University Library. Taksen (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Good deal. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Original maps showing Spitzbergen from 1636 and 1655
Until I'm shown these maps, the passage will remain removed from the obviously worthless etymology section. Notice that the second one (from 1655) appears in a British collection. I wouldn't be surpised if it was a British mistake. If I can see scans, etc. of these maps, the entry can be added again to the aforementioned worthless section. Even if they do somehow use the incorrect German spelling (which I highly doubt), it should be pointed out that the vast majority of Dutch maps obviously used the correct spelling Spitsbergen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate
''The interior fjord areas and valleys, sheltered by the mountains, have less temperature differences than the coast, giving about 2 C-change lower summer temperatures and 3 C-change higher winter temperatures. On the south of Spitsbergen, the temperature is slightly higher than further north and west.'' This is wrong, as the interior fjord areas and valleys are sheltered and therefore warmer in summer (low altitude) than the coast, while they are colder in winter (but generally less windy), thus having a larger year amplitude. This is also reflected in the vegetation pattern, as the interior fjord areas are the most lush (almost shrub tundra some areas) due to the warmest summer days. The coldest areas are in the east and northeast, as the warmer sea is along the west coast and even northwest-coast. The inner part of Widjefjorden actually has the most continental climate in Norway. Orcaborealis (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (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)

title: Talk:Spitsbergen