Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred J (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 31 October 2006 (→17 September 2006 name change to [] & revert war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Treaty of Fredrikshamn vs. Treaty of Hamina

As a result of googling in the internet, it seems to me that it is relatively common to use "Hamina" as the name of this Treaty, not "Fredrikshamn" as Swedish patriots may seem to desire. In materials on pages of for example EU Parliament and German schools, Encyclopedia Britannica, Yourencyclopedia in the net, French Bibliomonde... they seem to use "Treaty of Hamina", "Paix de Hamina", "Traité de Hamina", "Frieden von Hamina". Actally, the dutch Misplaced Pages has directly commenced to use "Vrede van Hamina".

As additional ground for "Hamina", it is the name nowadays generally used of that town in the English-speaking world. The same name helps to avoid confusion, and helps readers to locate the treaty location to today´s map.

(At the time of the signing, 1809, the town which belonged, and has already long belonged, to Russia, was known by a sortiment of names, such as in its German and Russian name variants. German was an important language in those areas of Russian Baltic at that era. And the locals used the Finnish name variant "Hamina" at that time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.157.114 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2004 (UTC)

When talking about a peace treaty between Sweden and Russia, during the time when Finland was a part of Sweden, like the Treaty of Fredrikshamn, the Swedish name should be used, anything else would be anachronistic. No one talks about the Battle of Volgograd instead of the Battle of Stalingrad just because Stalingrad now is named Volgograd.

And please do sign your comments.

Den fjättrade ankan 22:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thus, I hope that Swedish patriots sooner or later cease to try to win their already two centuries ago (1808-09) lost war here in Misplaced Pages.

Dear patriotic compatriot!

I guess the change you criticize was those made by me. It's not the best thing to do, to call a Finnish expat for "Swedish patriot". To me it has the ring of calling me a traitor.

This matter is solely about the right and standardized practice at Misplaced Pages.

Besides: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is often a good thing. /Tuomas 08:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith of a Duck who reverts before discussing, thus creating a loop. I regard that as high-handedness. 213.243.157.114 17:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Duck,

Unfortunately for you, o esteemed Duck, your argument about anachronism goes directly against you. Hamina at the time of the treaty belonged to Russia, to its province of Old Finland. Swedish was not used as the main language of that province. The treaty in question was made as a document in French. They did not use Swedish. A Swedish translation was produced by Sw.Government for the Swedish collection of statutes and treaties (Författningssamling). The Sedish translation possessed not the value of evidence, the French original did.

It is somewhat puzzling to me why we should use Swedish name of a place of that time which did not at that time belong to Sweden. Sweden was a participant of the war in question, and its representatives to negotiate the peace went to a place in the original territory of the other participant. If the treaty had been signed in, say, Tallinn, the Duck here would apparently require that it be written in English Misplaced Pages as "Treaty of Rävel".

In case you, Duck, did not yet grasp it, your statement has at least one mistake: During that time, Hamina was NOT a part of Sweden.

Before someone tries to hit by asking it, let me say that I am very well familiar with history, having read tons of history books over a period of 30 years, and that I am very familiar with material in English, having read plenty of books (e.g about geography, history...) in English.

It seems to me that Fj.Anka (Duck), being a Swede and being familiar with chiefly Swedish-language history materials, makes an incorrect assumption that names used in Swedish texts are in common use, not only in swedish use.

Having checked some edits by Duck here in English Misplaced Pages, I have found signs that those edits show at least carelessness. Something at least very close to rapidity without thought. One edit led to indefinite loop. Would it be better if Duck won't do any edits before very careful conmsideration by others of such suggestions.

213.243.157.114 17:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name of the treaty was, historically, Treaty of Fredrikshamn, or Fredricshamn as it was spelled on the french original. Now treaties of peace aren't babtized in the same way as children, and their names aren't registered in church records. It might be questioned, what it was that in this case influenced the name the treaty has been known under. My personal guess is the weak position of Finnish language, well into the second half of the 19th century. It oughtn't be necessary to remind about how the Grand Duchy, of which Hamina was a part from 1812, was governed in Swedish, and that Finland as late as in the 1920s had an ambassador Donner in London who spoke very little Finnish - if any at all.

In any case, the treaty says:

Traité de paix entre Sa Majesté le roi de Suède el la couronne de Suède d'une part, et Sa Majesté l'empereur de toutes les Russies el l'empire de Russie de l'autre, fait et conclu à Fredricshamn le 17 September 1809 & ratifié à Stockholm le 3 Octobre et à S:t. Petersbourg le 23 du même mois.

