Talk:Black Dutch (genealogy)

Wikipedia Not the Place to Ride Hobby Horses
Someone came along and completely eliminated my original article and substituted one of their own. I don't think the two points of view are incompatible but when you completely eliminate an article and "start over" you should have a good reason, otherwise it looks like vandalism. The article is not the place for debates and axe grinding. Just because something has a reference doesn't make it factual or true in exclusion to other voices. Changes should be discussed in the discussion section and agreed upon before being implemented. Ethnic subjects should be treated more sensitively. [Donpanther -- unsigned, 27 September 2006]


 * The person who deleted Donpather's article and replaced it was apparently 72.71.167.210 -- and anonymous IP user whose entire contribution to WP to date consists of three contentious edits (on Lumbee and Black Dutch) made within a three-minute time span on 27 September 2006. Historian cat yronwode, not logged in and posting from my IP address 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Black Dutch Gypsies, The only Black Dutch I know are Gypsies... Which is supported by the Smithsonian.
 * http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/migrations/gyp/gypstart.html
 * [Robbyfoxxxx - unsigned, 27 September 2006]


 * http://geocities.com/Paris/5121/melungeon.htm
 * Why dont you read the links rather than simply delete them?
 * [198.187.154.33 -- unsigned 28 Sepetember 2006]


 * I have re-incorporated the good material by Donpanther that was rudely deleted a few years ago by the anonymous IP user 72.71.167.210 and i have created subheadings in which each cohort may present their rationale for the use of the term "Black Dutch," with proper references. Since this mass deletion was not reported at the time, i have looked up and added user names to the unsigned comments above and i have added this page to my watchlist to prevent such abuses in the future. Cordially, catherine yronwode, not logged in, and posting from my IP address. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Questioning Melungeon sources
This is poorly sourced, appearing to depend on a 1920s-1930s researcher, with much supposition and leaps of faith. Not sure it is worth keeping. Brent Kennedy is not an expert on Melungeons; his suppositions have been disproved by Dr. Virginia DeMarce, Paul Heinegg, and emerging results in the Goin Melungeon DNA study.--Parkwells (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Beware IP 71.109.110.65
In June 2009 the anon IP user 71.109.110.65 repeatedly vandalized this page to delete previous text in favour of a few variations of his own text that began "'Black Sock Dutch' is the complete term, due to black outer garment of the Dutch Reformed Church members. The word “sock” disappeared over the years leaving only the two words “Black Dutch“." These vandalisms of the Black Dutch article are the only WP contributions this person has made. Cordially, cat yronwode, not logged in, posting from my IP address 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He or she did it again in August, 2009. The repeated addition of the word "sock" to the term "Black Dutch" remains this anonymous person's basic contribution to WP. There is one diff, however, where the IP user signed with the name "Casey Taylor"
 * "sock" diff #1
 * diff signed "Casey Taylor"
 * "sock" diff #2
 * added non-relevant link to a page on Dutch genealogy; the link does not support what was being claimed
 * "sock" diff #3
 * writing BLACK DUTCH in all-caps, claiming sourced material is a "total myth"
 * deleted most of the page except for the "Black Sock Dutch" lead
 * vandalized a cited scholarly source by changing the quoted author's text from "There are strong indications" to "There are no strong indications" thus reversing the author's published statement
 * again vandalized the cited scholarly source quote; this time a sentence orginally ending "were swarthy complexioned Germans." became "were swarthy complexioned Germans or Dutch for that matter."
 * "sock" diff #4
 * I think it's time to report this individual for vandalism.
 * catherine yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee
I have always been told that my Great-great grandmother was black dutch. I've also been told that two of my great grandmothers were Cherokee Indians. Over the years people have told me that my high cheek bones indicate cherokee indian. When I see pictures of Cherokee Indians they look just like my grandfather, with high cheekbones, white hair and bushy eyebrows. Vanessa1allman (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Black Dutch was definitely a term used to disguise Cherokee and Choctaw ancestry in my husband's Middle TN family from the 1900s to the 1960s or so. I have never heard this term applied to Rom (Gypsy) people -- only to Native or mixed Native/Europeans trying to "pass" for white in TN, KY, OK, and adjacent states. I have found references to this usage all over the web, for instance in the Yahoo group Cherokeendn, where numerous people spontaneosuly have posted that "Black Dutch" -- or the related "Black Irish" -- was the term their own family used. It is not new, it is not controversial, and if it is poorly documented, that is not the fault of those who have used this term for many decades in the South. I am saddened to see how argumentative this simple fact seems to some. catherine yronwode (not logged in, sorry) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any citations for Black Dutch's shift in meaning to a white person with native blood? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

