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 [1] 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 archipelago.

Here are a few external links confirming it [2], [3] and [4]. 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.

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)

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#RFC. 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 [5], and in 1799 it was "Spitfbergen", (with the long s) [6] (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)

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 having 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)

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)