|
| format= %%i
}}
== Professor Daniel Miller's comment, and Fraktur ==
I've attempted to delete the lengthy quote of "Pennsylvania Dutch Prof. Miller" several times, and the revision has been reversed every time. In my mind, it is enough to say that the PA Dutch were the butt of jokes that they did not appreciate, no need for the polemic.
Professor Miller doesn't seem to have any trace or relevance outside two articles where his opinion is quoted, and the source for those quotes. There is no way to verify that his opinions were particularly relevant in 19th c. PA.
Regardless of the relevance of this source, though, I find the use of Fraktur for the quote particularly impractical and pointless. In articles on actually German topics, I have never seen an app-generated Fraktur being used to represent quotes. Likewise, in articles that quote letters written in cursive, the quote is almost never turned into an internet-generated cursive font. Medieval sources are not quoted in Carolingian Miniscule, etc.
It is important that the point of including quotes in articles, whether in their original language or translated into English, is so that they can be read. For users not acquainted with German archival sources (arguably the majority of Wikipedia users), the font makes it hard to read.
Thanks to the use of images in the article, users can see that PA Dutch wrote in Fraktur. There is no reason why this must be "drilled further home" by the use of illegible internet-generated font.
So, if nothing else, I implore the conversion of the quote into a normal font. [[User:Theodore Christopher|Theodore Christopher]] ([[User talk:Theodore Christopher|talk]]) 21:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
:You have already demonstrated your subjective opinion of Fraktur earlier writing by calling it "cartoonish" in a recent edit, insulting it for no other reason than your personal opinion, and you continue your subjective opinion here by stating that there is no reason why this language should be "drilled further home" and call its usage as just "illegible internet-generated font".
:Your argument stems from a flawed supposition that the historic Palatine language in use between Europe and America should be treated the exact same as modern Standard German; to commit this error would be to invent an inaccurate rendering of the international Palatine language.
:Examples of this international Palatine literature, are: Pälzer Humor, Lina Sommer, 1914; Wie's klingt am Rhei': mundartliche Gedichte aus der hessischen Pfalz, Elard Briegleb 1885, Die pälzisch Weltgeschicht, Paul Münch, 1910, Pennsylvania German: A collection of Pennsylvania German productions in poetry and prose, Band 1, Daniel Miller, 1903, Miller's Prose and Verse, Part English, Part Pennsylvania German: By Edwin C. Miller, Edwin Charles Miller, 1924, Pälzer Duwak: schnurrige Erzählungen in Pfälzer Mundart, Max Barack, 1886, Pennsylvania German: A Collection of Pennsylvania German Productions in Poetry and Prose, Volume 2, Daniel Miller, 1911
:We can compare this exact case of preference to maintain the original language in other Wikipedia articles, such as using Coptic script for Coptic language, Egyptian Greek, and Nubian Creole Greek, as these were only written in Coptic script, e.g. "ⲇⲟⲝⲁ ⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓ ⲕⲉ ⲩⲓⲱ: ⲕⲉ ⲁ̀ⲅⲓⲱ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲓ: ⲕⲉ ⲛⲩⲛ ⲕⲉ ⲁ̀ⲓ̀ ⲕⲉ ⲓⲥ ⲧⲟⲩⲥ ⲉⲱⲛⲁⲥ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉ̀ⲱ̀ⲛⲱⲛ ⲁ̀ⲙⲏⲛ", and are presented in this manner for the sake of accuracy, rather than rendering them in modern Greek script; another example is the accurate usage of Gothic script, e.g. 𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌹𐌽𐌰𐍃𐍃𐌿𐍃 𐌴𐌹𐍄𐌰𐌻𐌾𐌰𐌹 ([[Ostrogothic Kingdom]]), instead of choosing to render it in the historically inaccurate modern transliteration ''Thiudinassus Eitaljai'' solely for the purpose of "better legibility".
:In regards to your tangent about not using Medieval fonts such as Carolingian Miniscule, this case is not at all the same as rendering in Palatine language in Fraktur, as Medieval fonts such as Carolingian were almost exclusively used for standard Latin, which in modern convention we render in modern Roman script.
:The spirit of this international Palatine language would be corrupted by presenting it in another format. This international language, which was shared between European Palatines and American Palatines, particularly the Pennsylvania Germans, was supplanted between World War 1 and 2, and is not in use today; nevertheless its literature should be presented as accurately as possible. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 01:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::As a speaker of Franconian and reader of Fraktur, I am perfectly aware that Palatine German has defined differences with standard high German. I am also aware of the prominence that Fraktur held in printed German until the mid-20th c.-- This doesn't change my thoughts on the font. German in Germany, as I'm sure you know, wasn't standardized until the 19th c. Dialects, non-standard German, and so on are everywhere on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, though, the page for [[Middle High German]] does not convert MHG into any early German font that it might've been originally rendered in, miniscule or not. The pages for German-speaking rulers, such as [[Franz Joseph I of Austria]], do not contain generated Fraktur, even though one can assume that titles, for instance, were originally written in calligraphic Fraktur. What makes this quote so unique? [[User:Theodore Christopher|Theodore Christopher]] ([[User talk:Theodore Christopher|talk]]) 20:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::None of the statements in your last reply address anything I said in my previous rebuttal. Nothing you constitutes an argument:
:::1. You say that German wasn't standardized until the 19th century- *Whether German was standardized or not in the 19th century is irrelevant to this discussion.
:::2. You talk about how we render [[Middle High German]] on Wikipedia, saying we don't write it in miniscule script- *Besides that miniscule script doesn't exist as unicode on computers, how we render Middle High German is irrelevant to this discussion.
:::3. You talk about how we write German royalty titles on Wikipedia- *How Wikipedia writes German royalty titles is irrelevant to this discussion.
:::As stated before, you are still committing the error of treating this form of Palatine language and its Pennsylvania German variant the same as German.
:::[[File:Yidish graffiti.JPG|thumb|An example of graffiti in Yiddish, Tel Aviv, Washington Avenue ({{lang|yi|און איר זאלט ליב האבן דעם פרעמדען, ווארום פרעמדע זייט איר געווען אין לאנד מצרים|rtl=yes}}). ''"You shall have love for the stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 10:19)'']]
:::Your argument is the same as wanting to write Yiddish (a dialect of German) in a different script, solely because you think "it's more legible," when the only accurate rendering of Yiddish would be in its traditional Hebrew script, as is the practice on Wikipedia.
:::You stated "This doesn't change my thoughts on the font." I will tell you, based on the subjective comments you've made, and the irrelevant blathering and waffling, your thoughts are not worth very much.
:::To end, you ask a last question: "What makes this quote so unique?"
:::Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain it with this response:
:::Daniel Miller's quote provides an excellent snapshot into the prejudice and stereotypes the Pennsylvania Dutch faced, and paints the reality of their living situations, the sophistication of the Pennsylvania Dutch society in lieu of the stereotyes; further, it demonstrates a clear meaning of "Yankee" in Pennsylvania Dutch culture, and the rivalry between the cultures; to speak simply, Daniel Miller's quote ties the section together splendidly. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 22:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Palatine German is a ''dialect''. Yiddish is a language.
::::Yiddish uses Hebrew script. Palatine German, as did most every other dialect of German written between the sixteenth and twentieth centuries, used Fraktur. The way that Palatine German was written is in the same way that Saxon German, Franconian German, etc. were written. So the inclusion of standard and non-standard German examples in this conversation are relevant. The only accurate (or sensitive, choose your word here) way to read Yiddish is in Hebrew letters, but Fraktur is not the only accurate way that Palatine German can be read-- it is still spoken (and written) within the Palatinate, and I seriously doubt that they're using Fraktur to write it.
