From TheBestLinks.com
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 Wikipedia 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.)
- 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 Wikipedia.
- 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 Wikipedia.
- Besides: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Sučde el la couronne de Sučde d'une part, et Sa Majesté l'empereur de toutes les Russies el l'empire de Russie de l'autre, fait et conclu ā Fredricshamn le 17 September 1809 & ratifié ā Stockholm le 3 Octobre et ā S:t. Petersbourg le 23 du męme 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. Wikipedia'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)
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