More refs, more data, text restoration, image
I have attempted to improve this article by giving it proper Wikipedia heading structure, adding more references, restoring some good referenced text that was deleted three years ago, and bringing in an image of the Cherokee chief known as "Dutch," who had previously not been mentioned at all. I think the article could still use some editing, but i am satisfied that at this point it is not an embarrasment to Wikipedia, as it was when i found it tonight. cat yronwode, still not logged in, but still me. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing
Removed the image and content related to the Cherokee chief Tah-Chee, as, other than the coincidence of the name, his life and experiences did not seem to have any relation to the Black Dutch discussion; he was not identified as mixed-race, and he did not stay in the area of the Southeast during or after Indian removal. In addition, the citation for the material was wrong, as it came from an 1837 book, rather than an antiquarian's website.Parkwells (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have reorganized the article somewhat chronologically, to deal with earlier immigration groups to the North, where Dutch and Germans were separately represented, before the influx of other groups who may have contributed to wider adoption of the term. Also noted ethnic German migration from PA to VA along the Shenandoah Valley and backcountry, possible carrying use of the term with them. Removed Seabaugh and other articles as cites that fail to qualify as RS (Reliable Sources)- they lack footnotes and dates of publication in some instances, were not published by peer-review journals, and are anecdotal rather than scholarly. Added another footnoted article by Pylant, and added more to cites and external links to identify authors or web managers.Parkwells (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the word "Dutch" is not just an English version of "Deutsch", meaning German. The word was used by people along the river Rhine and north of it, opposite of the Latin world south and southwest of it. Those people spoke Germanic languages and refered to it as "Dietsch", "Duitsch" or "Deutsch", which means "the (vulgar) language of the people", instead of Latin. The modern states of Germany and the Netherlands did not exist allready. In The area that is now called The Neterlands they spoke Dietsch or Duitsch, in the area we now call Germany, they spoke Deutsch. In the Netherlands the word finally disappeared, in Germany it didn't and that is the reason for the misunderstanding. See the part "Dutch, not Deutsch" in the article "Dutch Language". Tovasor (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Black-Dutch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308030107/http://www.genealogymagazine.com/in.html to http://www.genealogymagazine.com/in.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511094957/http://www.nativepeoples.com:80/article/articles/164/1/The-Elusive-Black-Dutch-of-the-South/Page1.html to http://www.nativepeoples.com/article/articles/164/1/The-Elusive-Black-Dutch-of-the-South/Page1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hyphen
This article seems to only receive sporadic attention, so I may not get much discussion of this topic. I propose a move to Black Dutch, as that seems to be the more common styling. I have, in fact, never seen the hyphenated term used anywhere except as the title of this article. It's not even used consistently in the body of the article. I don't claim to be a genealogy (or history, or etymology) expert, but I have been reading on the subject since 1971, and I don't remember ever seeing it hyphenated anywhere. If someone knows how to move it without losing the talkpage info, that would be optimal, imo, and I'm not sure I can do that. rags (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Having used several search engines to look for the hyphenated form, I find it only here on enWP. The edit history of this page shows that it was originally not hyphenated.  My read is that it was moved to 'Black-Dutch' to facilitate creation of a disambig page under the original name.  I have moved THAT page to 'Black Dutch (disambiguation)'.  As there has been no discussion, and as the original mover has made no edits at all in 5 years, I shall BE BOLD and proceed with the move.  If anyone wishes to revert, please leave an explanation here.  rags (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I successfully moved to 'Black Dutch (genealogy)'. I am not wed to the 'genealogy' if someone has a better idea.  The MediaWiki software seemed to find it unacceptable to use simply 'B D' as the title of this article, so this was my Bold fix.  I would be happy to move to 'B D' w/o any qualifier, if someone is able to acheive that.  I, apparently, may not.


 * I have replaced the hyphenated form in the lede. The James Pylant source may use it in a passage, but I am unable to retrieve it so far.  rags (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have purged the hyphen from this term throughout the body of the article, including violating the sanctity of Pylant's block-quote. Of note, he used the term twice, but only the first instance bore the hyphen.  Methinks that I were not the first to meddle thusly.  (The outlink did not work, but I have read other material in which he uses Black Dutch in the un-hyphenated form, and found nowhere where he, or anyone else, uses the hyphen, except in quoting this article.


 * The link-box Apalachia at the bottom of the page I have so far failed to so purge. Possibly when the MWiki software recognizes the pagemove as a "stable version," it will self-correct.


 * I now wonder if, in the article text,

the styling 'black Dutch', or even 'black dutch', might be more correct (similar to 'dutch oven' or to 'go dutch' as in each one pays his own share of the café tab)? New topic, I suppose. rags (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)