::::Miller's lengthy quote is not necessarily a true-to-form representation of society at the time. He is alleging that PA Dutch lifestyles are superior to Yankee/English ones, it's only proof that PA Dutch and Yankee people thought each of their respective communities were better than the other... something that can be summarized in a shorter form. [[User:Theodore Christopher|Theodore Christopher]] ([[User talk:Theodore Christopher|talk]]) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Now your argument has devolved into what we call dialects and what we call languages; what constitutes a dialect or language is completely subjective to socialogists- your point is making an ad auctoritatem fallacy, and like I stated prior in my earlier rebuttals, you're committing the error of treating this language the same as standard German. For your information, we call this the [[Pennsylvania Dutch language]].
:::::Also, you are selectively ignoring previous points i've made in prior rebuttals, particularly where I explained the historic usage Fraktur orthography in this language, and how it was supplanted between World War 1 and 2. You, however, ignoring that, decided to talk about what people today are speaking or writing in the Palatinate. This is a completely irrelevant argument.
:::::Only 70 years ago, Hebrew was an extinct language. Now it's spoken by 10 million people, and in Greece 50 years ago everybody learned and wrote literary Katharevousa Greek, but this form was abolished during the Greek civil war between the Communist and National government. Times change, and what people speak or write today is irrelevant in this discussion.
:::::Furthermore, your whole argument comes from ignorance of Pennsylvania Dutch culture, and why this form was written in Fraktur; usage of Fraktur in this variety of Pennsylvania Dutch was a concious effort by writers as an antithesis to the "English rule" of the Pennsylvania Dutch at the time, which was to write the language in an English orthography, and contributed to its derision by making it not seem like a legitimate means of literary expresion.
:::::Here is the example of the English rule from Rauch's Pennsylvania Dutch English rule manual, "Rauch's Pennsylvania Dutch hand-book. Rauch's Pennsylvania Deitsch hond-booch", E.H. Rauch, 1879:
:::::{{blockquote|De feela daussenda fun Pennsylvania boova un maid os in de Englisha shoola gane un doch sheer nix shwetza derhame un in der nochbershaft os Pennsylvania Deitsh... all de kinner in unserem shtate larna English laisa, un yusht 'n dale fun eena krega enniche sort fun Deitshe larnung. De Englisha rule, dawrum, is by weitam is de besht for des booch.}}
:::::{{blockquote|The many thousands of Pennyslvania boys and girls that go into English schools almost speak nothing other than Pennsylvania Dutch at home or in the neighborhood... all the children in our state learn to read English, and only some get any sort of German learning. The English rule, therefore, is by far the best for this book.}}
:::::On the other hand, the usage of the Pennsylvania Dutch Fraktur orthography was a concious attempt 1.to uplift the Pennsylvania Dutch language for use in scientific and other high literature, 2.to connect with the international Palatine literary audience, and 3. to protect traditional German education in Pennsylvania.
:::::Your last point is your subjective opinion of Daniel Miller's words about Yankees, and you attribute them to some sort of boastful superiority, and purport, without any evidence, that both communities thought they were better than the other. Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, not even speaking the language nor knowing our cultural traits. Everything you say comes solely from "your thoughts."
:::::You obviously don't understand what it meant to be Pennsylvania Dutch during this time in American history. This was at a time of high anti-foreigner hatred, racism, and a major push to Americanize the diverse peoples living in the USA. You think Daniel Miller's defense of his native culture, being a marginalized community, is just boasting talk of superiority? That's complete and utter nonsense, and as I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much." [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 11:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::The pompous insults are really not necessary -- you're not a tut-tutting, cigar-smoking academic, you are on the internet. If you really thought my opinions were worthless, you wouldn't be writing up these responses.
::::::I'm an outsider from PA Dutch Culture? Sure, but so are you, if your profile is to be believed. I've spent a lot of time in Amish country because part of my family lives there, but that doesn't matter: we are both approaching the subject from the same level of removal.
::::::Wikipedia classifies Palatine German as a dialect. Since this is a Wikipedia article, we will go by Wikipedia classifications. And from the beginning of this conversation, you've explicitly referenced ''Palatine German,'' rather than PA Dutch. Regardless, PA Dutch is a variety of Palatine German. So other German dialects remain relevant to this conversation. Palatine German should be treated in the same way that historical examples Saxon, Franconian, Frisian, et c. are treated on Wikipedia, namely without Fraktur.
::::::The usage of Hebrew and Modern Greek are utterly irrelevant to Palatine German, since this is a dialect that has been spoken for centuries and continues to be spoken. There has been no spectacular reorientation or revival of the dialect.
::::::The usage of Fraktur was intentional, of course, not only in Pennsylvania, or in the Palatinate, but across the German-speaking world. Fraktur always distinguished German (whatever dialect it may be in) texts from those written in, say, French. Use of Fraktur as a distinguishing factor for German, or even as a protest, is not unique to Pennsylvania. And yet, you don't see other editors insist that archival sources be written in computer-generated Fraktur.
::::::Lastly, yes, the Professor does claim superiority in this passage... allegedly, their farms are "... the model of the world", they have "the best and newest machines", and they possess some innate goodness not present in those "rascals", the "knavish, tricky (…) Yankees". I'm sure the PA Dutch are good, honest people, and that they had good farms, but neither of us are here to adjudicate 19th-c. ethnic squabbles between two groups of Northern European Germanic peoples. [[User:Theodore Christopher|Theodore Christopher]] ([[User talk:Theodore Christopher|talk]]) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You have chosen to ignore what I wrote, and continually create nonsense irrelevant arguments.
:::::::You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought. The Hebrew, Modern Greek examples were a rebuttal to your flawed logic where you're wanted ask about how people write Palatinate today. Those examples were to show what people speak and write today doesn't have necessarily have a bearing on how people historically spoke or wrote. Your inablity to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather.
:::::::Again, you commit the error of the treating this language the same as Standard German. We are talking about a specific variety of Pennsylvania Dutch and its accurate rendering. We're not talking about a Palatine German publication, and my earlier mentioning the international Palatine language was for you to understand the mindset of this form of Pennsylvania Dutch.
:::::::{{tq|The usage of Fraktur was intentional, of course, not only in Pennsylvania, or in the Palatinate, but across the German-speaking world. Fraktur always distinguished German (whatever dialect it may be in) texts from those written in, say, French. Use of Fraktur as a distinguishing factor for German, or even as a protest, is not unique to Pennsylvania. And yet, you don't see other editors insist that archival sources be written in computer-generated Fraktur.}}
:::::::You wrote this paragraph after I had already explained why Fraktur in this form of Pennsylvania Dutch is unique, and which you're choosing to ignore now. I explained how this was a unique, conscious choice by the authors to render the Pennsylvania Dutch language in a way wholly distinct to the English rule, and I provided a sample text of English rule Dutch. This is similar to Yiddish authors making a conscious choice to write their dialect in Hebrew script.
:::::::Lastly, your invented idea of "superiority" in Daniel Miller's quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message. Daniel is saying that the Pennsylvania Dutch are a modern people, and that they deserve respect, and that they shouldn't be ashamed of their Dutch language and culture; as for the Yankees, it is a common theme in Pennsylvania Dutch culture that Yankees are a tricky people, in the same way Yankees called the Dutch "Dumb Dutch". As already stated, Daniel Miller's quote is an excellent painting for the section dealing with the prejudice of the Pennsylvania Dutch, and the quote ties the section together.
