Talk:Verkeerder Kill

DYK
Ehm, not sure why this was posted on the main page, but in Dutch the word "kill" does not exist. Dutch people use the words "verkeerd" and "verkeerde", but verkeerder is not a word in the Dutch language (except as a superlative of verkeerd, in which case it would mean "more wrong", as in "X is even more wrong than Y"). It seems far more likely that the language was Afrikaans, which is a daughter-language of Dutch. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I suggest you check out the approval of this article for DYK by an editor who also happens to be a native Dutch speaker. He ran into the same issues, but did some research.
 * One of those places to do research: Kill (body of water), which explains why so many streams in an area first settled by the Dutch in the 17th century has so many "kills": the word was in regular use (as kille) in Middle Dutch, apparently.
 * It is absurd on its face to suggest that this stream was named by Boers. Europeans hadn't settled in South Africa at the time, and thus Afrikaans didn't exist in the late 17th century.
 * As for the spelling of verkeerder, did you consider that Dutch spelling, like English spelling, has changed in the course of three centuries? The Dutch-speaking editor who reviewed this nomination later told me he understood it as an archaic spelling. It is more correct to say it isn't a word in modern Dutch (and the Dutch Wiktionary includes it on |a list of -der words to develop entries on). Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading between the lines it seems like you are accusing me of not doing any research. Was that your intention? I did some research. I checked old Dutch dictionaries, and none of them contain the word "kill". I didn't check for kille because that spelling wasn't mentioned.
 * It is absurd to think that a name in Afrikaans must've been given by a Boer. I do not speak Afrikaans. Do you? There are many languages that are related to Dutch.
 * Yes, I did. That is why I checked old dictionaries. I used a website created by the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. When people use the word "English" they are usually referring to the current English language, which isn't the same as a couple of hundred of years ago. Same thing with the Dutch language.
 * I looked up the word "kille" and the dictionary says: "Kil, bedding eener rivier, rivierbed, waterdiepte tusschen twee zandbanken"... so translating it as "brook" is incorrect.
 * That editor who "did some research" actually makes exactly the same point I do, "kill" is not a word in Dutch, although "kil" and "kille" were used a long time ago. But the Wikipedia article still claims that kill is a Dutch word, which is incorrect. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That editor who "did some research" actually makes exactly the same point I do, "kill" is not a word in Dutch, although "kil" and "kille" were used a long time ago. But the Wikipedia article still claims that kill is a Dutch word, which is incorrect. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The article says:

The stream's name means "wrong brook" in Dutch, the language of early settlers in the region, although it is not known how that came to be applied.

I cannot find any source that states that kill is a Dutch word. Kil or kille are Dutch words, but I don't think they mean the same as the English word brook. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the article Kill_%28body_of_water%29, which you edited recently, also says that the original word was kille, not kill. It says: "The word comes from the Middle Dutch kille, meaning "riverbed" or "water channel""... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I suppose after writing long responses that keep getting edit-conflicted that I see your point and will amend the article to note that "kill" is a word formerly used in Dutch. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't. Kille is a word formerly used in Dutch. Kil is too (these word still gets used, but with a different meaning). Do editconflicts cause you to lose the text you have written? In most modern web browsers the text should be preserved, and you can retrieve it by pressing the back button. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I can retrieve it alright, but your responses had changed what I was responding to so I needed to start writing again. I have reworded the text and added a note about how the Dutch would have spelled it. In one of my earlier edits, I had theorized that perhaps when the English took over New Netherland after the Second Peace of Westminster they just started spelling it like the English word it sounded like to them (or dropped the "e" to make it easier to say). But I don't know this for sure, obviously. But that spelling is so universal around here in all the stream and place names that everyone just pretty much accepts that that was the Dutch spelling. It's interesting ... I suppose there are some old Dutch maps of the region, but I don't know if anyone's ever looked at them to see if any of them use the "kill" spelling. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it is very very likely that people have dropped the E from kille, or added an L to kil. I will try to find old Dutch maps. I am also trying to find more sources for the meaning of these words. Verkeerde means wrong, but verkeerder can mean something very very different. Someone who has been in a place (verkeren) for a while might be called a verkeerder (for example). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at some old Dutch maps and there are many that use the word kil, but I am unable to find one that uses kill. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like "verkeerder" means: I will probably edit this page during my quest for the truth, so you may end up with editconflicts, sorry.
 * Die van het rechte pad afdwaalt, resp. anderen daartoe overhaalt.
 * Die (iets) valsch voorstelt, uitlegt, verdraait.
 * (Gewest. in Vl.-België) Die vrijt met een meisje, vrijer (liev.-coopm. [1954]).