I may sympatize with efforts to purify Finland's history from the burden of the Swedish past, but that has to be done elsewhere. Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to change the usage of terms, but to adher to high academic standards in its terminology.

/Tuomas 21:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About place names

Hm. I agree with Tuomas. Besides, this article is an obvious exception in the Russo-Swedish treaties (Treaties of Åbo, Nystad and Nöteborg). If we want to follow this type of place name usage, why couldn't we talk about the treaties of Turku, Uusikaupunki and Shlisselburg. Oh, and if Misplaced Pages existed before 1992, the latest would have been Petrokrepost until then, and edited to Shlisselburg afterwards. :-)

I'm currently researching, when the usage of Swedish place names ceased in German or English maps. It seems that it was in the 1940's, but the reasons to that remain unclear to me. The transition period was from the 1920's to the 1950's, but still — why?

The maps in Encyclopædia Britannica (14th edition, 1929) shows that in some maps, not showing Finland as the main object (such as the map of the Baltic states), the Swedish names are under (parentheses). However, the map of Finland tells about the towns of Helsingfors, Åbo, Tammerfors, Wiborg -- and Frederikshamn. So does the great German lexicon "Der Große Brockhaus", printed in 1930. And the smaller Brockhaus (1925) doesn't mention the Finnish place names either. There are also some atlases, which are made quite idiotically: the bilingual Helsingfors is labeled only "Helsinki", but the uniligually Finnish town Hyvinkää is Hyvinge. This repeats in many other place names, even then unilingually Swedish Nykarleby is marked "Uusikaarlepyy", which is totally wrong from any perspective. The labeling of both forms would have been the best option.

All in all, generally I am using the traditional place names, if it has not been advised to do otherwise. I speak about Reval, Danzig, Stettin, Strassburg, Constantinople and Bombay instead of Tallinn, Gdańsk, Sczecin, Strasbourg, Istanbul or Mumbai -- so do I use the traditional Swedish names of older Finnish cities and traditional Swedish-speaking areas. I don't speak about Enontekis (Enontekiö) or Lahtis (Lahti), but I do speak about Nykarleby, Helsingfors and Fredrikshamn.

Besides historical reasons, there are — in my opinion though — some other valid points in that: someone, who speaks English or German as their mother tongue doesn't have to learn the Finnish pronounciation (which actually is close to IPA). Hamina would be accidently pronounced "Häminä" in an English-speaking mouth - it sounds comical in Finnish ears, but "Fredrikshämn" (the probable pronounciation of Fredrikshman in English) would not be a problem. The real problem, I think, is in the pronounciation of places like "Espoo" (the second-biggest municipality in Finland, pop. 225.000) or "Sipoo" - what would happen with that "poo"-syllable?! The solution to this problem would be really simple: use the traditional (since ye medievale tides) Swedish names Esbo and Sibbo, you can't get too wrong when pronouncing them.

Or when we are talking about the greatest Swedish-speaking enclave in the capital area, in Finnish Kauniainen (that poetic name by the way was invented in about 1920's). In an English mouth that would become "Koonieinen", while Grankulla, the original name for the town. A Finn would hear that "Gränkjula", which is not too far away from IPA .

The real question is, which form would you remember better: Kauniainen or Grankulla, Hamina or Fredrikshamn? The length can be about the same in both languages, but the Swedish names should in my opinion seem more familiar (though still probably remaining almost meaningless), than the Finnish names with multiple vowels in the row. I don't see any proper reasons using the Finnish names (often translated or bent from Swedish), when there is an older, still official Swedish name - in our examples Fredrikshamn (unilingually Finnish, but the Swedish name is official) and Grankulla (bilingually Swedish, the Swedish-speaking population is about 40% of the whole population in the town).

— ultrix, a moderately patriotic Finn, student of administrative sciences in the university of Tammerfors (or Tampere, if you prefer the university policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.1.107.70 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