:::::::Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense, and you keep relying on your misinformed opinions and poor logic, rather than the facts of this culture or of its language.
:::::::P.s. I do indeed speak Pennsylvania Dutch, and half of my family is Dutch, so your comment about the two of us coming from the same level of removal is totally incorrect. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 22:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Ping|Theodore Christopher}} was totally correct to remove the Fraktur font from the article, if only for its readability. At this point I'm not sure about the quote as a whole, because it might be incorrect usage of a primary source. That will require further examination at some point. I couldn't change the original Pennsylvania Dutch Fraktur text to regular Latin script; at this point I would not oppose re-adding it on the condition of regular lettering being used, but please do not readd the quote in Fraktur. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 09:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Your reasons for removing it is based on readibility? As a speaker of the language, I can read it just fine. Beyond your claims of "readibility" this is not how we treat other languages, like [[Coptic language]], or [https://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/1402 Coptic Greek], because they naturally use a distinct font typeface of the Greek alphabet: example of Coptic Greek from the Tasbeha Coptic Hymn library: Coptic typface- Ⲕⲉ ⲛⲩⲛ ⲕⲉ ⲁ̀ⲓ̀ ⲕⲉ ⲓⲥ ⲧⲟⲩⲥ ⲉ̀ⲱ̀ⲛⲁⲥ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉ̀ⲱ̀ⲛⲱⲛ ⲁ̀ⲙⲏⲛ. Greek typeface- Κὲ νῦν κὲ ἀῒ κὲ ἰς τοὺς ἐῶνας τῶν ἐώνων. Ἀμήν.
:Theodore's argument was that standard German doesn't use Fraktur anymore, but as I argued, this isn't standard German. It's a separate language, and has different rules, and particularly for this literary variety, it consciously used Fraktur to separate it from the English style based on spoken Pennsylvania Dutch, which is a distinct language:
:Pennsylvania “High German”, Ralph Charles Wood, Pennsylvania State College, 2016 pg.299-314
:{{tq|Pennsylvania Germans who know some literary German, have one of two possible pronunciations. The first is the pronunciation of ordinary American school-German, and may be as un-German as any schoolboy's pronunciation, or quite idiomatic, according to the native ability of the speaker, the throroughness of his instruction, and contact with native German. The second is something quite Pennsylvanian, a kind of German that older ministers and laymen understand.}}
:{{tq|This second form is so uniform that it must have fixed traditions. It must be the German of the Nineteenth Century after the decline of German instruction in the elementary schools, which many ministers, laymen- yes, even German newspaper editors- learned in the home and in Sunday schools through the medium of hymn books, Bibles, and newspapers.}}
:{{tq|In this study I have established how High German sounded in the mouths of Pennsylvania Germans one hundred years ago, at the time of the unsuccessful attempt to maintain adequate German instruction in Pennsylvania schools. I have also proven that is the same "Pennsylvania High German" still heard, but practically a dead language.}}
:{{tq|Now, we can say axiomatically that the Pennsylvania Germans came in contact, in school and church in the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries, with a High German such as that spoken and written in their home area, the Palatinate, and adjoining sections of the language area.}}
:{{tq|Fraktur was definitely a part of the elementary education for Pennsylvania German children, who in the Eighteenth century were raised as miniature adults, and the adult themes expressed in most examples of fraktur, were, therefore, appropriate.}}
:The use of this variety of Pennsylvania Dutch was lost because Fraktur was stigmatized due to [[anti-German sentiment]]:
:Learn American Calligraphy: The Complete Book of Lettering, History, and Design, Margaret Shepherd, 2024, pg.102:
:{{tq|Outside influences inevitably weakened the roots of Fraktur. Eventually, German Americans began to assimilate and move on from the customs of their immigrant ancestors. The brief popularity of Gothic letters in Nazi Germany during the 1930s stigmatized Germanic letter styles everywhere for a decade.}}
:With your removal, you show that you believe languages like Coptic, Yiddish and Gothic are correct to portray in their natural light, robed in the alphabet they were consciously written in, but say to treat the Fraktur variety of Pennsylvania Dutch (now a dead language) in the same way, is incorrect. This is linguistic hubris, based on personal preference, and not a valid reason for removal. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::I consider all of the arguments listed by {{Ping|Theodore Christopher}} to be valid, both his content-related criticism as well as his remarks on your unnecessarily aggressive and sometimes even insulting way of communicating.
::Coptic, Yiddish and Gothic are all languages using different ''[[alphabet]]s'', not different ''[[typeface]]s''. Fraktur is not an alphabet, it's a typeface, just like [[Arial]], [[Times New Roman]] or [[Carolingian minuscule]]. The quote can be given only in translation; or, with the original text accompanying it but there is no valid reason whatsoever to use Fraktur for the original 1903 quote. The Pennsylvania German language doesn't require Fraktur for its written form and, apart from that, it's simply not done to quote sources in Fraktur in modern publications. The only sources that do so, are certain German sources who are themselves written in Fraktur, i.e. prior to 1941. The notion that 16th century till 1941 German texts should only be quoted using Fraktur as the typeface is, frankly, ludicrous.
::I'm starting to suspect a case of [[WP:OWN]] here, so I'm going to include the above matter in my RfC as specified in the discussion below. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 17:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You're making an argument from semantics. I gave an example, Coptic Greek is written in Coptic typeface, because it's a unique variant of Greek. Further you say there is no valid reason to use Fraktur, although i've outlined many reasons why- 1.the historical aspect of Fraktur for this specific literary variant of the language itself producing the [[Fraktur (folk art)]], 2.that it's the way Fraktur Pennsylvania Dutch was specifically written, and 3.that Pennsylvania Dutch is not standard German. You're attempting to treat Pennsylvania Dutch the same as standard German and you even speak of it like it's standard German by mentioning "prior to 1941 texts."
:::Your opinion is based on your interpretation of what is correct and incorrect, making Pennsylvania Dutch the same as standard German; I am saying that the rules you're applying are not the same for this variant of Pennsylvania Dutch, and is not related to how we treat standard German. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 18:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::This matter is now in a RfC-phase, I feel I've made my argument quite clear and I feel Theodore Christopher did the same. It's time for others to speak now. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== Vlaemink's addition of confusion about the term "Dutch" ==
Vlaemink is attempting to introduce confusion into this article about the term "Dutch" in Pennsylvania Dutch. He claimed linguists are divided on the term "Dutch" and added a source "The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church" that says „The term »Pennsylvania Dutch« is a reference to the German-speaking portions of Pennsylvania, »Dutch« being a corruption of Deutsch, the German word for German.“ This isn't a linguistic book, nor is the author a linguist.
Further Vlaemink claims that High Dutch is a calque of hochdeutsch, which is false. We have clearly established evidence in English long before the existence of the Pennsylvania Dutch ethnicity that demonstrates the usage of High Dutch and Low Dutch, being older ways to describe Germanic ethnicities from the Holy Roman Empire area.