This means that (if we assume that kill can be translated with the word brook, something which I am not sure of because the dictionaries do not give the same definition) we can translate Verkeerder Kill as:
 * Bad people brook
 * Liars brook
 * Lovers brook

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, interesting. Since we don't know how it got that name (other than the theory in the article, that the sort-of placeholder name wound up sticking), any of this could make sense. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this means that the DYK should be removed, because it isn't true. And the article should be changed too. I will try to find more sources. Your userpage does not contain an indication that you speak Dutch AFAIK, but you can check the sources I am using by clicking here. I am searching multiple dictionaries at the same time. They are referred to by abbreviations. Here the abbreviations and the timeperiod: ONW 500-1200, VMNW 1200-1300, MNW 1250-1550, WNT 1500-1976, WFT 1800-1975 This last one is a dictionary of the Frisian languages. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that the DYK should be removed? The sources I gave are probably the most reliable sources that can be found (the website looks very dated, but this is a project from the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie, with financial support (via the Taalunie) from both the Dutch and Belgian government). How can I remove this DYK (and replace it with another one that is actually true)? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea that it means "wrong brook" seems to have been generally accepted locally for a long time. Dutch remained in use as a first language in some areas around here until the early 1800s or so, long enough for someone to have explained the name if there was an explanation. I find the "wrong brook" explanation plausible because the Verkeerder drains into Shawangunk Kill just downstream of the even longer Pakanasink Creek on the other side, and I could see early settlers in the area, relying on deed or grant paperwork that used the names of streams without being too specific, confusing the two streams at first). Perhaps I should get in touch with Marc Fried at some point and see what his sources show for the earliest stated explanation of the name. In short, I would like a broader consensus that the hook as stated is incorrect rather than just one of several possible explanations. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many bad ideas have been (or are) generally accepted for a long time, and not just locally! I don't think you need any examples of that. The idea about confusing two different streams and therefore calling one of them "wrong" is WP:OR, and incredibly unlikely considering the fact that the word verkeerder has a different meaning than the words verkeerd or verkeerde (which both mean wrong). The current DYK cannot be correct, because it says: "that it is not known why the Verkeerder Kill in Shawangunk, New York, got a name that means "wrong brook" in Dutch?". Both these words are not modern Dutch. Kill has never been a Dutch word, and verkeerder does not mean wrong (in oldskool Dutch). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Even Marc Fried seems to corroborate what I have discovered so far. Quote: ""Why such a name was given to this stream has always been something of a mystery," writes Shawangunks historian Marc Fried. Since it can also have the sense of "perverse", he had at first speculated that perhaps the stream had been at flood stage when the first explorers came to it, or someone had fallen into it and inadvertently named it with an ensuing ill-tempered outburst. But then Fried consulted with an expert on the New Netherland era, who told him that if that strongly pejorative meaning had truly been intended, a word more fully conveying that sense like slecht or quaad (spelled kwaad in modern Dutch) would have been used instead".

Verkeerder does not mean wrong, but it can mean perverse. Marc Fried's speculated on what he believed to be the correct name. He consulted someone else, who also speculated, so lets not pretend that these are facts, it is simply speculation. Maybe a notable POV, but not an NPOV objective fact. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We could just reword the article and the hook, then. But I would prefer to have a broader consensus, since Amberrock seemed to imply it was pretty clear to him even though the spelling struck him as archaic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we reword the hook then it would end up something like this:
 * ... that it is not known why the Verkeerder Kill in Shawangunk, New York, got a name that means ???????
 * I do not know how to fill in that blank, because verkeerder has multiple meanings. That is why the DYK should be removed, not changed.
 * Amberrock wrote: "Verkeerder is understood by modern Dutch speakers, although nowadays we would probably spell it without the final r". This is not true. The word verkeerder would not be understood by modern Dutch speakers (that is why Amberrock interpreted it incorrectly). Verkeerder with the final R has a different meaning to verkeerde or verkeerd. Modern Dutch speakers would guess that the word is related to verkeerd (wrong) or verkeren (being in a place) or verkering (being partners). That is why I looked up very old dictionaries. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first of those three meanings, of course, being the one at issue. Also, I wonder if some later cartographer added the "-er" by accident or intent ... the name doesn't appear in print until about 1717, by which time English had made some major penetrations into the area (Also to be accounted for: a small but not insignificant German-speaking population, and some of the early settlers (particularly in New Paltz, not far away, being Flemish in origin (might that have introduced some dialectical quirk?) I don't know whether Hardenbergh was a first-language Dutch speaker or not, but he would have had to file that paperwork in English. Did he write it himself? Have someone do it who just wrote down what he thought he heard and didn't ask questions? Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm.... Cartographers have done lots of weird stuff, like drawing non-existent islands, so I wouldn't put it past them. The article says: "The first known mention of Verkeerder Kill is in a 1717 land patent application by Johannes Hardenbergh, in which the stream is referred to as Verkerde Kill."
 * It is theoretically possible that Johannes adopted the local spelling of kil (being kill). My dictionaries seem to claim that verkerde is a variant of verkeren (being somewhere)... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging because maybe you are interested in this article too, I saw your name on Template:Did you know nominations/Verkeerder Kill. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Google translate thinks "verkeerder" means "more wrong" in actual modern Dutch. (ie wrong-er, or more verkeerde). Just giving a data point, I know no Dutch so can't vouch for this. This is all fascinating (I'm not being sarcastic, it really is interesting, both in the stuff you learn lurking on talk pages, and the effort people are willing to expend to get things right). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a nitpicker, I know. Good point. I will edit my comments. It would be possible to say: "Meneer X was fout bezig, maar het gedrag van meneer Y is nog veel verkeerder!". That would mean something like Mr. X was doing wrong, but the behaviour of Mr. Y was even more wrong. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from article to talk
Now that it is clear that we simply do not know the real name, and we know that the source doesn't support the claims made in the article, I have moved the content here:

Dutch for "wrong brook" The stream's name means "wrong brook" in Dutch, the language of early settlers in the region, although it is not known how that came to be applied. In Dutch, the first language of Hardenburgh and other settlers who had moved into the Shawangunk Valley since the 1680s, "Verkeerder Kill" meant at the time "wrong brook." "Why such a name was given to this stream has always been something of a mystery," writes Shawangunks historian Marc Fried. Since it can also have the sense of "perverse", he had at first speculated that perhaps the stream had been at flood stage when the first explorers came to it, or someone had fallen into it and inadvertently named it with an ensuing ill-tempered outburst. But then Fried consulted with an expert on the New Netherland era, who told him that if that strongly pejorative meaning had truly been intended, a word more fully conveying that sense like slecht or quaad (spelled kwaad in modern Dutch) would have been used instead.

This led him to propose that perhaps the name merely indicated an inaccuracy.

It was possible that a later group of explorers had reached the area, and originally believed the stream flowing in from the west to be the Pakanasink, only to later learn that that name was already used for the Shawangunk above the confluence. They might, he reasoned, have then begun referring to that western tributary as "the wrong brook", a name that might well have persisted after the distinction no longer needed to be made.

Feel free to reinsert this content if you have a reliable source. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an important distinction: are you saying the material you're removing is not in the source, or are you saying the source is wrong? If you're saying it isn't in the source at all, then it should be removed, and the hook at DYK pulled.  But I don't think this is the case, I think you're saying above that the source is guessing, and shouldn't guess, because of the reasons listed above.  If that's the case, then I strongly believe that the material should be put back, possibly with qualification.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Multiple claims were made in the article that are not supported by the source. Unfortunately his book hasn't been scanned by Google Books (yet), but it is incredibly unlikely that the source supports those claims. Luckily the burden of proof is on those who want to include/restore information, not on me. Do you think it would be possible to contact Marc Fried? Maybe we can ask Marc Fried's opinion. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I went and read the source (it's available in a library near me) and believe me that speculation is in it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the subject to be involved further here, now that the DYK wording has been changed. FWIW, it seems to me, if the speculation is in the source, we should put it back in the article, making clearer (if necessary) that it's speculation.  But I'll leave it to those more invested in the article and more knowledgeable). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I think we should put it back in right now for several reasons:
 * Good faith. Unless we have reason to doubt another editor when they say a source that cannot be verified online says something, we trust them.
 * Verifiability: I know people hate those three little words, but this is exactly why we have them. We cannot know the truth here, but we can know what one informed source speculates it to be.
 * Original research Essentially this is what the argument for excluding this content is based on. If it were the reverse there would be no doubt. Basically, to remove reliably sourced information, you need another reliable source saying the first one is wrong. We don't have that yet. I have not found any policy guidance for this despite having encountered this sitatuation many times. Consensus seems to be in many cases that a broad consensus of editors would be needed that a reliable source is clearly mistaken about something to remove information sourced to it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find this preview of the source through Google books. In case that link doesn't work for you, here is the direct quote: The name Verkeerder Kill is derived from the Dutch "wrong stream," and the name stuck. — Marc B. Fried (2005) Shawangunk place-names: Indian, Dutch, and English geographical names of the Shawangunk Mountain region : their origin, interpretation, and historical evolution Jonathunder (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)