Talk:New York Dutch

Connection with Pennsylvania Dutch/Palatines/High Dutch
The cultural connection between Pennsylvania Dutch and New York Dutch needs to be modified and/or verified with more academic sources, as the Pennsylvania Dutch are Germans, not Dutch nor people from the Netherlands. High Dutch refers historically to Hochdeutsch/the German spoken by settlers in Pennsylvaia and not some kind of Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8200:26F0:BD18:54E5:8CC8:33D1 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Your "correction" of the terms German and Dutch are based in your lack of understanding of the term "Dutch" when referring to these historic peoples. "Dutch" in English was originally used to refer to all Germanic dialects, and in the American Colonies the Dutch were split into two different categories: Low Dutch & High Dutch.
 * The New York Dutch comprised two "Dutch" groups, the Palatine Dutch (High Dutch) and the Knickerbocker Dutch (Low Dutch), with the Knickerbockers being the dominant group. Pennsylvania Dutch were almost entirely Palatine Dutch (High Dutch), and the Jersey Dutch were almost entirely Knickerbocker Dutch (Low Dutch). Americans called this group Dutch throughout their shared history, and they still call themselves Dutch today. Aearthrise (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, conflating these two groups is weird and seems to be agenda driven. When we're talking about "New York Dutch" it's colloquially understood that we're talking about people from or descended from the Netherlands. There is no understanding of any significant cultural connectively between them and the other people referred to as "Dutch" who were Germans. The whole opening paragraph is opaque and does nothing but confuse and obfuscate who and what is supposed to be the subject of this article. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the anonymous statement. He is saying that Germans shouldn't be called Dutch, but this is completely opposite to history with the so called "Palatine Dutch," which comprised a portion of the New York Dutch.
 * You on the other hand are making a completely different argument by saying that New York Dutch should only have information about the "Holland Dutch" members and purport that it's "agenda driven", but provide no evidence to support your claim.
 * You also claim that the opening paragraph confuses and obfuscates who is supposed to be the subject of the article. This article is about the people called New York Dutch; we see 3 distinct groups mentioned in the opening paragraph: Black Dutch, Holland Dutch, and Palatine Dutch. How exactly does the opening paragraph confuse who was called "New York Dutch"? Aearthrise (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * see Coatrack articles for an explanation And provide and reference with a quote the the three groups you mention are indeed called New York Dutch. Djflem (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The clear lack of verifiable sources and the fact that the articles about the groups with which there is a supposed relationship do not mention, covered, or include any academic information about the supposed relationship. Have removed the claim. Djflem (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to challenge information in an article; it's quite another to redirect and essentially erase an entire article that was more correct than not (although it was oversimplified, needed clarification in many places, more details and better sources -which is exactly what a talk page is for, to discuss changes and improvements). The user unironically calling himself "critical thinker" claims there's been a "conflation" of the Holland and Palatine Dutch and that this might be linked to an "agenda" (exactly what "agenda" relies on conflating these two groups?). In reality, "critical thinker" knows very little about NY State history and therein lies the source of the confusion. Only about half of the New York Dutch came from the Netherlands; the Palatine Dutch made up a majority of the rest and to separate these two groups is to impose an artificial division: they were related by marriage and family connections. A group of Holland/Palatine Dutch from Schoharie County also took the Susquehanna River and fled to Pennsylvania when the British took over the colony, so it wasn't even incorrect to say that some Pennsylvania Dutch had New York Dutch ancestry.
 * On p. 50 -51 of this source here there are statistics indicating that only half of the NY Dutch came from the Netherlands and that almost 40% were from regions we would now call "Germany" -specifically the Palatinate and German states adjacent to the Netherlands.
 * The website of The New Netherland Institute also states the diversity of the colony:
 * "The Europeans who settled New Netherland came from many different nations...Germans, Scandinavians, French, Scots, English, Irish, Jews, Italians, and Croats. Although not all settlers were Dutch, they all lived under Dutch rule.".
 * A little more digging will turn up more sources on the "High" and "Low" Dutch of New York, this one dating to 1924 (so this is certainly not a new or novel theory -the presence of Palatine Dutch in Dutch NY has been known to State historians for some time).
 * For an example of a prominent family with mixed Holland/Palatine Dutch ancestry, you might want to refer to the Beekman family, who trace their name to Cornelius Beekman, who had origins in the Rhineland of Germany (this is where the name of the town Rhinebeck comes from).
 * As far as I can tell, there was no discussion on this page about redirecting it over to the Dutch of New York City, and thus no consensus. The NY Dutch were not confined to NY City and so you've essentially erased their entire existence from the encyclopedia. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed the colony of New Netherland was populated with people from different places with different origins and different languages. And yes, it is well documented that that population later spread across the Boroughs of New York City, the Hudson Valley, the Capital District (New York), northeastern New Jersey (Bergen, Hudson County, Passaic counties) and the Raritan Valley (Somerset, Middlesex,  and Hunterdon counties) and were influential in developing them and creating their unique character. It is well documented that the word "Dutch" is an English word devolved from Germanic languages to describe the languages and people who spoke them. You have not provided a reference to the term New York Dutch to back up the claim that that they were called New York Dutch. Nor have you addressed the fact that the references provided did not back up the claims made in the article. (See below and edit history to see that the creator did not either) Please do so. Djflem (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you a sock puppet of User:Aearthrise? Djflem (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you want me to provide a source that says the New York Dutch were called "the New York Dutch"? I provided a source that analyzed the origins of the New Netherland Dutch and concluded that nearly half of them were not from New Netherland and the majority were not from Holland. I did misstate the German numbers -reading it again it says nearly 40% of the non-Dutch population came from German states, which came out to about 1 in 5 of the total (which is still no small number).
 * The real issue here is that someone, perhaps you, decided to redirect the page without discussing it here first. Editors could decide to redirect The New York Dutch to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article if they wanted to, but the key here is consensus. If you think the name of this article should've been changed I would probably agree with you -the New Netherland colony was not just New York and it's hard to find modern scholarship that zeroes in on only NY.
 * And I don't know why you would think that because two people don't agree with you we must be the same person. I don't know who 'Aearthise' is but he's welcome to jump back in here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So where do want to redirect it to since it's clear there is not such a thing as New York Dutch and since you agree that there nothing to back it up? Or should it be deleted?Djflem (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Duitsers" = unreliable incorrect references = original research
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duitsers is the Dutch word for Germans.Djflem (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The below mentioned references do not support the claim that Dutchman in Dutch language is Duitser. Have removed until further proven or disproven otherwise claim is simply synthesis and original research.Djflem (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)