This is what linguists have to say about the usage of High Dutch and Low Dutch:
[https://amsterdamfox.com/art-culture/what-is-the-difference-between-holland-netherlands-and-dutch/]https://amsterdamfox.com/art-culture/what-is-the-difference-between-holland-netherlands-and-dutch/
{{tq|In old English Dutch meant human community/people. Since the Netherlands and Germany were once part of the Holy Roman Empire, Dutch (and of course Deutsch) was used to describe people from those lands. High Dutch was used for people in the highlands of the empire (modern Germany), while Low Dutch was used to describe people of more flatter places (modern-day Netherlands).}}
THE HIGH DUTCH AND THE LOW DUTCH IN NEW YORK 1624-1924 on JSTOR, linguist Charles Maar [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43564779?seq=2]https://www.jstor.org/stable/43564779?seq=2
{{tq|From first to last the two major elements, known in the old world as "Deutsch" but differentiated as "Hoch Deutsch" and "Nieder Deutsch," mingled here in colonial America most freely, not only on account of common religious sympathies, but also on account of close similarity of languages.}}
{{tq|The comparatively few High-Dutch, or Germans as now better known, that drifted to New Netherlands or America during the middle of the 17th century (1625 to 1675) were greatly augmented during the fifty years following (1675 to 1725) owing to the repeated invasion of the Rhinelands by the French marauding armies and the eventual exile of all of the Reformed faith from the Palatinate of the Rhine. It was at this time that the provinces of Elsass and Lothringen were first torn away from the old Empire.}}
{{tq|Through the kind offices of Queen Anne's government, many thousands of Palatine families were assisted to the American colonies and found new hopes and homes at Germantown and elsewhere in Pennsylvania- where in the interior their descendants are still known as the "Pennsylvania Dutch"...}}
[https://www.dictionary.com/e/demonym/]https://www.dictionary.com/e/demonym/
{{tq|Over time, English-speaking people used the word Dutch to describe people from both the Netherlands and Germany, and now just the Netherlands today. (At that point in time, in the early 1500s, the Netherlands and parts of Germany, along with Belgium and Luxembourg, were all part of the Holy Roman Empire.) Specifically the phrase High Dutch referred to people from the mountainous area of what is now southern Germany. Low Dutch referred to people from the flatlands in what is now the Netherlands.}}
[https://aboutthenetherlands.com/why-are-the-netherlands-called-dutch-unraveling-the-etymology/]https://aboutthenetherlands.com/why-are-the-netherlands-called-dutch-unraveling-the-etymology/
{{tq|There was once a period when the English language employed the word 'Dutch' to describe various forms of the Germanic languages and peoples, encompassing today's Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and parts of Belgium and the Netherlands. As the languages and cultural identities in these regions evolved, the term 'Dutch' became more exclusively associated with the people and language of the Netherlands.}}
[https://www.readingeagle.com/2020/11/17/heres-why-the-pennsylvania-dutch-are-called-dutch/]https://www.readingeagle.com/2020/11/17/heres-why-the-pennsylvania-dutch-are-called-dutch/
{{tq|Although the term Pennsylvania Dutch is in common usage, opinions on the subject vary considerably, but the facts are clear and well established – even if not well-known.}}
{{tq|...Should they be properly called Pennsylvania Germans, or Pennsylvania Dutch? The former is well-established among academic institutions, while the latter often appears in quotes, or is preceded by the phrase “so-called,” as if to cast doubt upon its validity. Such conventions suggest that perhaps the entire culture has somehow carelessly forgotten their true origins, or erroneously embraced a mispronunciation. These views reinforce negative stereotypes, and not one iota of them is based in fact.}}
{{tq|Dr. Don Yoder, father of American Folklife Studies, and co-founder of the Kutztown Folk Festival, tackled this question in 1950 for previous generations: “When they stepped off the boat at Philadelphia, they were called by the English-speaking people ‘Dutch’ and ‘Dutchmen.’ This term was not, as you often erroneously hear, invented in America as a mispronunciation of the German word ‘Deutsch’ which means ‘German.’ No, ‘Dutch’ was in 1750 already an ancient and well-established term. It has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as the late Middle Ages.”}}
{{tq|So, what does the Oxford actually say? The dictionary entry for the word “Dutch” states: “Of or relating to the people of Germany; German” and “The German language, in any of its forms.” In essence, Pennsylvania is one of the few places where the term still holds its original, historical meaning. Of course, over time, the definition of the term Dutch shifted to specifically denote the people of the Netherlands, but this was not always the case.}}
{{tq|Originally, this term included all speakers of Germanic languages, which would have ranged throughout central Europe. The terms “High Dutch” and “Low Dutch” pertained to the variations of the language which corresponded to altitude: “High Dutch” was spoken in the areas closest to the alps of Southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria; “Low Dutch” was spoken in the lowlands of what is today Northern Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. These historical terms are synonymous with “High German” and “Low German,” which have nothing to do with social status, but with European geography.}}
{{tq|At the time of 18th-century immigration to North America, there was no one unified Germany or German nationality. The blanket terms “Dutch” and “German” were used interchangeably to describe many regions related by language without any semblance of conflict. “Dutch” was widely accepted as an early English word derived from Anglo-Saxon, and “German” being a Latin synonym preferred by scholars.}}
{{tq|When Christopher Saur printed the very first full-length Bible in a European language at Germantown in 1743, he advertised it as being “in the High Dutch” language. He wasn’t suggesting that this Bible had anything to do with Holland, but rather, that it was in the German language. Historical sources totally upend the misconception that the English word “Dutch” is a mispronunciation of the German word “Deutsch.” These two words are cognates – linguistic cousins derived from a single early root word in Proto-Germanic “Tedesk,”which originally meant “people.”}} [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 14:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::Let me just start by making two very basic points:
::'''Firstly''', it is not <u>my personal view</u> that linguists are divided on the origin of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″, but rather that multiple views on the matter can be found among reputable authors and that this article should not ignore any of these views.
::'''Secondly''', a lot (if not most) of the text excerpts you've quoted and highlighted come from personal websites or travel blogs rather than reputable sources or professional literature. While this doesn't automatically mean that their information is wrong, it does make them unsuitable for an article on Wikipedia.
::In any case, I don't think additional sources are strictly necessary to support the view that ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ comes from an older/earlier broader use of ″Dutch″. The article already has reputable sources supporting this interpretation, in fact, I think I might have added some of them myself at one point. However, the alternative view also has these. Both arguments have strengths and weaknesses. There isn't that much linguistical evidence for the survival of ″Dutch″ in an essentially medieval sense in American English. In fact, the use of ″Dutch″ in Britain always leaned strongly towards the modern Dutch and saw a particular focusing during the 16th century, in other words, well before the Pennsylvania Dutch immigration to America. At the same time, the idea that Americans simply mimicked ″deitsch″ (not ″deutsch″) or shifted to the closest sounding word they knew also has its problems. Then again, people like [[Dutch Schultz]] and [[Dutch Fehring]] got their nicknames due to being of German(-speaking) heritage; showing that the Deutsch/Dutch corruption does in fact exist in American English. ''[[I know that I know nothing|In the end, who knows?]]''
::However, wherever you or anyone else personally stands on this matter, it's not up to Wikipedians to decide who is ″right″ or ″wrong″. This article should reflect reputable sources, and if these sources contradict each other or have different views, they can and should be listed. Which, to be perfectly blunt, is what this article did before you removed the other POVs. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You talk about "reputable sources", but don't even attempt to defend your point beyond giving a personal opinion saying that "multiple views matter." '''Only''' truth matters, based on fact and hard evidence; all the evidence clearly shows how the word Dutch was used in the past, and how it pertains to the Pennsylvania Dutch.