17 September 2006 name change to Treaty of Hamina & revert war

Petri Krohn claimed that 'treaty of Hamina' is never used outside Finland, so what is this and this? The city is and was unilingually Finnish and this treaty ended the Swedish reign in Finland so it would be stupid to use the Swedish name as a primary name. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When searching in Google you must compare "Treaty of Fredrikshamn" -wikipedia (864 hits) to "Treaty of Hamina" -wikipedia (111 hits) -- Petri Krohn 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world should we search only Misplaced Pages articles? --Jaakko Sivonen 17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we must exclude Misplaced Pages articles, thus "-wikipedia". -- Petri Krohn 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Misplaced Pages is not an authority. / Fred-Chess 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC) As shown on this talk page, there is little support to call this article Treaty of Hamina, so Jaakko, please stop moving the article or changing its title. I have protected against page moves so that you can't do that at least. / Fred-Chess 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. --Ghirla 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This treaty ended the era of Swedish reign in Finland, so you can't say that it should be called by its Swedish name because of Swedish rule. Hamina is unilingualy Finnish speaking city, as it was then too. In addition treaty of Hamina is much more an important event in the history of Finland than it is in the history of Sweden. I think that you have your own biased agenda here, since you are Swedish, and some other administrator should look into this. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact one, maybe user:JIP will be to your liking? You can also ask for assistance at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard / Fred-Chess 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The treary was signed between Russia and Sweden in a Russian town known then by its German name. The town only became part of Finland in 1812. As for the importance, the Diet of Porvoo was important for Finnish history. The treaty was largely irrelevant. -- Petri Krohn 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The treaty ended the war, so it's not irrelevant. The town belonged to Russia then but the population was Finnish and it had belonged to Finland prior 1743. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Diet of Porvoo is a good example by the way: it was in the same year than this treaty and it uses the Finnish name. Why not this too then? --Jaakko Sivonen 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Per request from User:Jaakko Sivonen, I have unprotected the page. I have not taken any other action. If the argument continues then this might have to be taken to WP:RFC. JIP | Talk 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes proposed by Jaakko must not be accepted and ought to be reverted at once. If he persists it should be labelled vandalism resulting in a block.

On this discussion page alone there is sufficient evidence that his view is not the standard view. This is attested by user:Tuomas (a Finn) 08:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) and by user:153.1.107.70 (a Finn) 18 September 2006 (UTC). If Jaakko wants to be taken seriously, he must find credible support and references.

Fred-Chess 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider you a vandal. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my post above (in addition to being not logged in), but I confirm it being me, who wrote the long entry about "Treaty of Fredrikshamn" being better than "Treaty of Hamina". I'm also somewhat patriotic, but I value historical place names over Finnish "translations" or other bendings. Fredrikshamn is IMO significantly better than Hamina even today, so is Helsingfors better than Helsinki (which, by the way has been used in Finnish since the 18th Century, and in other languages only after 1930s). Also Pori should be Björneborg, despite it being the longer form. But it was founded as Björneborg, whereas we Finns made it a simpler "Pori", using only the Borg-suffix from the original, official name.

Despite the town having mainly Finnish-speaking population when the Karelian peninsula was ceded to Russia, it was officially called Fredrikshamn (see above) both before and after the treaty. Russians probably used Фредриксхамн or something very much near it in their maps. I haven't seen the official documents about the treaty, but nevertheless that was the policy then, so it is very improbable that the Russians would have used the now-used Хамина-form. If someone else knows better, revealeth he or she their knowledge.

Ultrix 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not patriotic if you insist that Swedish names be used of unilingually Finnish cities. Also look at Diet of Porvoo. It is neutral and correct to use Finnish names of cities with Finnish speaking majority, look f. ex. Vaasa, Turku and and Porvoo, they aren't Vasa, Åbo and Borgå. On the other hand Närpiö is written as Närpes here as it has a Swedish speaking majority. Using Swedish names of Finnish speaking cities is supporting Swedish racism and it is extremely non-neutral. You are probably a svecoman, the opposite of a patriotic Finn that is. Why in the world do you think Swedish names should be used of unilingually Swedish names even today?! Do you hate the Finnish people so much? Do you think London should be called Londinium, its original name?! You are nothing but a Swedish nationalist. Treason, treason, treason. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just after I wrote my previous post, I found this: ].

There it is, "В Фридрихсгаме 5/17 сентября в лето от Р.Х. 1809." (literal translitteration: V Fridrikhsgame 5/17 sentyabrya v leto ot R.Kh. 1809.) Г was in that time generally used in translitterating a Latin H-letter, so Russians called the town "Friedrichshame". Not Hamina or anything near it.

You may also google it, a Google search for Фридрихсгаме: ]

Ultrix 10:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Friedrichshame is not the same word as Fredrikshamn either. All three languages have own names for the city, but since it is a Finnish city and is and was a Finnish speaking city, the Finnish name should be the primary name used. Using a Swedish name is non-NPOV also in the sense that Sweden was only the other part in the treaty, Russia being the other. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have warned you Jaakko. If you do not present evidence to support your idea of the article title, do not move it. Make use of WP:RFC or WP:RM, but if you move this article again, I will block you for 24 hours. / Fred-Chess 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)