Why is this article called New York Dutch when it discusses NJ and PA?
Why? Djflem (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Better article exits
Dutch Americans in New York City is a start at something encyclopedic.Djflem (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Original resesearch:High and Low Dutch/High and Low German:

 * DOES NOT SAY:
 * DOES NOT SAY:

Dutch in the English language originally referred to all Germanic language speakers. The English settlers referred to the Dutch language spoken by the Holland Dutch of New York and New Jersey as Low Dutch (Dutch: laagduits), and the Dutch language spoken by the Palatine Dutch in Pennsylvania and New York as High Dutch (German: hochdeutsch). Below is a quote from the Boston Gazette on October 8, 1795, mentioning a speaker of high and low Dutch:

"'A white girl... who talks good English, high and low Dutch.'" Djflem (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to remove the whole section; it's historical fact that the difference between High Dutch and Low Dutch were in use in America; the quote is there to illustrate that point in using a direct historical quote.
 * I reverted your edit, and added more citations about High Dutch and Low Dutch. Aearthrise (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference does not back up the CLAIMS made. No original research. Read it. And provide ONLINE references.Djflem (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The CLAIMS made are NOT what are said the reference provided. Creative interpretations are No original research.Read it.Djflem (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

COATRACK
Coatrack articles explains why the stuff about about Palestine and Pennsylvania Dutch is not appropriate here. Have removed it.08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Images
It is unclear why there are images of people when there in no mention made of them in the body of the article. No reason to have them without an explanation WITH references cited. Djflem (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oldest Dutch Settlement
Removed section:Oldest Dutch Settlement. It's incorrect.

The United States of America and the Netherlands, 3/14 The First Dutch Settlers by George M. Welling says: The first group of Dutch settlers did not stay for long on the new continent and they can hardly be called settlers.

It was a factorij. Djflem (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)