:::We have an abundance of hard evidence: dictionaries, newspapers, books, historic documents, etc. that show how Dutch was a common term in English for continental Germanic peoples, and differentiated them with the adjectives "high" and "low", and that this term continued for centuries:
:::The Living Age, volume 105, E. Littell & Company, 1870, pg.76:
:::{{tq|We may here remark how everywhere on the Continent, except in Holland, the Low-Dutch is a struggling tongue. In one region, as we have seen, it has to struggle against French; but it has a harder struggle to wage against the High-Dutch in all the remaining extent of its territory. The process through which Low-Dutch is vanishing before High-Dutch is a different and a much subtler kind. High-Dutch represents itself to the speakers of Low-Dutch, not as a foreign speech, but as the best, the most polite, the most refined and classical and cultivate form of their own speech. One in short is "good German," the other is "bad."}}
:::{{tq|The oddest case is undoubtedly to be found in the Duchy of Sleswick. That Duchy is the borderland of Low-Dutch and Danish, and the two may fairly fight for the supremacy. But, while they are fighting, a third champion, the High-Dutch, steps in, and under cover of the ambiguous word "German," displaces that one of the two contending elements which it professes to defend. People whose native tongue really comes near to Danish than it does to High-Dutch, are bidden to take up High-Dutch as the ensign of "German" against Danish nationality. The very name of the country has been changed. It used to be "Sleswick," a Low-Dutch form. I doubt whether you would find it written in any other way in any English book or map forty years old. But of later times we have been taught to change the natural name of the country into the High-Dutch "Schleswig."}}
:::Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History, Thomas Adam, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2005, pg.287:
:::{{tq|It is often said that the use of the word Dutch by English-speaking people to refer to Germans was the result either of a confusion of identities or an attempt to pronounce the German word Deutsch, which, it is assumed, the Germans used to describe themselves. These explanations do not hold up under scrutiny. In the seventeenth century, when German settlers began to arrive in substantial numbers in Britain's North American colonies, the term Dutch still had meanings that have disappeared and are forgotten today.}}
:::{{tq|Prior to the nineteenth century- and even prior to the unification of Germany in 1871- many migrants from the German states were not prone to describe themselves as Deutsch, even to strangers. They were more likely to refer to the territorial state from which they came. The "Pennsylvania Dutch," the German Americans whose ancestors came mainly from the Palatinate and Lower Rhine regions and settled mostly in eastern Pennsylvania in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, often did not recognize the term Deutsch as applicable to themselves, even after the unification of Germany. With sarcastic wit they referred, in their Germanic dialect, to the new arrivals as Deitschlänner (Deutschländer in standard German); that is, people who were constantly talking about Deutschland, a political entity created long after the ancestors of the Pennsylvania Dutch departed for the New World.}}
:::{{tq|The use of Dutch as a synonym for German antedates British settlement of North America. In the late Middle Ages and early modern period, Dutch included both Germans and Dutch. It referred to people speaking a group of closely related Germanic languages. This usage pertained mainly to inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire and distinguished two kinds of "Dutch" people on the basis of geography, culture, and critically, language: "High Dutch (Hochdeutsch)," or "High German" in today's English usage; and "Low Dutch (Niederdeutsch)," or "Low German" in today's usage. The English language did not distinguish Netherlanders from other speakers of "Low Dutch," except by specifying the province, locality, or region.}}
:::The Penn Germania ...: A Popular Journal of German History and Ideals in the United States, volume 11, 1910, pg.745:
:::{{tq|The "Dutch" themselves made a distinction. It was by no means that between "Dutch" and "German"... It was a distinction between "Nederdiutsch", meaning the people of North Germany, including Flemings, Hollanders, and those to the eastward, as far as the Baltic provinces of Russia who speak Low-German dialects; and "Hoogdiutsch", referring to all people to the South; who speak High-German dialects, like the Palatine from which "Pennsylvania Dutch" developed.}}
:::{{tq|In England, the term "Germans" has in the meantime become the accepted literary name for all who had formerly been called Dutch, except for the people of the Netherlands, for whom the old word is now exclusively reserved. But in America, the old usage has persisted for a long time. Even Washington Irving still speaks of the settlers in the Mohawk Valley as "High Dutch."}}
:::On the other hand, your argument is a folk claim that Americans, in their stupidity, corrupted the word Deutsch; there is no hard evidence for this claim, only anecdote.
:::You say my sources are unsuitable for Wikipedia; this is your bruised ego speaking. Charles Maar, [[Don Yoder|Dr. Don Yoder]], [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dutch_adj Oxford] etc. are unsuitable sources? That's a lie, and deflection so that you don't have to provide evidence to support your case.
:::You say "in the end who knows?" These are the words of someone who doesn't respect well reasoned arguments based on evidence.
:::You are misleading people with bad information based on a common folk etymology by claiming that it's a point of confusion for linguists when it isn't. Wikipedia isn't an opinion based platform, it's based on fact. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I think you're grossly and intentionally misrepresenting my argument and getting unnecessarily personal (misleading? bruised ego? American stupidity?). I'd prefer a more adult, respectful and professional approach to the issue at hand, without the unnecessary vitriol.
::::On to the issue; there are two problems with what you've written above:
::::You say that Wikipedia is not about professional literature and opinions, but about ″the truth and facts″. I think two of Wikipedias core principles (WP:V & WP:NPOV) are extremely clear on this matter. '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Sources need to be reputable and valid]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|all the significant views that have been published by such sources should be included in a topic]]''', preferably without editorial bias.
::::Just to be clear once more; when I referred to the unsuitability of the majority of the material you provide above, I was referring to the fact that many of these consist of personal blog pages such as https://amsterdamfox.com, https://www.dictionary.com, https://aboutthenetherlands.com, and https://www.readingeagle.com, whereas many of the ones you listed in your second post are far too old (1870, 1910, 1924) to be considered reputable today. I mean, you put forward Charles Maar as an expert on the matter, but he published his journal article a century ago, was neither an historian nor a linguists and doesn't mention the Pennsylvania Dutch.
::::This doesn't really matter though, as this not the point of contention. As I've said before, the article already has reputable sources for the claim that ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ is a carry over from an earlier meaning specific to the American colonies. In fact, something I also mentioned before, I added some of those sources myself in the past. '''This is not about me trying to "add confusion to the article" it's about you trying to exclude alternative validly sourced views from the article.''' I'm not trying to add this information, because it was already in the article for a very long time until you removed it.
::::That's the heart of the matter and let me be very clear: if a source like Richman states that the ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ comes from ″Deutsch″ then that's a valid and reputable source which deserves to be in this article alongside alternative views which meet Wikipedias standards. You might not agree with the author, you might be convinced that the information is wrong, but this does not matter because in the end you (like myself and many others) are just an anonymous Wikipedian, whereas Richman is a Professor Emeritus of American Studies and History at Penn State. This is how Wikipedia works, these are the basic principles of the project.
::::If you don't like his work, then the only viable option for you is to prove that other views should be given more weight or specifically mention than some authors dispute the other view; for example by adding the publication of Thomas Adam who specifically does this. That way it could be supported that a majority support A whereas a minority hold view B. Of course, you would need reputable, valid and non-primary or antiquated sources, so the vast majority of the material you listed above is not suitable for this. If you want (and, frankly, if you can be respectful in your demeanor) I can help you with this.
