Talk:Spitsbergen

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Petrified Palms?

message: 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)
replies: text: Now fixed. --Berland (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Spitzbergen" redirect

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing a point re the naming 

message: 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 -   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)
replies: text: Show me the original maps. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Good deal. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps from 17th century

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original maps showing Spitzbergen from 1636 and 1655 

message: The interior fjord areas and valleys, sheltered by the mountains, have less temperature differences than the coast, giving about  lower summer temperatures and  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)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geology? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where is it?