::::However, what you cannot do (and should not do again) is remove validly sourced material from the article because you do not like its content. I'm going undo your edits again, meaning I'm going to re-add the sourced ″Dutch → Deutsch/Deitsch″ POV again. I urgently advise you not to revert (not just out of constructiveness, but also because of the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]]) and instead work on the section itself. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 09:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've asked for additional editors to weigh in on the matter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThird_opinion&diff=1229903409&oldid=1229835895] at [[WP:Third Opinion]]. If no editors join in, I will make a [[WP:RFC]]-request later on. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 09:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Your point does not carry, as your sources are not linguists as you're trying to claim, and you have not provided a single source that indicates it's point of confusion for linguists. I've asked you for evidence '''twice''' already, and you still haven't provided it.
::::::All you have is anecdotes of people who spread the folk etymology, not based on hard evidence, and that's why it's misleading. One is from a book about preaching scriptures, and Irwin Richman, being a short sentence on the back cover of an Arcadia publishing advertisement book for the Pennsylvania Dutch Country saying "Taking the name Pennsylvania Dutch from a corruption of their own word for themselves, "Deutsch", the first German settlers arrived in Pennsylvania in 1683."
::::::Arcadia publishing mass produces a lot of niche American culture books, but their is criticism of their quality control; Dr. Paul A. Tenkotte of Northern Kentucky University in his treatise "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing" describes Arcadia Publishing's content in the following way:
::::::The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing, Paul A. Tenkotte, The Filson Historical Society and Cincinnati Museum Center, 2007, pg.85:
::::::{{tq|"Academic historians may argue that Arcadia Publishing's books vary greatly in accuracy, research, and depth. This is doubtless true. Indeed, some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term ' coffee table" volumes."}}
::::::Again, there is no confusion from linguists because we have hard evidence to prove how Dutch was historically used. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide the evidence showing that linguists are confused, instead of inventing an argument based on a couple of misleading anecdotes. Your claim that linguists are confused is unsubstantiated. Further, the claim that High Dutch was just a calque of Hoch Deutsch invented by Americans is false and not found in your sources at all. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 13:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Many authors can be found who espouse the view that ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ is a Anglicization of ″Deutsch″ and it is a commonly held view, as explicitedly noted by [https://langsci.wisc.edu/staff/mark-louden/ Mark Louden], who (eventhough he himself holds a different view) noted in his book ″Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language″ (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016, page 2) that:
:″(...) Contrary to <u>a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars</u>, though, the ''Dutch'' in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch, as originally pointed out by Don Yoder.″
If you want examples of this apart from those already in the article; these would include:
[[Nicoline van der Sijs]] in Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages. Amsterdam University Press, 2009, page 15:
: ″(...)No words from Pennsylvania Dutch; a language spoken within Mennonite and Amish communities in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio, have been included. Contrary to what the same suggests, Pennsylvania Dutch is a variety of German, not Dutch, and its speakers call their language ''Pennsylvania Deitsch'' or ''Pennsilfaanisch Deitsch''. This ''Deitsch'', a variant of ''Deutsch'', <u>has been anglicized to Dutch</u>, hence the confusing name Pennsylvania Dutch.″
and; [https://history.la.psu.edu/directory/sally-mcmurry/ Sally McMurry] in Architecture and Landscape of the Pennsylvania Germans, 1720-1920. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2011, page 2:
:″To begin with both “Pennsylvania Dutch” and “Pennsylvania German” came into usage to refer to the group. “Pennsylvania Dutch” <u>probably originated as an anglicized corruption of Deutsch or Deitsch</u>, words denoting the German language or Pennsylvania dialects of it. “Pennsylvania German” was also commonly used from the 19th century onwards. Some Pennsylvania Germans were uncomfortable with the term Dutch, believing that it not only obscured their German heritage but was too easily paired with epithets such as “dumb”.
What these publications and the references previously present in the article prove, is that the view that ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ is a Anglicization of ″Deutsch″ is both present in academia and in various reputable publications. My position is not, nor has it been, that this view is correct, but that this is an etymology found in professional literature and should hence be included in this article as per WP:V and WP:NPOV. It is for this reason that I reverted your removal of the validly sourced alternative.
This article should (as it did before your deletions) represent <u>'''both'''</u> the widespread notion that ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ is a Anglicization of ″Deutsch″ and an alternative which (based on Louden) seems to have originated with folkorist [[Don Yoder]] (in an 1980, 8 page contribution in an Annual Volume of the [https://pgs.org/dialect.asp Pennsylvania German Society] titled ″The Palatine, Hessian, Dutchman: Three Images of the German in America″) which has since gained a certain traction; evidenced, for example, by the fact that Louden (a former student of Yoder, to whom he dedidated his book [https://dgfa.de/mark-l-louden-pennsylvania-dutch-the-story-of-an-american-language-baltimore-john-hopkins-up-2016-504-pp/]) copies and promotes this theory.
It is not up to you, to decide what is ″the truth″ and what is not. It is up to you, and every other contributor, to adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV, which requires ″<u>'''all'''</u> the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic to be fairly represented within an article, without, as far as possible, editorial bias″. In light of these two Wikipedia principles, the above discussion and, I'm sorry to say, your general attitude in both this and two other recent discussions on this talk page (for example, you wrote about another editor that ″his thoughts were not worth very much″ and that his comments were ″vapid nonsense″ and ″blathering and waffling″), I've decided not to wait for [[WP:Third Opinion]] but instead request an official [[WP:Request for Comment]] in an attempt to solve this matter both more quickly and in a more binding manner — as I don't see the two of use coming to any meaningful conclusion on our own. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Your argument is still weak anecdotes not based on hard evidence. Nicoline van der Sijs is not an authority on Pennsylvania Dutch culture and she didn't spend very long to make an explanation of the word Dutch beyond the folk etymology. Your other author, Sally McMurry is also anecdotal evidence, not based on anything saying "probably originated".
:You talk about Louden and Don Yoder saying it's an Anglicization of Deutsch, and share links, but none of the links show anything you're claiming. Indeed a previous source I added shows the opposite:
:{{tq|Dr. Don Yoder, father of American Folklife Studies, and co-founder of the Kutztown Folk Festival, tackled this question in 1950 for previous generations: “When they stepped off the boat at Philadelphia, they were called by the English-speaking people ‘Dutch’ and ‘Dutchmen.’ This term was not, as you often erroneously hear, invented in America as a mispronunciation of the German word ‘Deutsch’ which means ‘German.’ No, ‘Dutch’ was in 1750 already an ancient and well-established term. It has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as the late Middle Ages.”}} [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 18:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Please do not make blatantly false claims about things I did not claim. Nowhere do I, at any point, claim that either Louden or Yoder support the Anglicization of Deutsch-theory. The sources provided are valid and reliable; with Van der Sijs being the only true linguist involved so far. This matter is now a request for comment, I feel my point has been made; now it's time for other opinions. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 19:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== Family of Elon Musk? ==
== RfC about the quote in the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721844070}}
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=828B870}}
Should the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section contain a quote from 1903 in which the [[Fraktur]] typeface is used instead of the standard Wikipedia font? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== RfC about the portrayal of multiple views in the "Etymology" section ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721844070}}
{{rfc|lang|rfcid=B939A99}}
Should the "Etymology" section also include the (validly sourced) theory that the "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch" is an Anglicization of "Deutsch" as was previously the case? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''', not as an equal explanation as he's trying to purport. Vlaemink's whole argument is based on anecdotes filled with doubts and "probablies" from a folk etymology with no supporting evidence, and is trying to pass it off as an equal argument to the well established consensus of Dutch's historical use. The consensus has an abundance of hard evidence: dictionaries, newspapers, books, historic documents, etc. all show that Dutch was earlier used in English to refer to Germanic speakers, summed up in the sentence "''Dutch'' is an older use of the term, which earlier referred to any speaker of a Germanic language on the European mainland." [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 18:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] I see you finally made the revision I asked for. Thank you. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 00:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''No.''' The use of ''Dutch'' as a generic term for continental Germanic languages is well attested in Middle English— the distinction between Dutch (Netherlands) and Dutch (all west Germanic languages spoken on the continent, including Dutch, Low German, High German, etc.) is a modern and ''relatively recent'' phenomenon. [[User:Mutspelli|Mutspelli]] ([[User talk:Mutspelli|talk]]) 05:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
=== Discussion ===
:::::You just attempted to delete my arguments again! You are a hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.
:::::Wikipedia is about proving what is truth, based on hard evidence, reliable sources, historic documents, and that makes the quality of the material in the article good for users. This whole discussion has come about, because you wanted to promote an idea that's not based on hard evidence and say it's a point of confusion for linguists, when it's not. The consensus clearly shows what linguists know of the term "Dutch", and our point of contention was the way you added this information made it equal to the established information about Dutch, which is why I said it's misleading. You also added false, unsubtantiated information at the same time, so you're claim about view points is nothing more than wanting your beliefs validated. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 18:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' I suggest that ''all'' of the above be deleted. This is ''far too much'' discussion from the original disputants in a request for comment. Editors commenting should be able to engage the process in an orderly away, referring back to the original debate rather than a ''new'' debate in the RfC. This has become unwieldy to follow. [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 03:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
== Very serious problems with the reliability and validity of the sources used ==
:::::::Until you prove it, your argumentation here is based solely on your word. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 09:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Reliable Sources]] is extremely clear on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source|what constitutes a reliable source]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations|with whom the burden of proof rests]] and I'm not going to debate these community standards with you. You are not in any position to make any demands: you've added a huge amount of unreliable, questionable and/or outdated sources, in several cases even falsifying their dates of publication or misquoting the source material, and it is highly likely that most if not all will be removed from this article within the next couple of weeks because of this. The quality standards apply to all and to all equally. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 10:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You're not making a discussion; you're just saying what you believe is unreliable with no evidence and refuse to address the points I made in my rebuttal, and continue to make character attacks rather than directly prove what you're saying. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 16:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You haven't ″rebutted″ anything, you've simply done what you always seem to do: you state you don't agree and wasn't personally convinced, despite the crystal clarity of Wikipedia policy with which you've now been presented more often than should be neccesary. I hope my request on Administrators' noticeboard will be closed shortly and I hope SnowFire's proposal is taken up by the admins, that way you are either forced to play by Wikipedia's rules instead of your own — or find another article to edit. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 17:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You're still not making a case for why you claim the information is outdated or why the other information from the websites is untrustworthy. Until you prove it, it's just an empty argument. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 00:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You can repeat that as much and as long as you want, but it doesn't change the '''fact''' that you are going against [[WP:SOURCE]], which is not an opinion, but policy. Your use of unreliable sources and falsifying of sources (claiming they supported your claim, when in fact they did not) has already resulted in the deletion of one of your articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Pennsylvania]; do not remove the unreliable-template again before using proper, contemporary and reliable sources. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 12:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive363|You made a witchhunt against me]], launching a big smear attack against me on the Administrators noticeboard page trying to get an administrator to ban me from working on this article by making some of the worst character attacks i've seen.
:::::::::::::You say I had an article deleted? [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Pennsylvania|That was by your own doing, under the same witch hunt]], where you made the same claim that the sources were outdated (because they were from 1901, 1911, 1892, other dates earlier), and that German Pennsylvania never existed.
:::::::::::::I proved otherwise that German Pennsylvania did indeed exist with showing those same citations; here you're doing the same thing with citations, saying that these tags can only be removed when all of the sources are replaced what you call "proper, contemporary" sources.
:::::::::::::This is social history, and the social history doesn't change like physics or an applied science. Indeed, the older sources are the best for this culture, as its cultural height was written about mostly before World War 1 and 2.
:::::::::::::Sources don't need to be contemporary to be valid. They only need to be true, so you need to prove that they're untrue or unreliable; just making a claim from them having an older publication date is not a valid reason to say they're unreliable.
:::::::::::::I recommend you read [[WP:AGE MATTERS]] to understand what categories are time-sensitive. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 22:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I requested admin intervention after you started an edit war in order to push your preferred POV. I accused you of WP:OWN and being in violation of WP:SOURCE, both of which were confirmed (quote: "''Vlaemink's depiction of Aearthrise's behavior as being uncollegial and OWN-y are correct''" + "''Aearthrise's old version was very credulous''") by the admins there in the accompanying discussion there. The subsequent request for deletion of one of your articles was not a witch hunt, but a consequence of your use of unreliable sources and WP:OR -- and a majority of users voting to delete your article.
I repeat once more: you and your opinions, are not above Wikipedia policy concerning sources and if you continue on as you are doing now, I will report your disruptive behavior again. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:I didn't start an edit war, you're lying now to try to save face for your poor community actions. Now you're claiming [[WP:OR]], only because of the inclusion of older published sources.
:For example, you deleted a citation from United States Government Printing Press. The US government is an unreliable source? Because you deleted content calling it [[WP:OR]] and an unreliable source because it was a book the US government published in 1883, this is about what newspapers were made in colonial Pennsylvania, partcularly the High Dutch Pennsylvania journal of 1743, which on pg.126 reads: {{tq|The High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal, a weekly German newspaper, was founded by Joseph Crellius as early as 1743...}}.
:What you're claiming in removing the content and its citation is that this statement from the US Government is [[WP:OR]] and an attempt at adding bias. Neither of these claims are true, and you have shown no proof of either of those cases. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
==Adding of bias to revised autonym section==
In wake of developments related to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_intervention_concerning_User:Aearthrise|request to intervene]] on [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]]'s behavior on this article (WP:OWN and civility issues) as well as the [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Very_serious_problems_with_the_reliability_and_validity_of_the_sources_used|extremely concerning use of sources]] by Aearthrise, which has already resulted in a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Pennsylvania|deletion request for a related article]], which, judging by the current tally, is likely to succeed — I've recently edited the article's autonym/etymology section to reflect both recent and valid publications as well as a neutral POV, resulting in the following text:
:''Several authors and etymological publications consider the word “Dutch” in “Pennsylvania Dutch”, which in medieval times could also be used to refer to speakers of various German dialects, to be an archaism specific to 19th-century American English, particularly in its colloquial form. An alternative interpretation commonly found among laypersons and scholars alike is that the “Dutch” in “Pennsylvania Dutch” is a anglicization or corruption of the Pennsylvania German autonym “deitsch”, which in the Pennsylvania German language refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch or Germans in general. Some authors however, have described this hypothesis as a misapprehension.''
This text is in line with the sources given. It's also mirrored by the article's version on German Wikipedia (the only other WP project where a substantial article on the Pennsylvania Dutch exists) where the inclusion of multiple theories on the etymology of Pennsylvania Dutch has never been controversial.
Aearthrise has long sought to exclude alternative etymologies from this article, and, despite paradoxally thanking me for "finally made the revision I asked for" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1231016132&oldid=1231015066] he subsequently nevertheless tried yet again to add non neutral POV and unreliable sources to the above text by explicitly positioning "Mark Louden, Don Yoder and Thomas Adam" (authors who support his preferred theory, red.) as "experts", by including a reference to the Oxford Etymological Dictionary (which, as has been made very clear to him, is outdated due to not being revised since 1897 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1230285502&oldid=1230284752]) and by adding [[WP:OR|personal argumentation]] into the article, again, based on thoroughly antiquated (1882, 1883, 1743, 1751) and/or primary sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1231018037&oldid=1230989640] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1231028090&oldid=1230989640].
{{Ping|Aearthrise}} You need to stop this and you need to stop this now. Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view and you need to stop adding unwarranted bias. Wikipedia is about valid and reliable sources and you need to stop trying to add thoroughly outdated, 19th or 18th century publications or primary sources into this article. Given the two recent AfC's and the very long Administrators' noticeboard discussion on you I urgently advise you not to revert this section again and to discuss any changes you want on the talk page supported by adequate sources.
If you are not willing to do not this and continue by reverting and adding bias in the manner described above, I will have no other option than to report you to the AN again and begin preparations for requesting the Arbcom to stop you from editing this article in the future — and I will do so if you choose to continue like this. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:None of the additions I added give unsourced information, and these authors I named are experts on German American history; everything I wrote was accurate to what the sources said (which can be also be found on this page). All I added was an expansion on what you wrote. This is what the article read before your most recent reversion:
::''Differing explanations exist on why the Pennsylvania Dutch are referred to as “Dutch”, which typically refers to the inhabitants of the [[Netherlands]] or the [[Dutch language]], which is only distantly related to Pennsylvania German.''
::''Experts on German American history such as Mark Louden, [[Don Yoder]], Thomas Adam, and etymological publications such as the [[Oxford dictionary]] consider the word “Dutch” in “Pennsylvania Dutch” an archaism from 19th-century American English. Since medieval times, Dutch referred to speakers of various German dialects differentiating them with the terms "High Dutch" and "Low Dutch", particularly in its colloquial form.<ref>Mark L. Louden: Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language. JHU Press, 2006, p.2</ref><ref name=thomasadam>{{cite book |year=2005|title=Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA|author=Thomas Adam|pages=285}}</ref><ref name="oxforddictionarydutch">{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com/dictionary/dutch_adj?tl=true|title=Oxford Dutch ADJECTIVE, NOUN1, & ADVERB|access-date=June 25, 2024}}</ref> This is corroborated with evidence, such as the oldest German newspaper in Pennsylvania being the High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal in 1743. The first mixed English and German paper, the Pennsylvania Gazette of 1751, described itself as an "English and Dutch gazette," in reference to German spoken in Pennsylvania.<ref name=johnfanningwatson>{{Citation |last=Watson|first=John Fanning|year=1881|title=Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania|publisher=J.M. Stoddart}}</ref><ref name=uscensusoffice>{{Citation |author=United States. Census Office|year=1883|title=Census Reports Tenth Census: The newspaper and periodical press|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|pages=126,127}}</ref>''
::''An alternative interpretation commonly found among laypersons and scholars alike is that the “Dutch” in “Pennsylvania Dutch” is a anglicization or corruption of the Pennsylvania German [[Endonym and exonym|autonym]] “deitsch”, which in the Pennsylvania German language refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch or Germans in general.<ref>Robert Hendrickson (2000). The Facts on File Dictionary of American Regionalisms. United States of America: Infobase Publishing. p. 723.</ref><ref>Irwin Richman: The Pennsylvania Dutch Country. Arcadia Publishing, 2004, p.16.</ref><ref>Nicoline van der Sijs:Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages. Amsterdam University Press, 2009, page 15.</ref><ref>Sally McMurry: Architecture and Landscape of the Pennsylvania Germans, 1720-1920. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2011, page 2.</ref><ref>Irwin Richman: The Pennsylvania Dutch Country. Arcadia Publishing, 2004, p.16.</ref> Some authors however, have described this hypothesis as a misapprehension.<ref name="Louden">Mark L. Louden: Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language. JHU Press, 2006, pp. 1-2; pp. 342-343.</ref><ref>Hostetler, John A. (1993), ''Amish Society'', The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 241</ref>''
::''The migration of the Pennsylvania Dutch to the [[United States]] predates the emergence of a distinct German national identity, which did not form until the late 18th century.<ref>[[Hans Kohn (Historiker)|Hans Kohn]] (1951): ''The Eve of German Nationalism (1789–1812).'' In: ''Journal of the History of Ideas.'' Bd. 12, Nr. 2, S. 256–284, hier S. 257 ({{JSTOR|2707517}}).</ref> The formation of the [[German Empire]] in [[1871]] resulted in a [[semantic shift]], in which "deutsch" was no longer principally a linguistic and cultural term, but was increasingly used to describe all things related to Germany and its inhabitants. This development did not go unnoticed among the Pennsylvania Dutch who, in the 19th and early 20th century, referred to themselves as "Deitsche", while calling newer German immigrants "Deitschlenner" meaning "Germany-ers".<ref>Mark L. Louden: Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language. JHU Press, 2006, pp. 3–4.</ref>''
:You've deleted the evidence, because you still want to equate the two arguments without acknowledging the evidence for it. And beyond that, you haven't shown how the information is outdated, beyond saying their date of publication.
:You can expand the other argument too, but to remove it all is not helpful to Wikipedia nor people reading the article. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 07:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I will try to keep this reply short, because I think more than enough has already been said on this matter by more than enough users: this is not a crime scene, this is an encyclopedic article: editors do not provide "evidence", they list sources. Published authors substantiate their claims in academic works, we cite these. Wikipedia users do not add "evidence" to these claims and certainly do not expand beyond the claims on their own. This is called [[WP:OR|original research]] and it is strictly forbidden.
Your way of ″sourcing″ information up until now has not only been biased, it is incompatible with Wikipedia standards: this has pointed out to you on several occasions by many users. You use completely outdated publications, many of which have false dates (which you continue to propagate) and combine these with primary sources and material (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Pennsylvania|articles]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&oldid=1231066684#/media/File:Pennsylvania_Dutch_map_distribution.svg maps]) that you've made yourself.
You are welcome to edit this article based on the principles of NPOV and reliable sources, but if you do not and again start a revert war where you again try to add biased, outdated or self-fabricated material to this article; I will do exactly as I promised you in the first comment and issue a second complaint with the admins and if this fails to resolve this matter, I will request an intervention by the Arbcom and request that you'll no longer be allowed to edit this article. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 08:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:You're not addressing what I said, but instead made another [[WP:NOPA|personal attack]], followed by a threat to make more complaints to administration. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 11:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::If you feel a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] has been made, you should [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|report this to the administrators]]. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 12:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] To further give an example of Dutch/German transition, a street in my town in 1894 was named Dutch Hill Rd. it was later changed to German Hill Rd. as it was originally MEANT to be Deutsch Hill Rd. [[Special:Contributions/24.101.215.195|24.101.215.195]] ([[User talk:24.101.215.195|talk]]) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Vlaemink, I won't [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&oldid=1230111750 abuse the Administration system like you did] to solve article content conflicts; you need to learn a better way of cooperating instead of making threats to solve conflicts. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You can call my insistence to adhere to Wikipedia policy "threats" all you want, it is not going to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources you've tried to add to this article and are now trying to pass as reliable by removing source-tags, are not acceptable. You can huff and puff all you want, it's not going to work. Revert my restoring of the cite- and source-tags again and you will be reported. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 11:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::What you call insistence to "adhere to Wikipedia policy" is just another way of explaining your faulty understanding of Wikipedia policy, that leads to call any publication of an older date unreliable.
:::::Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you.
:::::Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
| 